City Council Agenda Packet 03-13-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 13, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Ren Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1.
Call to order.
2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 27, 1989.0
3.
Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
X 4.
Public Hearing - Oonsidera�ion of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial
Development Commission and'establishing the Economic Development
Authority. J 0
J .11 A-.. .:.y ,p.. ,/ it
5.
Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and two family
residential) unplatted residential land to R-3 (medium density
P -,? h "I -
residential). Applicant, West Prairie Partners. fY D
6.
Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a daycare -group
nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance
request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing, no concrete curb around
parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping requirements. Applicant, Peggy
Hanawalt. S/] 'F I&J
to R-3 (medium density 'T
7.
Consideration of a rezoning request rezone
residential) residential platted land to R-2 (single and two family
residential). Applicant, Dan Fria.
:8.
Consideration of assessment appeal on 88-07 Project by Floyd Markling.
/9. Consideration of ordinance amendment regulating dogs and otherst(ic
animals. w S r
40. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to
Wright Hennepin Electric Association.
,11. Consideration of commuter parking lot status.
12. Consideration of approving request for proposals on curb -aide recycling
and authorization to advertise.
13. Consideration of approving spocifications and authorizing advertisement
for bide for recycling containers.
14'. rConaideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic
development powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment p
Authority, and the Economic Development Authority. ����
.15.x/ Consideration of adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. 4,5
_
Council Agenda
March 13, 1989
Page 2
16. Consideration of further action on the Monticello Celebrate Minnesota
Program.
1/17. Consideration of Change Order #1 for Pump House $3, Project 88-01C.
18. Consideration of additional payment request by City Engineer - OSM.
��!q. Consideration of gambling license application - Ducks Unlimited Banquet.
Consideration of authorizing final payment on County Road 39 Project,
88-01B, and Dundas Circle Project, 88-02 - LaTour Construction.
21. Consideration of authorizing cost analysis for upgrading streets in
Monticello Industrial Park.
22. Consideration, of authorizing the Industrial Park streets not be posted.
23. Adjournment.
EI
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 27, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Fran Fair, warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: Ren Maus
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Shirley Anderson, and
unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the meeting held
February 13, 1989.
Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Discussion of City involvement in Monticello Foodshelf location - Pat
Offendahl.
Pat Offendahl was present to discuss her concern over the potential
loss of the fire hall as the site for the foodshelf. It was her
concern that the effectiveness of the structure as a foodshelf site
will be reduced if a portion of the structure is used as a billiard
room. She also was concerned that the foodshelf program might be
displaced entirely without adequate time to move to another location.
Administrator Wolfsteller reported that there are no immediate plans to
sell the fire hall and that the foodshelf will not be displaced in the
near future.
Fran Fair expressed her support for the work of the foodshelf and asked
Offendahl if she had approached a local church regarding a church
contribution of space for foodshelf use. Offendahl responded that
contacts have been made with churches, and most churches do not have
extra space to spare for the foodshelf operation. It was then
suggested that the foodshelf organization contact the Temple Baptist
Church congregation regarding potential use of their space.
As the discussion came to a close, Offendahl thanked the Council for
continued support and noted that she will make further contacts in an
effort to find a new site for the foodshelf.
15. Consideration of Karen Hanson litigation update.
City Attorney, Tom Hayes, recommended that Council consider
establishing a full time position for Karen Hanson.
Tom Hayes explained that however justified in maintaining the position
that Hanson is a part-time employee of the Senior Center, the City must
be cognizant of the Commissioner of Human Rights' findings of fact that
Ms. Hanson is an employee of the City, and the City should view it as a
0
Council Minutes - 2/27/89
1. prediction of what an objective third party might conclude. Hayes
further noted that a complete job description should be prepared for
Council review and ratification.
R
Motion made by Dan Blanigen and seconded by Shirley Anderson to
establish a full-time position to be occupied by Karen Hanson. Based
on the comparable worth study, the salary for the position to amount to
$1,728 per month with full City benefits. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Consideration of additional payment request by City Engineer - OSM.
Administrator Wolfsteller informed Council that Mr. Badalich is
requesting additional compensation above the quoted amount of $2,000 to
cover the extra work that OSM had to perform because they
under -estimated the original cost. Wolfsteller noted that he does not
dispute that additional costs may have been incurred by OSM in
performing this work; but at the same time, City Council authorized the
expenditure of $2,000, and no more, for the ground control work based
on his letter of April 27, 1987. Furthermore, until the project was
completed and the billing was received in September of 1987,
Wolfsteller noted that he was not aware that the engineering services
were exceeding the $2,000 quote, especially by almost $4,000.
Wolfsteller reported that he indicated to Mr. Badalich that a formal
request before the City Council would have to be made if their firm
expected any payment above the $2,000 quote.
With the absence of John Badalich, Council elected to take no formal
action regarding an additional payment request for preparation of OAA
topographic maps. Council did reaffirm staff's position to withhold
payment of additional costa pending additional input from the City
Engineer at a future Council meeting.
7. Consideration of adopting resolutions authorizing the preparation of
assessment coils no setting a public nearing nate on the Streetscape
Improvement Project.
Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the Streetscape project is
essentially complete and it is the appropriate time to call for
development of an assessment roll. In reviewing the project,
Wolfsteller noted that, except for some minor concrete work and
possibly an additional replacement or added bridge railing
installation, the project cost should be easily obtainable in time for
a public hearing at the March 27, 1989, meeting of the city Council.
He went on to note that staff to in the process of totaling the project
cost, including all indirect engineering and planning fees, and
calculating an assessment roll that would be mailed to all benefiting
property owners based on the 20 percent assessment ratio two weeks
ahead of the proposed public hearing date. At the present time, the
project appears to be on budget.
9
Council Minutes - 2/27/89
After discussion, motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan Blonigen
to adopt a resolution ordering preparation of proposed assessment roll
and setting the public hearing for March 27, 1989. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-7 and RESOLUTION 89-8.
8. Discussion on City use of official depositories.
Council discussed the conditions that might cause the City to move its
checking account from one bank tc another. It was the general
consensus of Council that changing checking accounts should be
considered at such time when the higher interest rate gained via a new
account outweighs the administrative problems created in making such a
change. In adddition, such a change should be made at such time that
the current inventory of checks is diminished. It was also suggested
by Council that other business that the City does with local lending
institutions be distributed equally when possible.
Consideration of purchasing spare parts for electronic control system
at the Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Public Works Director Simola informed Council that he has been informed
that Edison Controls, Inc., the company that manufactured one-half of
the electronic controls at the Waste Water Treatment Plant, has
declared the control system at our Waste Water Treatment Plant
obsolete. What this means is that they will no longer manufacture or
stock parts for this control system. The parts, specifically printed
circuit board plug-in units, will be extremely difficult to get and
will have to be custom manufactured upon order. If a custom order can
be put together at all, the minimum waiting period will be 12 weeks.
In response to this situation, Simola recommended that the Council
authorize an expenditure of $6,294 for purchase of existing inventory
of spare parts necessary to stretch the life of the remaining
equipment. Simola went on to recommend that funds for the purchase be
derived from the hookup fund.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to approve the purchase of recommended printed circuit cards
and test set from Edison Controls, Inc., in the amount of $6,294.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of authorizing hiring of part-time temporary clerical
position for assessor's ottice.
Administrator Wolfateller informed Council that for the past several
months, the City has been utilizing a part-time high school student
through a vocational work program for clerical duties in the assessor's
office working with Gary Anderson. The hours have been very limited,
and the assessment books are being required by the Wright County
Assessor's office to be updated as soon as possible for the 1988
assessment. Wolfsteller reported that there are many clerical figures
that have to be transferred from a computer printout supplied by the
D
Council Minutes - 2/27/89
County to the actual assessment books on approximately 1,600 parcels in
the city of Monticello. This is a very time consuming duty which the
present City staff has not had the ability to help with. Wolfsteller
went on to note that since Mr. Anderson has been busy with building
inspection activities, he has not had the time to devote to the
clerical portion of the assessment duties; and as a result, we are
requesting authorization to advertise for a temporary, minimum wage,
2-3 month position.
Shirley Anderson noted that she does not oppose development of the
position so long as it is short-term in nature. After discussion,
motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to authorize
the hiring of a temporary clerical position for the assessor's office.
Motion carried unanimously.
Other business
Fran Pair suggested that Council review OAA agenda items and provide a
recommendation to its representative regarding such items. Dan
Blonigen concurred that the individual representing the City Council on
the OAA Board should gain Council input prior to participating in OAA
decision making.
John Simola informed Council that in the last 10 years, during the
course of employment, City maintenance men made a significant effort to
recycle by collecting waste copper from non -City sources. Collection
of the materials from non -city sources was conducted during normal work
activities and did not take employees away from work activities.
Simola went on to inform Council that the majority of copper collected
came from the waste copper resulting from the installation of private
water meters. Recently, the copper collected was sold to a salvage
yard for $600, with the check being made to the City of Monticello.
Simola asked Council if all or a portion of the revenue could be used
by employees for Christmas or retirement parties? Council commended
employees for efforts to recycle and indicated that the expenditure of
funds gained via recycling for such purposes would be acceptable with
the approval of the City Attorney.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jett Neill
Assistant Administrator
9
Council Agenda - 3%13/89
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial
Development Commission and establishing the Economic Development
Authority. AND
14. Consideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic
development powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, and the newly established Economic Development Authority. AND
15. Consideration of Adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. W.O.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked by the Industrial Development Committee to consider
taking action on four items noted above, all of which stem from the
Committee's efforts to establish a local industrial development revolving
loan program. All documentation above has been reviewed by legal counsel
and approved. As you recall during the 1989 budget session, Council was
asked to consider "earmarking" $200,000 as seed money for the program, the
source of which being existing revenues generated by the liquor store
operation. AS part of the budget discussion, Council concluded that at
such time a viable program is created, the money would be made available.
A subcommittee of the Industrial Development Committee, including Linda
Mielke, Don Smith, Dale Lungwitz, 011ie Koropchak, and myself was
established to work out the details of the program.
In researching this matter, the subcommittee met with the State officials
and gathered revolving loan fund policies already in place in other
communities. Our goal was to combine the input from State experts with
the best of other city policies to create a workable program. The
Industrial Development Committee has completed its work and presents the
following strategy for implementing a revolving loan fund. Council is
asked to consider the merits of the program and act accordingly. The
remainder of this memo outlines each item for consideration and attempts
to relate them to each other.
1. CONSIDERATION OF DELETING LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Action to delete or abolish the Industrial Development Commission is
strictly a "housekeeping" action to be taken in preparation of
establishment of an Economic Development Authority. The Industrial
Development Commission, not to be confused with the Industrial
Development Committee, was established in the mid -1970's and has not
been in operation for as long as anyone I contacted can remember. As
you will note, if you review the enabling ordinance, the Industrial
Development Commission ie/was a five member appointed board charged
with many of the responsibilities now fulfilled by the Industrial
Development Committee. It may be that the Industrial Development
committee is the off -spring of the Industrial Development Commission.
Due to the fact that the Industrial Development Commission is no
' longer viable, it is recommended that the ordinance language enabling
thin commission be taken off the books to make room for new ordinance
language establishing the Economic Development Authority.
-L-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
2. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
In addition to analyzing the utilization of an Economic Development
Authority to administer the revolving loan program, the Industrial
Development Committee also considered another approach which involved
establishment of an autonomous non-profit corporation. Initially,
establishment of a non-profit corporation was considered the best
alternative because of the additional confidentiality and flexibility
such a structure would provide. After additional research, it was
determined that utilization of a non-profit organization might not be
the best idea because there was considerable doubt as to the legality
of appropriating public funds to such an organization and because such
an organization would be outside the direct control of the City, which
could invite problems by creating an environment where public funds
could be spent for activities inconsistent with City goals. Given
these concerns, it was natural to turn to development of an Economic
Development Authority, which has the authority as provided by State
Statutes to administer a publicly financed loan program and at the
same time be directly accountable for its actions to the City.
Economic Development Authorities have been established in numerous
communities throughout the state of Minnesota and provide those
communities with an economic development tool that the City of
Monticello does not possess. Creation of a Monticello EDA will allow
the City to remain in a competitive position with such communities.
Following is a partial list of communities that operate an Economic
Development Authority:
Becker, Elk River, St. Cloud, Plymouth, Coon Rapids, Marshall,
St. Peter, East Grand Forks, Olivia, Redwood Falln, Grand Rapids,
Blooming Prairie, Grand Rapids, Tracy, Hastings, Albert Lea, Fosston,
Cottage Grove, Wheaton, Hoyt Lakes, wadena, Brooklyn Park.
In addition to the primary purpose for establishment of the EDA, there
are other economic development powers provided to the EDA that are not
given to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Although these
powers are secondary reasons for establishment of the EDA, they may at
some time in the future provide additional tools by which the EDA can
encourage economic development in the city of Monticello. Following
is an abbreviated listing of some of the activities that could be
conducted by the EDA on behalf of the City. Also listed are
limitations placed on the power of the EDA. Please see the ordinance
amendment for coiWlete information on EDA powers and limits of power.
2-3-4: FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND DITTIES:
(A) Except as limited in this ordinance, the EDA has the Authority
granted it by the State of Minnesota.
(B) Manage Greater Monticello Fund and assure compliance with all fund
guidelines adopted by Council.
-2-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
(C) The Authority may be a limited partner in a partnership whose
purpose is consistent with the Authority's purpose.
(D) The Authority may issue general obligation bonds and revenue bonds
when authorized by the City Council.
(E) The Authority may represent City in efforts to combine City and
State programs designed to encourage local economic development
efforts.
(F) The Authority may annually develop and present an economic
development strategy and present it to the City Council for
consideration and approval (now done by the IDC).
(G) The Authority may undertake activities to promote the community to
industrial prospects (now done by the IDC).
(H) Other duties as assigned by the City Council.
2-3-5: LIMITATIONS OF POWER:
The State of Minnesota provides the EDA with considerable power but
also provides the provision that the City Council may limit the power
of the EDA as provided by the State of Minnesota. Below are
paraphrased sections of the proposed ordinance amendment which outline
specific limitations of power as suggested by the IDC and City staff.
(A) The Authority must gain approval from City Council prior to
undertaking any improvement project (Improvement projects now
undertaken by HRA operated TIP program).
(B) City Council may transfer non -dedicated funds generated by the
revolving loan fund (GMEF) to City troffers at any time.
(C) Actions of the EDA must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(D) All bond sales must first be approved by the City.
(E) Activity of the EDA shall he limited to economic development
concerns.
(F) The Authority must submit administrative structure and management
practices to the City Council for approval.
(G) EDA shall gain approval from City Council prior to adopting
policies that might invact other governmental agencies.
2-3-6: BUDGED AND ANNUAL REPORT:
The EDA shall also keep accurate records of financial activity and
r shall report such to Council
� po by ordinance as follows:
r
-3-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
(A) The Authority shall prepare an annual budget projecting
anticipated expenses and sources of revenue. The Authority must
follow the budget process for City departments as provided by the
City and as implemented by the City Council and Mayor.
(B) The Authority shall prepare an annual report describing its
activities and providing an accurate statement of its financial
condition. Said report shall be prepared and submitted to the
City of Monticello by March 1st each year.
STAFF IMPACT
Assisting the EDA with the administration of the Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund will have an impact on staff resources. At this point, it
is the view of staff the the increase in workload will not create an
unmanageable burden. Meetings will be conducted on a quarterly basis with
011ie Roropchak preparing agendas under the guidance of City
Adminisistration. In addition, 011ie will be responsible for
administering the machinery of the loan program which will add to her
workload. At this point, it is the view of staff the the increase in
workload will not create an unmanageable burden.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND GUIDELINES
Of the economic development issues now before Council, this item is the
most important, as approvals of the other items are contingent on Council
approval of the establishment of the Greater Monticello Fund and Fund
Guidelines. The major goal of the background information is to impress
upon Council the positives and negative aspects of the proposed program
and provide assurance that if the revolving fund guidelines are adopted,
such action is taken with eyes wide open.
WHY ESTABLISH A REVOLVING LOAN FUND
The first question that must be asked prior to adopting the guidelines is,
"Why do we need such a program?" "How will this program contribute toward
the increase of jobs in the community?" In answering these questions, two
major pointe can be made.
1. The program is designed to encourage development that might not
otherwise occur due to a "gap" in funding available to complete an
industrial development. Per instance, a business would like to expand
or relocate but may have sufficient resources to gain only 809 of the
financing needed from conventional sources. This program is designed
to provide the funds necessary to bridge the gap between what the
company needs and what the lending institutions or other funding
agency can provide.
-4-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
2. The program is designed to be used primarily when a funding gap
exists; however, the lower interest rate that the program provides can
be used as an incentive to encourage a local company not to relocate
elsewhere and could be used likewise to encourage relocation of a
company to Monticello versus another community. The program as
outlined can provide up to 408 of necessary financing at 2% points
below prime.
Local revolving loan funds exist throughout the state of Minnesota with
each one having its own unique characteristics. Some are funded by
private entities, or by public dollars, or by a combination thereof. Many
are administered by a non-profit organization, while others utilize an EDA
as is proposed for Monticello. Each program has had varying degrees of
success. Following is a review of five successful programs now being
operated in the state of Minnesota.
WASECA
Pamela Lazaris, Community Development Director for the City of Waseca,
indicated that Waseca established a modest revolving loan fund in 1986
which gained its initial funds ($26,000) from excess tax increment
financing revenue. Since the inception of the program, two business
expansions were assisted which netted the community 30 additional jobs.
According to Lazaris, neither of the expansions would have occurred
without the revolving loan funding. Both loans are current. Waseca has
developed a policy guideline similar to that which Council is now
considering.
GLENWOOD
John Coskey of the Glenwood Development Corporation reported to the City
staff that the Corporation was established in 1957 as a private, for
profit organization. Since 1957, it has provided 10 loans, all of which
are current. Eighty percent (808) of the existing loans have been issued
to local businesses for projects where a financial "gap" existed.
BLUE EARTH
Pat Miller of the Blue Earth Economic Development Authority reported that
the Blue Earth EDA has had significant succuss in creating jobs with the
aid of a revolving loan program established in 1986. Miller reported
that, since 1986, 22y= business expansions or relocations were assisted
via the local program and all but one of the loans are current. original
funding came from a Housing and Urban Development and Community
Development Block Grant funding. Funds are utilized for gap financing and
working capital loans. The current balance to $4000000.
FARIBAULT COUNTY
Mary Nienhaue of Faribault County indicated that a non-profit organization
exists for the purpose of administering their revolving loan program.
Since 1986, this organization has iasued 22 successful loans to now and
expanding industries. Faribault County did experience one unsuccessful
loan.
-5-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
FERGUS FALLS
Fergus Falls established a Port Authority that administers a revolving
loan fund which is capitalized with private contributions. The Authority
is managed by board members consisting of representatives from
organizations that contribute to the revolving loan fund. Approximately
30 loans have been financed by this organization, with one of the loans
being unsuccessful.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH A PROGRAM?
Spending public funds for private purposes has inherent political risks,
as there may be constituents that do not believe that the expenditure of
public funds for such purposes is proper under any circumstances. Action
to approve this program communicates to constituents that under certain
limited conditions as outlined in the GMEF Guidelines, public money will
be spent for private projects that meet a public purpose criteria.
Lending institutions have the primary goal of making money. If a
financially secure business seeking funds for expansion approaches a
lending institution with a request for a loan, it is likely that the
lending institution will finance the entire "low risk" project and,
therefore, reap the entire benefit of the interest payments. It is not
likely that the GMEF will be assisting in financing low risk projects as
described above; rather, the financing programs GMEP will be involved in
will likely include projects that might be "marginal" or contain a level
of risk that discourages the primary lending institution from full
participation in the project. Furthermore, on most occasions, the GMEF
loan will be subordinate to the primary loan. Thus, in the event of a
default, the EDA will have access only to collateral remaining after the
primary lender has recovered its funds; and there may be insufficient
funds remaining to recover the full GMEP loan amount. Because of the
hazards noted above, it is important that the EDA consider each case with
the utmost care.
QUESTION AND ANSWERS
GMEF funds are intended to be used only under certain circumstances that
meet the definition of public purpose. In addition, a specific process
must be followed prior to issuance of a GMEP loan that assures the City
that the Guidelines are being followed. Please refer to the GMEP
guidelines for more information. Following are some questions and answers
regarding the program. All answers to the following questions can also be
found in the GMEF guidelines.
1. Question: What types of businesses are eligible for C4EF funding.
Answer: Manufacturing or commercial enterprises that do not
directly compete with existing businesses in the
community.
-6-
7
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
2. Question: What is meant by -public Purpose".
Answer: Public funds are expended via this program; therefore, the
projects financed must be consistent with at least four of
the following goals:
1. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that
create neer jobs.
2. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that
would increase the community tax base.
3. To assist new or existing industrial or
non-competitive commercial businesses to improve or
expand their operations. Loans will not be provided
for businesses in direct competition with existing
businesses within the city of Monticello.
4. To provide loans to be used as a secondary source of
financing that is intended to supplement conventional
financing (bank financing).
S. To provide loans in situations in which a funding gap
exists.
6. To provide funds for economic development that could
be used to assist in obtaining other funds such as
Small Business Administration loans, federal and state
grants, etc.
3. Question: Har much money is available for each project:
Answer: $10,000 loan per each job created, or $5,000 per every
$20,000 increase in property market valuation, or $5,000
per every $20,000 increase in personal property used for
business purposes, whichever is higher.
4. Question: Can the GMEP finance an entire project:
Answer: No, the maximum portion of the project that can be
financed by the fund is 406.
S. Question: Can the fund be used to finance operating capital?
Answer: No, the fund can only be used to finance items that can be
recovered in the event of a default such as Real Property
Acquisition and Development, Real Property Rehabilitation
or Machinery and Equipment.
-7-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
6. Question: What is the maximum loan size?
Answer: The maximum loan size is 508 of the revolving loan fund
balance; for example, if the remaining revolving loan fund
balance is $50,000, the maximum loan issuance is $25,000.
7. Question: What is the term of loans issued to finance development of
structures for use in manufacturing:
Answer: Real Estate Property maximum of five year maturity
amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years.
8. Question: What interest rate is charged for access to GMEF?
Answer: Fixed rate of up to 2% below Minneapolis prime rate.
9. Question: Under what conditions can a payment be deferred.
Answer: Payments can be deferred only after approval of the EDA
membership by majority vote.
10. Question: What information does the EDA need prior to issuing loan.
Answer: The EDA will require a copy of documentation necessary for
obtaining associated loan from private lender.
11. Question: Can Council overturn decisions made by the EDA.
Answer: Yes, the loan does not become final until after
ratification by Council.
12. Question: How will the financial transaction take place at such time
that a loan is executed and how will the revenue generated
by the program be managed.
Answer: City shall transfer needed loan amount from existing City
accounts at such time that individual loans are approved.
Revenue created through this program shall be under the
control of the EDA and shall not be transferred to City
accounts unless the City Council determines that reserves
generated are not necessary for the successful operation
of the Authority. If such is the case, such funds must be
transferred to the debt service funds of the City to be
used solely to reduce tax levies for bonded indebtedness
of the City (see Section 5 B. of the Ordinance
establishing the Monticello EDA).
-a-
1
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OUTLINING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DUTIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, EDA, AND HRA.
The State Legislature has provided economic development power to City
Councils, Economic Development Authorities, and Housing and Redevelopment
Authorities. Many of the powers of these bodies overlap. The joint
powers agreement attempts to spell out the responsibilities of each
organization, thereby minimizing confusion and work overlap in the area of
economic development. Essentially, the joint powers agreement outlines
the following relationship:
EDA RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. The EDA shall serve as agent of the City for administration and
management of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund.
2. The EDA has the right to carry out all powers and duties of the EDA as
defined by State Statutes and Chapter 3 of the Monticello City
Ordinance.
HRA RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. The HRA shall continue to carry out and administer economic
development and redevelopment activities of the City associated with
tax increment financing.
CITY OF MONTICELLO:
1. The City shall allow the transfer of $200,000 to the Economic
Development Authority for the purpose of funding the Greater
Monticello Enterprise Fund. Funds shall be transferred to the Greater
Monticello Enterprise Fund incrementally as loan requests are approved
by the EDA. Revenue generated by principal and interest payments on
loans shall be managed by the EDA and become the source of future
Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund loans.
Except when previously pledged by the Authority, the City council may,
by resolution, require the Authority to transfer any portion of the
reserves generated by activities of the Authority that the City
Council determines are not necessary for the successful operation of
the Authority to the debt service funds of the City to be used solely
to reduce tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City.
2. The City Council reserves the right to review and reject economic
development and redevelopment activities carried out through the HRA
and EDA within a 21 -day period following the date of respective
actions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to deny establishment of Economic Development Authority.
Motion to deny approval of the Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines.
Motion to deny adoption of Joint Pavers Agreement.
-9-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
Council may view the described expenditure of public funds and risks
involved as an inappropriate expenditure of public money. Such action
will serve to halt further action on development of a local revolving
loan fund.
2. Moticn to approve establishment of Economic Development Authority.
Motion to approve establishment of Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund
and adopt GMEF Guidelines. Motion to adopt Joint Powers Agreement.
Motion to appoint individuals recommended by the IDC for service on
the EDA.
Presentation of this program comes after considerable study by the
subcommittee of the IDC and by the Committee itself. The committee
has worked hard at developing a program structure that is not only
workable but designed with the public interest and democratic process
in mind. Along with the risks noted above is the potential for gain
that this program will afford. As a result of establishment of the
EDA and GMEF, the City of Monticello will be in a better competitive
position relative to its neighbors. Furthermore, adopting this
program provides the opportunity to encourage development and/or
expansion of industrial activittes that might have otherwise remained
as only an idea.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative /2. It is our view that the possibilities of
this program outweigh the risks involved. We are confidant that we will
be able to provide the EDA with the information and support it needs to
make financially sound decisions that are in keeping with Council policies
outlined in the fund guidelines.
If Council is so inclined to approve establishment of the EDA, the
following individuals have been recommended for service on the EDA by the
Industrial Development Committee: Bob Mosford, Barb Schwientek, Harvey
Rendall, Ron Hoglund, and Al Larson.
All of the individuals above have agreed to serve on the Committee.
Finally, the legislation establishing the EDA requires that two members of
the City Council serve on the EDA. Please consider participating on this
board.
-10-
11
2-3-1
CHAPTER 3
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SECTION
2-3-1:
Establistunent
2-3-2:
Composition
2-3-3:
Oath; Compensation
2-3-4:
Meetings; Officers
2-3-5:
Duties
2-3-6:
Powers
2-3-7:
Qualifications
2-3-8:
Purpose
2-3-6
1460l�s�iecQ,
2-3-1: ESTABLISHMENT: An Industrial Development Commission is
hereby established for the City.
2-3-2: COMPOSITION: The Industrial Development Commission shall
consist of five (5) persons appointed by the Mayor with
the approval of the Council.
Members of the Commission shall be appointed for one (1) year
terms, vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Mayor
with the consent of the Council for the unexpired portion of
tl:e term. (12-30-75 04)
2-3-3: OATH; COMPENSATION: Every appointed member shall, before
entering upon that discharge of his duties take an oath
that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office.
All members shall serve without compensation.
2-3-4: MEETINGS: OFFICERS: The Council will name one Chairman
of said Commission and one Vice Chairman to sorva at its
pleasure. Meeting datas will be affixed by mutual agree-
ment and special meetings will be called as noeded by tho
chairman.
2-3-5: DUTIES: The Commiasion is an agency of the Council with
responsibility to provide information to and cooperate
with industries and civic agencies interested in new or expanded plant
locations to consult and cooperate with other departments and present
rocommondations to the Council for appropriate action; and actively
promote the increased use of all of the City's industrial areas in
the fulfillment of samo.
2-3-6: POWERSa The Commission shall have no power to make con-
tracts, :cvy taxes borrow money or condemn property but
shall have the full power and responsibility to investigate the
necessity and recommend the taking of these and any other actions
related to inLuatrial and commorcial development, by the Council
and all other officers of the City responsible, to formulate the
terms of and the procedure for taking such action.
C
2-3-7
2-3-8
2-3-7: QUALIFICATIONS: The qualifications of the members of
the Commission shall be those who in judgment of the
Council are representatives of the community, and are qualified by
training and experience and interest useful for the fulfillment of
the Commission's responsibility in industrial development.
2-3-8: PURPOSE: In general the purpose of the Commission is to
help generate an atmosphere among local business people,
and citizens in the area, conducive to outside, industrial leaders
to have available all pertinent data, such as industrial zoning,
land available, tax structure, and availability of services to make
recommendations to the Council on what steps must be taken to ready
the land to meet industrial requirements.
To make contact with, receive and accommodate visiting industrial
leaders, to properly display the areas available, with the latest
information on their possible uses. To convince people on the plus
points for building in the City.
0
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2,
PERTAINING TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BE DELETED AND THE
FOLLOWING SECTION PERTAINING TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BE ADDED IN
ITS PLACE AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER 3
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SECTION:
2-3-1:
Creation
2-3-2:
Officers and Meetings
2-3-3:
Staff
2-3-4:
Functions, Powers, and Duties
2-3-5:
Limitations of Power
2-3-6:
Budget and Annual Report
2-3-7:
Modification
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROVIDING FOR
THE CREATION OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello (herinafter referred to as
the "City") has the authority to establish an Economic Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") pursuant to Sections 469.090 to
469.108, inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") of the Minnesota Statutes; and
WHEREAS, all due process requirements for the establishment of the Authority,
including the public hearing, have been met; and
WHEREAS, based on all information present, the City Council hereby finds that
the establishment of an Economic Development Authority is in the best interest
of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DO ORDAIN that an
Economic Development Authority to be known as "the City of Monticello Economic
Development Authority" is hereby established pursuant to Sections 469.090 to
469.108, inclusive, as amended, of the Minnesota Statutes which Authority shall
operate according to this ordinance enacted pursuant to the charter of the City
on the following terms and conditions which shall be adopted as the By-laws of
the EDA.
2-3-1: CREATION:
(A) The Economic Development Authority shall be composed of 7
members to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City
Council.
(B) Two of the members shall be members of the City roUncll. The
terms of office of the two members of the City Council shall
coincide with his/her remaining term of office as a member of
the City Council.
0
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 2
(C) The remaining five (5) members shall be initially appointed for
terms other than the terms being served by a member of the City
Council. Those initially appointed, including Council Members
serving on the EDA, shall serve for terms of one, two, three,
four, and five years respectively and two members for six
years. If the two Council members appointed to the IDA have
Council terms that coincide, then their terms of service on the
EDA shall also coincide. Thereafter, all commissioners shall be
appointed for six-year terms, except that any person appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term
which his/her predecessor has been appointed, shall be appointed
only for the remainder of such term. Upon the expiration of
his/her term of office, the member shall continue to serve until
his/her successor is appointed.
(D) All members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council.
Vacancies shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor with the
confirmation of the City Council.
(E) The City Council shall make available to the Authority such
appropriations as it deems fit for salaries, fees, and expenses
necessary in the conduct of its work. The Authority shall have
authority to expend all budgeted sums so appropriated and
recommend the expenditures of other sums made available for its
use from grants, gifts, and other sources for the purposes and
activities authorized by this resolution.
(F) A Commissioner may be removed by the City Council for
inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office. A
Commissioner shall be removed only after a hearing. A copy of
the charges must be given to the Commissioner at least 10 days
before the hearing. The Commissioner must be given an
opportunity to be heard in person or by the counsel at the
hearing. When written charges have been submitted against the
Commissioner, the City Council may temporarily suspend the
Commissioner. If the City Council finds that those charges have
not been substantiated, the Commissioner shall be immediately
reinstated. If a Commissioner is removed, a record of the
proceedings together with the charges and findings shall be
filed in the office of the City Administrator.
2-3-2: OFFICERS AND MEETINGS:
(A) The Authority shall elect a president, vice president,
treasurer, assistant treasurer, and secretary annually. A
member must not serve as president and vice president at the
same time. The other offices may be held by the same member.
The offices of the secretary and assistant treasurer need not be
hold by a member.
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 3
(B) The Authority shall adopt rules and precedures not inconsistent
with the provisions of the ordinance or as provided in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.096, and as may be necessary for the
proper execution and conduct of the business. The Authority
shall adopt by-laws and rules to govern its procedures and for
the transaction of its business and shall keep a record of
attendance at its meetings and/or resolutions, transactions,
findings, and determinations showing the vote of each memeber on
each question requiring a vote, or if absent or abstaining from
voting, indicating such fact. The records of the Authority
shall be a public record, except for those items classified by
law as non-public data.
(C) The Authority shall meet at least quarterly. Special meetings
may be called by the Chairperson as needed.
(D) All administrative procedures including contract for services,
purchases of supplies, and financial transactions and duties
shall be outlined in the By-laws of the Authority.
2-3-3: STAFF:
(A) The Economic Development Director shall be designated as
Executive Director of the Authority.
(B) Subject to limits set by the appropriations or other funds made
available, the Authority may employ such staff, technicians, and
experts as may be deemed proper, and may incur such other
expenses as may be necessary and proper for the conduct of its
affairs.
2-3-4: FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES:
(A) Except as specifically limited by these provisions in Section 5
of this Ordinance, the Authority shall have the authority
granted it pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.091 - 469.107, or
other law.
(B) The Authority shall manage the Greater Monticello Enterprise
Fund (the "Fund") the purpose of which is to encourage eccnomic
development by making loans to private businesses. The EDA
shall make loans to eligible businesses and ouch loan(s) shall
servo a public purpose as defined in the Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund Guidelines (Fund Guidelines). The Fund
Guidelines are hereby adopted by reference and included in the
By -Laws of the EDA. No changes to the Fund Guidelines shall be
made without approval of the City Council.
(C) The Authority may be a limited partner in a partnership whose
purpose is consistent with the Authority's purpose.
0
Ordinance Amendment No.
page 4
(D) The Authority may issue general obligation bonds and revenue
bonds when authorized by the City Council and pledge as security
for the bonds and the full faith, credit and resources of the
City or such revenues as may be generated by projects undertaken
by the Authority.
(E) The Authority may cooperate with or act as agent for the federal
or state government or a state public body, or an agency or
instrumentality of a government or other public body to carry
out the powers granted it by the act or any other related
federal, state, or local law in the area of economic development
district improvement.
(p) The Authority may annually develop and present an economic
development strategy and present it to the City Council for
consideration and approval.
(G) The Authority may join an official, industrial, commercial, or
trade association, or other organization concerned with such
purposes, hold reception of officials who may contribute to
advancing the City and its economic development, and carry out
other appropriate public relations activities to promote the
City and its economic development.
(H) The Authority may perform such other duties which may be
lawfully assigned to it• by the City.
All City employees shall, upon request and within a reasonable
time, furnish the Authority or its employees or agents such
available records or information as may be required in its
work. The Authority or its employees or agents may, in the
performance of official duties, enter upon lands and make
examinations or surveys in the same manner as other authorized
City agents or employees, and shall have such other powers as
are required for the performance of official functions in
carrying out the purposes of this Resolution.
2-3-5: LIMITATIONS OF POWER:
(A) The Authority may not exercise any specific powers contained in
the Act, or Minn. Stat. 462, and Minn. Stat. 469.124-469.134
without the prior approval of the City Council.
(B) Except when previously pledged by the Authority, the City
Council may, by resolution, require the Authority to transfer
any portion of the reserves generated by activities of the
Authority, that the City Council determines are not necessary
for the successful operation of the Authority, to the debt
service funds of the City, to be used solely to reduce tax
-r levies for bonded indebtedness of the City.
ordinance Amendment No.
Page S
t(C) All official actions of the authority must be consistent with
the adopted comprehensive plan of the City and any official
controls implementing the comprehensive plan.
(D) The sale of all bonds or obligations issued or levying of taxes
by the Authority shall be approved by the City Council before
issuance.
(E) The affairs of the Authority shall be limited to promoting the
growth and development of commercial and industrial concerns in
the City of Monticello.
(P) The Authority must submit administrative structure and
management practices to the City Council for approval.
(G) The Authority shall submit all planned activities for
influencing the action of any other governmental agency,
subdivision or body to the City Council for approval.
2-3-6: BUDGET AND ANNUAL REPORT:
(A) The Authority shall prepare an annual budget projecting
anticipated expenses and sources of revenue. The Authority must
follow the budget process for City Departments as provided by
the City and as implemented by the City Council and Mayor.
(8) The Authority shall prepare an annual report describing its
activities and providing an accurate statement of its financial
condition. Said report shall be prepared and submitted to the
City of Monticello by March 1st each year.
2-3-7: MODIFICATIONS:
(A) All modifications of this ordinance must be in written form and
must be adopted in accordance with the charter of the City.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 1989.
Rick Woltateiier
city Administrator
R
Ken Maus, Mayor
U
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR ASSISTING CERTAIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
This JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of
the day of , 19 , by and between the City of Monticello, a
municipeT corporation the State of Minnesota (the "City"), the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in the City of Monticello (the "HRA"), and the
Economic Development Authority of the City of Monticello (the"EDA").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047,
inclusive, as amended, the City has established the HRA for the purpose of
assisting and coordinating certain economic development and redevelopment
activities of the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108,
inclusive, as amended, the City has established the EDA for the purpose of
assisting and coordinating certain other economic development and
redevelopment activities of the City, including the management of the
Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund; and
WHEREAS, in order to pronate the public health, welfare, and property of
the citizens of the City, the City, HRA, and EDA have determined that the
feasibility of assisting certain economic development and redevelopment
activities of the City will be enhanced if the activities undertaken are
` jointly coordinated by the City, HRA, and EDA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, the City, HRA,
and EDA possess the power to enter into an agreement to exercise jointly
or cooperatively any powers common or similar to the City, HRA, and EDA
individually except for the territorial limits within which the powers may
be exercised; and
WHEREAS, the City, HRA, and EDA desire to jointly exercise any similar
powers individually granted to them by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410,
the Monticello City Charter, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as
amended, and sections 469.090 to 469.108, inclusive, as amended, which may
be necessary to effectively and efficiently assist with the implementation
of certain economic development and redevelopment activities of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City, HRA, and EDA desire to enter into an agreement under
which they would jointly exercise common or similar powers to assist with
the implementation of certain economic development and redevelopment
activities of the City; and by resolutions of the governing bodies of the
City, HRA, and EDA have approved this Agreement and have authorized and
directed their respective mayor, executive director, president, city
administrator and secretary to execute this Agreement on behalf of the
City, HRA, and EDA; and
1
0
Joint Powers Agreement
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations
contained herein, the City, NRA and EDA, through their respective
governing bodies, do hereby agree as follow:
1. The EDA shall serve as agent of the City for administration and
management of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund.
2. The EDA has the right to carry out all powers and duties of the EDA as
defined by State Statutes and Monticello City Ordinance No.
3. The HRA shall continue to carry out and administer economic
development and redevelopment activities of the City associated with
State Statute 273.74 (Establishing, Modifying Tax Increment Financing
Plan).
4. The City shall allow the transfer of up to $200,000 to the Economic
Development Authority for the purpose of funding the Greater
Monticello Enterprise Fund. Funds shall be transferred to the Greater
Monticello Enterprise Fund incrementally as loan requests are approved
by the EDA. Revenue generated by principal and interest payments on
loans shall be managed by the EDA and become the source of future
Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund loans.
Except when previously pledged by the Authority, the City Council may,
by resolution, require the Authority to transfer any portion of the
reserves generated by activities of the Authority that the City
Council determines are not necessary for the successful operation of
the Authority to the debt service funds of the City to be used solely
to reduce tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City.
5. The City council reserves the right to review and reject economic
development and redevelopment activities carried out through the HRA
and EDA within a 21 -day period following the date of respective
actions.
6. This Agreement shall be terminated upon the mutual written agreement
among the City, HRA, and EDA. Upon the termination of this agreement,
property, whether real or personal, acquired hereunder shall revert to
the three units of government of the City of Monticello in proportion
to said units' respective contribution to the acquisition of the
property.
11
�1❑
Joint Powers Agreement
Page 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, HRA, and EDA have each caused this Agreement
to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized offices and their
respective seals to be hereunto affixed, all as of the day and year first
written above.
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
BY
Its
By
Its
L
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND GUIDELINES
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
(612) 295-2711
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) is to encourage
economic development by supplementing conventional financing sources available
to existing and new businesses. Through this program administered by the
Economic Development Authority and participating lending institution(s), loans
are made to businesses to help them meet a portion of their financing needs.
All loans must serve a public purpose by complying with four or more of the
criteria noted in the next section. It is the responsibility of the EDA to
assure that loans meet the public purpose standard and comply with all other
GMEF policies as defined in this document. Along with establishing Che
definition of public purpose, this document is designed to outline the process
involved in obtaining GMEF financing.
DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE
1. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that create new jobs.
2. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that would increase the
community tax base.
3. To assist new or existing industrial or non-competitive commercial
businesses to improve or expand their operations. Loans will not be
provided for businesses in direct competition with existing businesses
within the city of Monticello.
4. To provide loans to be used as a secondary source of financing that is
intended to supplement conventional financing (bank financing).
5. To provide loans in situations in which a funding gap exists.
6. To provide funds for economic development that could be used to assist
in obtaining other funds ouch as Small Business Administration loans,
federal and state grants, etc.
THE GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISES
REVOLVING LOAN FUND POLTCIES
I. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY
• Industrial businesses
• Non-competitive commercial businesses which enhance the community
• Businesses located within the city of Monticello
• Credit worthy existing businesses
• Non-credit worthy start-up businesses with worthy feasibility
studies (Deny all historical non-credit worthy businesses)
• $10,000 loan per each job created, or $5,000 per every $20,000
increase in property market valuation, or 05,000 per every $20,000
increase in personal property used for business purposes, whichever to
higher.
0
RLF Administration
Page 2
II. FINANCING METHOD
• COMPANION DIRECT LOAN -
Example: Equity 20%, RLP 30%, and Bank 50%
(all such loans may be subordinated to the
primary lender(s) if requested by the primary
lender (a). The RLF loan is leveraged and the
lower interest rate of the RLF lowers the
effective interest rate on the entire
project.)
• PARTICIPATION LOAN -
RLF buys a portion of the loan (the RLF is not
in a subordinate position, no collateral is
required by the RLP, and the loan provides a
lower interest rate.)
• GUARANTEE LOANS -
RLF guarantees a portion of the bank loan.
(Personal and real estate guarantees handled
separately.)
III. USE OF PROCEEDS
• Real Property Acquisition and Development
• Real Property Rehabilitation (expansion or improvements)
• Machinery and Equipment
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
• LOAN SIZE -
Minimum of $5,000 and Maximum not to exceed
509 of the remaining revolving loan fund
balancer for example, if the remaining
revolving loan fund balance is $50,000, the
maximum loan issuance is $25,000.
• LEVERAGING -
Minimum 609 Private/Public non-GMEF
Maximum 409 Public (GMEF)
• LOAN TERM -
Personal Property term not to exceed life of
equipment (generally 5 to 7 years).
Real Estate Property maximum of five year
maturity amortized up to 30 years. Balloon
payment at 5 years.
• INTEREST RATE -
Fixed roto of up to 29 below Minneapolis prime
rate.
• LOAN FEE -
Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 19 of
the total loan project. Fees are to be
documented and no duplication of fees between
the lending institution and the RLF. Loan fee
may be incorporated into project cost. EDA
retains the right to reduce or waive loan fee
or portion of loan fee.
rol
RLF Administration
Page 3
• PREPAYMENT POLICY - No penalty for prepayment.
• DEFERRAL OF PAYMENTS - 1. Approval of the EDA membership by
majority vote.
2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance,
verification letter from two lending
institutions, subject to Board approval.
• INTEREST LIMITATION
ON GUARANTEED LOANS - Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA.
• ASSUMABILITY OF IRAN - None.
• BUSINESS EQUITY
REQUIREMENTS - Subject to type of loan, Board of Directors
will determine case by case, analysis under
normal lending guidelines.
• COLLATERAL -
• Liens on real property in project (Mortgage Deed)
• Liens on real property in business (Mortgage Deed)
• Liens on real property held personally (Subject to Board of
Directors - homestead exempt)
• Machinery and equipment liens (Except equipment exempt from
bankruptcy)
• Personal and/or corporate guarantees (requires unlimited
personal guarantees)
The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is operated as an equal opportunity
program. All applicants shall have equal access to GMEP funds regardless of
race, sex, age, marital status, or other personal characteristics.
ORGANIZATION
The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is administered by the City of
Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) which is a 7 member board
consisting of two Council members and five appointed) members. EDA members are
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Formal meetings are
held on a quarterly basis. Please see the By -Laws of the EDA for more
information on the structure of the organization that administers the Greater
Monticello Enterprise Fund.
PARTICIPATING LENDING iNSTITUTION(S)
1. Participating Lending Institution(s) shall be determined by the GMEF
applicant.
2. Participating Lending Institutions) shall cooperate with the EDA and
assist in carrying out tho policies of the CHEF as approved by the
City Council.
0
RLF Administration
Page 4
3. Participating Lending Institutions) shall analyze the formal
application and indicate to the IDA the level at which the lending
institution will participate in the finance package.
LOAN APPLICATION/ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The EDA desires to make the GMEF loan application process as simple as
possible. However, certain procedures must be followed prior to EDA
consideration of a loan request. Information regarding the program and
procedures for obtaining a loan are as follows:
City Staff Duties:
The Economic Development Director, working in conjunction with the Assistant
City Administrator, shall carry out GMEF operating procedures as approved by
the EDA and Council. Staff is responsible for assisting businesses in the loan
application process and will work closely with applicants in developing the
necessary information.
Application Process:
1. Applicant shall complete a Preliminary Loan Application. Staff will
review application for consistency with the policies set forth in the
Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. Staff consideration of the
preliminary loan application should take approximately one week.
Staff will ask applicant to contact a lending institution regarding
financing needs and indicate to applicant that further action by the
EDA on the potential loan will require indication of support from a
lending institution.
2. If applicant gains initial support from lending institution and if the
preliminary loan application is approved, applicant is then asked to
complete a formal application. If the preliminary loan application is
not approved by staff, the applicant may request that the EDA consider
approval of the preliminary application at the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the EDA.
3. If preliminary loan application is approved, applicant shall complete
a formal application. Formal application shall include a business
plan which will include its management structure, market analysis, and
financial statement. Like documentation necessary for obtaining the
bank loan associated with the proposal is acceptable. Attached with
each formai application is a written release of information executed
by the loan applicant.
4. City staff will meet with applicant and other participating lender(a)
to refine plan for financing proposed enterprise.
0
RLF Administration
Page 5
5. City staff shall analyze the formal application and financial
statements contained therein to determine if the proposed business and
finance plan is viable. Staff may, at its discretion, accept the
findings of a banking institution regarding applicant credit and
financial viability of the project. After analysis is complete, City
staff shall submit a written recommendation to the EDA. A decision
regarding the application shall be made by the EDA within 60 days of
the submittal of a completed formal application.
6. The EDA shall have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within
twenty-one days of EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a
decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council
that such loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidelines.
7. Prior to issuance of an approved loan, the City Attorney shall review
all contracts, legal documents and intercreditor agreements. After
such review is complete, the City shall issue said loan.
ORIGINAL REVOLVING IRAN FUNDING
"LETTER OF CREDIT" FROM MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL - $200,000.00
i SOURCE - City Liquor Store Fund
City shall transfer needed loan amount from existing accounts at such time that
individual loans are approved. Revenue created through this program shall be
under the control of the EDA and shall not be transferred to City funds unless
the City Council determines that reserves generated are not necessary for the
successful operation of the Authority. If such is the case, such funds must be
transferred to the debt service funds of the City to be used solely to reduce
tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City (see section 5 B. Ordinance
establishing the Monticello EDA).
REPORTING
1. Staff shall submit quarterly summaries and/or annual report detailing
the status of the Monticello Enterprise Fund.
FUND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION
1. At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual
basis. No changes to the CMEF guidelines shall be instituted without
prior approval of the City Council.
LOAN ADMINISTRATION
1. City staff shall service City loan, monitor City position with regards
to the loan, and shall assure City corpltance with intercreditor
agreement.
(a
t
RLP Administration
Page 6
2. All loan documents shall include an intercreditor agreement which must
include the following:
A. Definition of loan default, agreements regarding notification
of default.
B. Agreements between lending institution and City regarding
reproduction of pertinent information regarding the loan.
3. All loan documentation shall include agreements between borrower and
lenders regarding release of privacy regarding the status of the loan.
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR LOAN
APPLICANT:
FIRM OR TRADE NAME:
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
(p & Street) (City 5 State) (Zip Code1
TELEPHONE: BUSINESS ( ) HOME ( )
DATE ESTABLISHED: EMPLOYER I.D. #:
SOLE PROPRIETOR CORPORATION PARTNERSHIP
MANAGEMENT
14AME TITLE OWNERSHIP 8
PROJECT LOCATION:
NEW BUSINESS
EXISTING BUSINESS
! TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
t
S
PROPOSED USES:
REQUEST:
LAND $
AMOUNT OF LOAN
EXISTING BUILDING
MATURITY 6 TERMS
CONSTRUCTION
REQUESTED
MACHINERY CAPITAL
APPLICANT'S
WORKING CAPITAL
EQUITY
OTHER
LOAN PURPOSE
TOTAL USES S
PPOPOSED BEGINNING DATE:
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
TITLE TO
PFOJECT ASSETS TO BE HELD BY: OPERATING ENTITY ALTER EGO
PARTICIPATING LENDER:
(Name)
(Contact Person)
PRESENT 1 OF EMPLOYEES:
ADDITIONAL PROJEC- INFORMATION:
APPLICANT SIGNATURE:
(Address)
1 1
(Telephone p)
PROJECTED $ OF EMPLOYEES
DATE SIGNED:
9
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
5. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and two family
residential) unplatted residential land to R-3 (medium density
residential). Applicant, West Prairie Partners. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter and
recommended denial of the rezoning request based on the finding that the
applicant failed to satisfy section 22-d-5 of the Zoning Ordinance which
requires that the need for the rezoning must be demonstrated. It was the
view of the Planning Commission that sufficient R-3 property is now
available in the city for development and that to add R-3 to the existing
stock would not be in the best interest of the community. The proposal
to add additional R-3 land to the existing R-3 stock troubled the
Planning Commission in light of strong shift of recent years in the ratio
of multi -family units to single family units. Another reason for denial
was the lack of a development plan for the area.
The Planning Commission did not accept the developer's reasoning for the
rezoning which outlined economic reasons for the rezoning. It is West
Prairie Partners' assertion that from an economic standpoint, the
property must be rezoned in order for it to be developed. Planning
Commission was hesitant to recommend rezoning property based on a factor
(economic) that has not as yet been proven.
d Attached you will find the Planning Commission minutes regarding this
issue, and you will find the backup information that I presented to the
Planning Commission and public at the meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny rezoning
request.
2. Approve rezoning request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request based on reasons noted by
the Planning Commission. Grounds for denial as noted by the Planning
Commission are legal grounds by which the rezoning request may be
denied. City Oouncii may wish to leave the door open to a future request
for rezoning only when the true costs of developing the area are
understood and a development plan is in place. The total cost of
development in the area will be better understood after the underground
gas tanks on the Gills property are removed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site maps Copy of Planning Commission agenda supplement, Copy of Planning
Commission meeting minutes, Copy of letter requesting public hearing.
ONE
4A- I
A rezoning request to rezone -2
(single and two family residential)
land to R-3 (madium density residl�
APPLICANT: West Prairie Partners
residential
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
5. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
unplatted residential lot into two unplatted residential lots. A rezoning
request to rezone R-2 (single and two family residential) unplatted
residential land to R-3 (medium density residential). Applicant, west
Prairie Partners. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
West Prairie Partners submits to the Planning Commission a request to
subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted
residential lots and also submits a rezoning request to rezone same R-2
(single and two family residential) unplatted property to R-3 (medium
density residential). The property proposed for rezoning by West Prairie
Partners consists of the land once owned by the Temple Baptist Church
congregation. Property owners to the west of the property owned by West
Prairie Partners include Daniel Reed, Fred Gille, and Katzmarek. Reed and
Gille have submitted petitions for rezoning, while Katzmerak has not
petitioned for rezoning.
In the request for the subdivision, West Prairie Partners proposes to
subdivide the property so as to create a large lot on which townhomes or
multi -family structures will be placed and create another standard
residential lot for the existing building (former Temple Baptist Church
building). West Prairie Partners proposes to plat the entire area,
including the single family lot, at such time that the nature of future
development is known.
The following report consists of a review of the proposal, an analysis of
the proposal in terms of its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. Finally, a series of alternatives and potential
"findings" are provided to you.
SITE PLAN/PROPOSAL
The entire area petitioned is somewhat triangular consisting of
approximately 6 acres of land. Existing on the site from east to west is
a church building/residence, a residence (Reed), and a residence/used car
dealership (Lille). The used car dealership is a non -conforming use in
the R-2 district and could be construed as a blighting influence in the
area.
The area surrounding the site consists of a railroad track and golf course
to the south, State Highway 75 and single family (R-1) residences to the
north, ballfields/Pinewood Elementary school to the east, and a single
family residence to the west (Katzmarek).
West Prairie Partners have indicated a desire to develop townhomes and/or
multi -family structures on the site they now control and eventually
purchase the adjoining property and develop more of the same. West
Prairie Partners do not wish to enter into an agreement prior to the
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
rezoning which would in an way limit the use of the
Y Y property once it
becomes zoned R-3. For the purpose of this analysis, it must be assumed
that the property, if rezoned, will develop to its maximum density as R-3
property.
According to Gary Anderson, rezoning the subject area will create the
potential of 508 more housing units on the parcel than would otherwise
have been possible under the R-2 zone. Attached for your review are two
potential site plans for the former Temple Baptist Church property only,
one shows an R-3 development, the other an R-2 development.
ZONING ORDINANCE'AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS
Prior to amending the zoning district map, the Zoning Ordinance requires
that the Planning Commission analyze the proposed amendment in terms of
the following:
1. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan
2. The geographical area involved
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed
4. The character of the surrounding area
5. The demonstrated need for such use
This section of the report reviews the proposed zoning amendment in terms
of its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
1. RELATIONSHIP TO MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A number of land use policies adopted by the City via the Comprehensive
Plan provide excellent reference when analyzing the proposed amendment.
Of the policies that apply, some seem to support an argument for rezoning
while other policies are not consistent with this proposal. Below are
Comprehensive Plan policy statements that appear to be consistent with the
proposed amendment, followed by policy statements that do not seem to be
consistent with the amendment proposal.
The Comprehensive Plan states the following in the Multiple Family Housing
Policies number 5, page 46. "The Planning Commission will recommend
denial of any proposed multiple dwelling project that falls within any of
the following conditions: a.) There is factual evidence to indicate that
there will be a definite and significant depreciation of property values
or detriment to single family residential living in the surrounding area
directly attributable to the proposed multiple dwelling structures." In
researching this potential grounds for action, I contacted Mike Amo of
St. Cloud Appraisers for information regarding the potential impact of an
R-3 development on the property values of the residences located in the
nearby R-1 area. It was his view that there would be no measurable
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
negative impact on the R-1 residences created by an R-3 development as
proposed. He went on to say that the proposed R-3 area will not
negatively impact the property values in the R-1 area because there will
be minimal interaction between areas due to the fact that children living
in the R-3 area will recreate at the park to the east and because traffic
from the proposed R-3 area will enter directly onto State Highway 75 and
will not enter R-1 neighborhoods. Due to the input received from
Mr. Amo, it appears that the Planning Commission should not deny this
amendment based on a finding that R-3 development at this site will reduce
adjoining property values.
5. b. of the Housing Policy states that denial should be recommended when
"there is factual evidence to indicate a potential hazard to the public
safety or health that would not be present if the land were to be utilized
for any other permitted land use." There is no factual evidence that
would indicate that the proposed amendment will create such a hazard.
Policy No. 6 states that "Multiple family dwelling developments shall
access only to collectors or thoroughfares to prevent an excess amount of
vehicular traffic on minor residential streets." This proposal is
consistent with the above policy.
Policy No. 9 states, "Multiple family dwellings shculd be located in close
proximity to public open space such as parks, playgrounds, schools, and
similar uses. In lieu of this, the multiple dwelling project should
include adequate open recreation space on the site." This proposal is
consistent with policy no. 9, as the bailfields and school playground
adjoin the area proposed for rezoning.
Following are sections of the Comprehensive Plan that do not appear to be
consistent with the proposal.
Policy No. 2 states that "Multiple Dwelling projects shall be encouraged
to develop as "Planned Units" with specific plana submitted for
structures, architectural design, landscaping, circulation, open space,
recreation facilities, and any other features that may be proposed." The
applicants for the rezoning indicate general ideas or goals for
development of the property but have not committed to a density or design
for the development. City action to approve the proposed amendment
without first requiring a commitment from the developers regarding
development design and density might not be consistent with the policy
stated above.
Policy No. 3 states that "Multiple dwelling projects should not cause the
number of existing and/or approved public and private dwelling units in
the community to exceed forty-five percent (458) of the existing single
family building sites located within the city of Monticello." As you
know, the city has surpassed or is near surpassing the forty-five percent
threshhold for multiple family development. Some months ago, the Planning
Commission reviewed this matter as it pertained to the subsidized
multi -family development proposed by Dave Hornig. Planning Commission
allowed this development to proceed because the financing entity (FMHA)
l� indicated that financing for the downtown elderly housing project would be
denied if the City did not allow the Hornig development to proceed, DS-
(
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
Approval of this rezoning request provides the opportunity for an
additional encroachment into the 458 multi-Eamily housing maximum.
it is clear that recent construction patterns have caused multi -family
housing stock to increase beyond the 458 threshold; however, the degree by
which the threshold has been violated is not possible to determine at this
time without a clearer definition of the policy. Depending on how you
interpret the policy above, the current percentage of multi -family
dwellings to single family dwellings ranges from 458 to 939 Yes, the high
end of the range is 938.
After closer scrutiny of the language in policy no. 3, it became evident
that the total of all single family buildings and sites rather than the
total of all housing stock was intended to be the base number used when
calculating the percent of multi -family dwelling sites. Using the
existing single family housing stock and buildable sites rather than the
total housing stock as the base number by which the percentage of multiple
housing stock is calculated makes a tremendous difference in the
percentage generated (93% versus 459). This is not the only problem in
interpreting and applying the policy.
Policy Ho. 3 is difficult to apply because definition of what constitutes
"single family sites and multi -family developments" is not provided.
without a clearer definition, it is difficult to inventory both categories
for purposes of applying the formula. For example, what is an "existing
single family building site?" Does this group include only sites with
water and sewer? Does it include platted lots that do not now have
service? Does it include numerous lots platted in concept plans but
legally identified as one largo outlet? Does it include all of the lots
that could be created when annexed farm land becomes dotted with single
family lots? And also, what constitutes a "multiple dwelling unit?" Does
this group include anything but a single family dwelling, including owner
occupied townhomes7 And in what category does one place mobile homes?
Again, the degree by which the City is encroaching on the 458 threshold
varies depending on how the questions above are answered. Let it suffice
to say that no matter how you interpret the policy above, the City is at
least at its maximum for multi -family development. Staff will be working
with the consulting planners to refine the intent of the policy and to
define Musing categories in order to effectively apply multi -dwelling
housing policy no. 3 in the future.
2. THE amcRAPHic AREA INvoLVED
Factor no. 2 used when considering a zoning district amendment includes
the geographic area involved. As noted earlier, this particular site has
characteristics that suit it well for multi -family development. The site
is buffered from R-1 uses by a major highway on the north. To the rnuth
is a golf course and to the east is pinewood Elementary School which
provides the proposed area with recreation facilities. To the west is the
Bowever, in terms of this particular blighted area, the potential for
removal of the used car dealership along with cleanup of the area in
general may be enhanced if the property is rezoned from R-2 to R-3. This
is because the rate of return for the developer is greater if the property
can be developed at a higher density. Also, if major soil corrections are
necessary prior to development of the Gille property, it is possible that
the use of tax increment financing will be needed. If this is the case,
then R-3 development will provide a greater contribution toward retiring
debt associated with the cleanup. In the final analysis, it may very well
be that the Gille property will not develop soon if it remains as R-2
property. of course, these are economic issues and not land use issues.
Although staff is sensitive to particular economic problems this site
presents, I would hesitate to recommend that the city approve the proposed
amendment based on economic issues without a full accounting of the
I
roject costs involved.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request and call a public
hearing on the rezoning of the property owned by Ratzmarek located to
the west of proposed amendment site.
Planning Cgmmission Agenda - 2/7/89
Ratzmaiek property which is an R-2 use that should be rezoned to R-3 if
the Planning Commission elects to rezone the subject property. In
summary, the geographic area involved is suitable for rezoning from R-2 to
R-3.
3. WHETHER SUCH USE WILL TEND TO OR ACTUALLY DEPRECIATE THE AREA IN WHICH
IT IS PROPOSED
As stated earlier, the presence of the county highway buffer and
recreation area directly to the east of the development serve to buffer
potential negative impact on the property values in the R-1 area. This
factor does not appear to be reasonable grounds for denial.
4. THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
'Rezoning the property as proposed does not appear to inconsistent with the
character of the surrounding area for reasons similar to those noted in
number 2 above.
5. THE DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR SUCH USE
It is impossible to demonstrate a need for additional R-3 land in the city
of Monticello. As noted in the review of the Comprehensive Plan policies,
the City has recently experienced fast growth in its multi -family housing
stock inventory. In fact, in the last 6 years, multi -family dwelling units
family
have been constructed at a rate of 1.25 multi -family to 1 single
unit. Given the ratio outlined in the comprehensive plan there should be
.5 multi -family units constructed for every single family home
constructed. In terms of the comprehensive plan, Monticello has reached
Its capacity for multi -family development without more growth in the
single family housing stock. Furthermore, there are numerous other R-3 or
PZM areas that are available for R-3 development.
Bowever, in terms of this particular blighted area, the potential for
removal of the used car dealership along with cleanup of the area in
general may be enhanced if the property is rezoned from R-2 to R-3. This
is because the rate of return for the developer is greater if the property
can be developed at a higher density. Also, if major soil corrections are
necessary prior to development of the Gille property, it is possible that
the use of tax increment financing will be needed. If this is the case,
then R-3 development will provide a greater contribution toward retiring
debt associated with the cleanup. In the final analysis, it may very well
be that the Gille property will not develop soon if it remains as R-2
property. of course, these are economic issues and not land use issues.
Although staff is sensitive to particular economic problems this site
presents, I would hesitate to recommend that the city approve the proposed
amendment based on economic issues without a full accounting of the
I
roject costs involved.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request and call a public
hearing on the rezoning of the property owned by Ratzmarek located to
the west of proposed amendment site.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2l7189
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission makes
the following finding:
1. The rezoning request, though not consistent with multiple family
polity no. 3, has sufficient merit and Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan to warrant rezoning. The benefit of
encouraging redevelopment of a blighted area by rezoning outweighs
the negative effect of adding to percentage of city housing stock
made up of multiple dwelling housing units.
2. Given the geographical area and character of the surrounding area,
the proposed zoning amendment is acceptable.
3. it cannot be factually demonstrated that the proposed amendment
will depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
4. The high cost of redevelopment of the blighted area makes
redevelopment of the area more possible if the area is zoned R-3.
The developers have indicated that they will attempt to create an area
redevelopment plan that incorporates the entire area and not just the
property they own. According to the developers, the rezoning will provide
the flexibility to develop a plan that is cost justifiable given the
expected high cost of land and soil correction in the area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission makes
the following finding:
1. The rezoning request, being inconsistent with multiple family
policy no. 3, has insufficient merit and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan to warrant rezoning. The benefit of
encouraging redevelopment of a blighted area by rezoning is not
documented and does not outweigh the negative effect of adding to
percentage of city housing stock made up of multiple dwelling
housing units.
2. The high cost of redevelopment of the blighte+i area should not be
a factor in determining whether or not to rezone the subject
property.
Retcalf and Larson will likely develop the property they own per the
R-2 regulations. They have indicated that they will not pursue
development of the Gills property if it is not rezoned. The potential
for clean up and redevelopment of the Gills property without a major
subsidy from the City is diminished with this alternative. likewise,
the chance that the Gille property will develop in the near term is
decreased with this alternative. it is very difficult to know to what
degree redevelopment of the Gill* property will be encouraged with a
change in zoning.
IN
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/29
3. Motion to table the matter with an expression of primary support for
redevelopment of the area under a R-2 concept with the understanding
that if it can be demonstrated that the property, from an economic
standpoint, cannot be developed feasibly then Planning Commission
gives general support of a planned unit or R-3 development concept.
Approval of the zoning amendment pending generation of additional
information regarding the proposed development and area redevelopment
costs. Direct City staff to seek Council authorization to take
appropriate steps to determine the extent of soil contamination at the
Gille property and request that the Monticello HRA work closely with
the developer to establish a site development and financing plan for
the entire area proposed for rezoning.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission makes
the following finding:
1. The rezoning request, though not consistent with multiple family
policy no. 3, has sufficient merit and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan to warrant rezoning only if it is determined
that R-2 land use is not feasible given the potential costs of
soil correction.
2. The Mtential bencfit of encouraging redevelopment of a blighted
area by rezoning outweighs the negative effect of adding to
percentage of city housing stock made up of multiple dwelling
housing units.
2. Given the geographical area and character of the surrounding area,
the proposed zoning amendment is acceptable only if the R-2
alternative is not feasible.
3. It cannot be factually demonstrated that the proposed amendment
will depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
d. The potential high coat of redevelopment of the blighted area may
enhance the possibility of redevelopment of the area if the area
is zoned R-3. Hcwever, since the redevelopment costs are not
known, approval of a rezoning decision based on this factor is not
appropriate at this time.
The developers have indicated that they will attempt to create a
redevelopment plan that incorporates the entire area and not just the
property they own. According to the developers, the rezoning will provide
the flexibility to develop a plan that is cost justifiable given the
expected high cost of land and soil correction in the area.
Staff to excited about the prospect of development of this blighted area,
and the City has no reason to doubt the word of the developers: but at the
same time, it might be prudent to gain a better understanding of the
development costs involved prior to -taking a decision based on economics.
i This alternative may be reasonable in that it provides the developers with
incentive to continue work on redevelopment of the entire area and will
also result in a rezoning decision based on a full understanding of the
economics involved. (2)
of course, the developers may decide that general support is not
sufficient and they may elect to abandon any notion of further development
of the Gille property. it could then be expected that the developers will
construct townhomes on the property they now own.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 3. Staff recognizes that there is merit in the
proposal to rezone said property, however significant questions should be
answered and committments from the developers should be forthcoming prior to
City action to rezone. The economic justification for rezoning should be
examined closely prior to a decision based on economic hardship. Is it truly
not feasible from an economic standpoint to develop the entire area as R-2? If
so, what level of subsidy would be required via TIP in order to develop the
property as originally planned? Staff is not convinced, at this point that an
economic hardship exists associated with development of the property under R-2
regulations. Furthermore, after examining the revenues created by the
development of townhomes versus apartment dwellings it appears that townhomes
could generate a sufficient revenue stream to retire significant debt
associated with soil correction. It is highly likely that the Monticello RRA
would work with the developer to create a plan to redevelop the area utlizing a
Planned Unit Development or R-2 concept. If after further study, it is found
that R-2 development is not feasible, even with City subsidy, then R-3
development could be looked at, or R-2 development could be deferred pending a
reduction in the price of land.
In a related mutter, it ie recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
subdivision of the property for the purpose of creating a standard City lot for
use by the existing structure.
1. Motion to approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted residential
lots.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy zoning map, proposed amendment, Public hearing notices available and on
file.
0
D
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
'( 3. Public Hearing - A rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and two family
residential) unplatted residential land to R-3 (medium density
residential). Applicant, West Prairie Partners. Q.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
West Prairie Partners have requested that their application for rezoning
be placed on the docket for a hearing by the Planning Commission. Please
refer to the attached letter from West Prairie Partners for more
information regarding the request for hearing.
No additional information is available regarding this matter. Please
refer to last month's agenda for support documentation.
As a final note, West Prairie Partners has not submitted any additional
information to City staff to support their contention that it is not
economically feasible to develop the property under existing R-2 housing
density.
L
t
S..
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/84
3. Public Bearing - A rezeninc request to rezone R-2 (single and two family
resident=al) unolattec residen- ai land to R-3 (me—.um dens_t•i
res.denC;al). Apel.cant, West Fralrle Par_ners.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Co=ission members and members of the public the appl'icant's rezoning
request its relationship to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the r,.eetire for input from the
public, Mr. Jim Metcalf, partner in West Prairie Partners, explained to
Planning Commission members and members of the public that their request
to rezone the property is a joint venture with two adjoining property
owners, Mr. and Mrs. pan Reed, and Mr. and Mrs. Fred Gills. Mr. Metcalf
indicated he met with City staff several times and also with members of
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to explain their rezoning request
and the total cost that would be involved with the acquisition of the
land, plus the demolition of the existing house and existing building of
Mr. Gille's, and some possible site cleanup from underground field
storage tanks on the Gi'_1e property.
Mr. pan Reed, adjoining property owner to the .,.,est Prairie Partners'
property and also a cc -applicant of the rezoning request, explained to
members of the public and the Planning Commission that he would like to
see the property rezoned or the property could be redeveloped into
another use, or if the property could not be rezoned and the toning
remains as is, he has a potential buyer to utilize the existing machine
shop on his property to be grandfathered in as a use of his property.
Concerns that were brought up from members of the public which were
present at the meeting were as follows:
• Is this rezoning request consistent with the rezoning which was
already done in 1986 on the property, and is it consistent with the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan?
• Possible depreciation of home values of neighboring properties in
this area if the rezoning is approved.
Why is the developer allowed to ask for rezoning without some type of
redevelopment plan?
The total number of single family residential housing units and the
number of single family residential vacant lots in relationship to
the total number of multiple family units as they exist today has
exceeded the 45% ratio.
There are 10 areas already existing in the city limits for some type
of multiple family housing, either in an R-3 Imedium density
residential) or PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
* If there is substantial cost to cleanup the Gille site where the
underground tanks are existing, where are the findings that there are
contaminated soils which exist in the area of the underground storage
tanks?
* Concerns with regards to liability if multiple family housing units
are constructed and once they are occupied if children would be
playing an the existing Monticello Country Club golf course.
* Questioned the adequacy of the 8 -inch sewer line that is laid at a
minimal grade to handle any increase of usage to this line with some
type of multiple family development as proposed.
* since some of the new homes were built, the zoning has changed once
and is being proposed to be changed a second tine.
* A signed petition was received from a member of the public signed by
residents in the affected area of the rezoning request.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of the
rezoning request. Comments raised from the Planning Commission members
were as follows:
* Has the staff researched the actual percentage of multiple family
units in comparison to the number of single family units and single
family vacant lots?
# * Questioned if there were any numbers known on the percentage of
vacancy which is occurring in our existing multiple family housing
units.
* The property does need some type of sprucing up.
*
Has there teen any research done to see if there is actually some
contaminated soil present in the underground fuel storage tank
facilities on the Gille property? Jeff O':zeill indicated that there
might be some potential City involvement if the zoning stayed R-2
(single and two family residential).
witn no further input from the planning Commission mer.+ters, notion was
made by Mori Maione, seconded by Dan Mc`onnon, to deny the rezoning
request to rezone R-2 (single and two family residential)unplatted
residential land to R-3 (medium density residential). Motion carried
unanimously. Reason for denial: There already exists an over saturat icn
of multiple family units in the city relative to single family units,
the develcper has shown no plan for proposed use of the land; there
already exists suf°icient land within the city for multiple family
development in R-3 (medium density residential) and PZM (performance zone
mixed) zoning; Chapter 21-D-3 of the City :Zoning Ordinance was not net.
L -S_
M,1'n(1 & ,X...
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
v0 Bo. 40
313 west B,oae.ay
MoniKeiio. M111-18
JAMES G. METCALF
TELEPHONE
BRADLEY V. LARSON
(612) 2953232
METRO
(612) 4213393
February 10, 1989
Mr. Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Monticello City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Application of west Prairie Partners, Dan Reed and
Fred Gille Concerning Rezoning Their Respective Parcels
of Property To R-3
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of today
concerning the above -captioned matter. I requested that the
matter be taken off the table and placed on for hearing by
the Planning Commission, and I understand that it will be
scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on March
7, 1989.
As I indicated to you today, and also to Mr. Kenneth Maus in
my telephone conversation with him, we have reviewed the
numbers and have determined that there is little use in
further proceeding if the premises are not rezoned. That is
not to say that the project can be completed if it is
rezoned to R-3, but it is clear that it cannot be done if
the property remains zoned R-2.
we had agreed that the matter should be tabled and continued
indefinitely. Upon further consideration, we have an option
with Mr. Reed, and Mr. Reed consented to sign a request for
rezoning since we asked him to and Mr. Gille accommodated us
and signed a request for rezoning because we asked him. I
don't believe it is accomplishing anything as far as we are
concerned to place the matter on hold, and it seems to be
particularly unfair to Mr. Reed and also to Mr. Gille, not
to have the matter concluded. If it is rezoned to R-3,
everyone can act accordingly. If it is not, then Mr. Reed
and Mr. Gille must determine what other prospects they have.
C5_
Mr. Gary Anderson
February 10, 1989
Page Two
We will look forward to meeting with you and the Planning
Commission on March 7. If you require further information
before now and then, please advise me.
Sincerely,
METCALF SON
BY:
J es Metcalf, E�
JGM:
PC: a eth Maus
Reed
Fred Gille
J
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
6. Consideration of conditional use request to allow a daycare -group nursery
in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance request
to allow no parking lot hard surfacing, no concrete curb around parking
lot perimeter, and no landscaping requirements. Applicant, Peggy
Hanawalt. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mrs. Hanawalt is proposing to remodel the old Baptist Church structure
into a daycare -group nursery center. The center will be designed to
accommodate 42 children.
Daycare -group nurseries are allowed only as a conditional use in the R-2
(single and two family residential) zoning district. There are nine
conditions that are applied to the conditional use section under the
daycare -group nursery subsection. The site plan, which is enclosed with
your agenda supplement, will demonstrate how some of the conditions apply
to this enclosed site plan.
1. There will be no overnight facilities, as the children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. As shown on the enclosed site plan, the minimum lot front yard depth
exceeds the minimum, which is 35 feet.
._ 3. Adequate off-street parking is provided on the enclosed site plan,
which meets the minimum requirements of our parking space
requirements.
4. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are not applicable
in this case.
5. The daycare site and its related parking is served by a major
collector street (West Broadway or County Road 75) and is of
sufficient capacity to accon., ate the traffic which will be
generated from this site.
6. No site plans have been submitted ss of yet, but they will have to
conform to the minimum requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
7. This section deals with the conditional use process that we went
through that is being considered tonight.
8. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of Public
Welfare are to be satisfactorily met and will be followed up by
written approval prior to its licensure from the regulatory welfare
agency and also prior to the submission of a building permit
application.
Z The applicant is also proposing not to have the hard surfacing done for
the parking lot with no concrete curbing around the parking lot perimeter
and doesn't intend to install the minimum landscaping requirements at
this time. The applicant has indicated her only hardship for not
-12-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
installing the parking lot hard surfacing with the concrete curbing
around its perimeter or the minimum landscaping requirements is the
additional amount of money to be spent to complete these requirements.
She would like some additional time to get the facility up and operating
so she would be generating some income so she will be able to afford to
install the hard surfacing of the parking lot, the concrete curb around
its perimeter, and complete the minimum landscaping requirements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a daycare -group nursery
in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a daycare -group nursery in
an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone.
3. Approve the variance request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing,
no concrete curb around the parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping
requirements.
4. Deny the variance request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing, no
concrete curb around the parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping
requirements.
C. STAFF/PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow a
daycare -group nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone
with the condition that conditions !8 and 49 are submitted to the City of
Monticello prior to building permit application.
City staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow no parking
lot hard surfacing, no concrete curb around the parking lot perimeter,
and no landscaping requirements. we feel the applicant should he able to
expend the money to complete the entire project by installing hard
surfacing in the parking lot with the concrete curb around its perimeter
and also meet the minimum requirements of our landscaping ordinance, as
we have another daycare center in this community which was required to
meet these requirements prior to their application for certificate of
occupancy. The hard surfacing requirement is particularly necessary in
light of the traffic that will be created by a daycare operation that
will handle 42 children.
Planning Commission reviewed the requests above and recommended that the
conditional use permit be granted, but recommended denial of the
applicant's request to defer installation of curb and hard surfaced
parking area.
In denying the variance, it was the view of the Planning Commission that
the applicant's request did not meet the criteria for granting a
variance. The financial hardship cited by the applicant to not
sufficient by ordinance to justify granting this variance request.
-13-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
Furthermore, it was the view of the Planning Commission that allowing
deferral of the installation of parking facilities is not in keeping with
previous precedent and would set a poor precedent for the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use and variance
requests; Copy of the site plan; Copy of the nine conditions under the
R-2 (single and two family residential) zoning district.
-14-
4f
s
A
itiopalup �yYee" to
o °onaaY� i r en0 C��eaL`
R 2a
tat
A y Y1 t h8t8 ,Vat)
00 gar ace cucb
no conteec + aR 1
_�� stern a po90X ban°va L
�py1C ST
i
I
D
(8] Two family dwelling units.
7-3: PERMITTED ACC SSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in a "R-2" District:
�! (A) All accessory uses as allowed in an "R-1" District.
IJ 7-4: CONDITIONAL USE: The following are conditional uses
in an "R-2" District: (Requ.iRea a conditional ude
pevnit baaed upon paocedurtea aet 6oath in and aeguZa.ted
by Chaptea 22 o6 this Ordinance).
(A] All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions,
as allowed in an "R-1" District.
(8) Townhcuses as defined by Chapter 2, Section 2 (T9)
of this Ordinance provided that the regulations
and requirements of Chapter 20 are satisfactorily
completed and met.
(C) Four family dwelling unit.
(D) Day Care - group nursery provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for
the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. The front yard depth shall be a minimum
of thirty-five (35) feet.
3. Adequate off-street parking and access
is provided in compliance with Chapter
3, Section S of this Ordinance.
• 4. Adequate off-street loading and service
entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 6 of this ordinance.
S. The site and related parking and service
shall be served by an arterial or collector
street of sufficient capacity to accommodate
the traffic which will be generated.
6. All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance.
7. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
S. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota
i Department of Public welfare, Public welfare
t Manual 11-31-30 as adopted, amended and/or
changed are satisfactorily not.
9. A written indication of preliminary, pending
or final license approval from the regulatory
welfare agency is supplied to the City.
Council Agenda - 3/33/89
7. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium density
residential) residential platted land to R-2 (single and two family
residential). Applicant, Dan Frie. 0.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning request for
reasons outlined below.
As you recall, City Council gave preliminary approval of the replatting of
a portion of "The Meadows" subdivision contingent on the developer
rezoning the property from R-3 to R-2. This application for rezoning is
submitted by the developer in response to the rezoning requirement
outlined by the Planning Commission and by the City Council.
The proposed rezoning consists of a "down -zoning." Therefore, it is not
likely that the matter will be controversial. There were no citizens
present at the public hearing to contest this matter. Following are
factors that the Zoning Ordinance requires Council to consider prior to
rezoning the property.
1. RELATIONSHIP TO MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
The proposal to rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA INVOLVED AND CHARACTER OF AREA.
The area involved consists primarily of single family dwellings and
some two family dwellings which is consistent with the district
regulations noted in the R-2 zone. In fact, rezoning the area from
R-3 to R-2 would represent an improvement given the R-2 nature of the
existing neighborhood. By rezoning the property, future conflicts
between R-2 and R-3 land uses will be avoided.
3. WHETHER SUCH USE WILL TEND TO OR ACTUALLY DEPRECIATE THE AREA IN WHICH
IT IS PROPOSED.
This rezoning will not tend to depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
4. THE DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR SUCH USE.
Given the recent predominance of R-3 development, it can be
demonstrated that there is a need for additional R-2 land.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve rezoning of said area from R-3 to R-2.
Motion based cn potential findings above.
2. Motion to deny rezoning.
-Is-
I
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative f1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of public hearing notice and site location map.
-16-
coplo '06 j6OXIINg
raXj6etin0
�1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC IIfARI11G
tlotice is hereby given that public hearings will be field by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on March 7 , 1989 , at
7:30 p.m., in the Monticello City flail to consider the following matters
t
PUBLIC NEARING: A rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium density residential) resident
platted land -to R-2 (single and two family residential). Location
is Block 1, Lot 1, The Meadows Second Addition; Block i, Lots 1-3;
Block 2, Lots 1-10; Block 3, Lots 1-9; Block 4, Lots 1-11; The Meadows
Addition in the city of Monticello.
APPLICANT: Dan Frio
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at this menting.
NOTE: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval
or denial of the City Council, and will be heard on Monday. March 13 ,
19_U_, at 7:30 p.m., at the Monticello City hall.
Cary,=dsrson, Zoning Adninlstrator
0
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
s. Consideration of assessment appeal on 88-07 Project by Floyd Markling.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the February 13 Council meeting, a public hearing was held, and the
Council adopted the assessment roll apportioning the cost of the sewer
and water improvements through Mr. Markling's townhouse plat and the
Monticello Country Club. It was determined that the Country Club would
receive an assessment totaling $16,243.31, with Mr. Markling's eight
townhouses dividing $45,940.78, or $5,742.59 per unit. I notified both
parties of the final assessment roll that had been adopted and notified
each that they had 30 days to pay their assessments without any added
interest cost.
As you will recall, both parties filed objections to the assessments at
the public hearing in order to protect their right to future appeals if
they did not agree with the assessments adopted by the Council.
Recently, Mr. Floyd Markling expressed his disappointment with the
apportionment of the assessments, as he assumed the Council would have
assessed the project according to the City Engineer's recommendation of
approximately 62 percent for the townhouse development and 38 percent to
the Country Club. As a result, Mr. Markling indicated a desire to pay
all of the cost associated with the project and assume ownership of the
line on a private basis. This scenerio would, in effect, out allow the
Country Club future access to the sewer or water extension, as the water
and sewer lines would be considered all on private property.
I informed Mr. Markling that since the project was petitioned for as a
public improvement and constructed by the City under Chapter 429
procedures with a City contract, this option was no longer available to
him since the City Council already held a public hearing and apportioned
the cost. In my opinion, and that of the City Attorney, Mr. Markling's
only option at this point is to appeal through District Court the
assessment dollar amount attributable to his property, and it's not a
question of whether he can now convert a public improvement project to a
privately owned system.
Normally, City Council action is not necessary when a property owner
appeals an assessment for whatever reason, but at this point, I felt the
Council should be aware of the background that led up to this problem and
the options that are available to the Council. in late August, early
September of 1988, Mr. Markling had acquired the Grossnickle property
with the plan of converting the parcel into eight townhouse lots. A
preliminary plan wan presented to the Planning Commission on September 6
which was approved, and Mr. Markling then turned to discussions on how to
improve the property with sewer and water extensions. Mr. Markling had
always planned on having a private road cul-de-sac to service his
property off of Golf Course Road and initially desired to construct the
public improvements himself. During discussions on how the sewer and
{ water would have to meet City specifications if the City was to accept
ownership and maintenance of the lines, Mr. Markling inquired as to how
-17-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
the City could get involved in requiring the Country Club to pay a
portion of the cost since the extension would make it much more
accessible for the Country Club to hook up in the future. Apparently,
Mr. Markling had had discussions with the Country Club on negotiating a
cost sharing arrangement for extending the services, in which the Country
Club was not really interested. As a result of the breakdown in
negotiations, I informed Mr. Markling the only way the City could get
involved with making the Country Club pay a portion of the cost would be
if it was a City improvement project petitioned for by one or both of the
land owners through the normal public hearing processes and assessment
roll adoptions.
In light of this, Mr. Markling petitioned for the improvement, the City
Engineer prepared a feasibility report and a recommendation on a number
of options for possible assessments, and the City proceeded with a public
hearing on September 26, 1986, at which time the Council ordered the
project to be completed. All of the preliminary plans presented by the
Engineer were based on the extension being a public improvement owned by
the City extending through Mr. Markling's townhouse development an9
ending at the Country Club property line. The preliminary plan documents
referenced a utility easement that would be necessary from the townhouse
development, which Mr. Markling and his attorney, Jim Metcalf, were aware
of and agreeable to. As a result of the project being ordered, the
Council approved the preliminary plat for the townhouse development
later, OCLoUer 11, 1988. Although the preliminary plat approved in
October by the Council did not have the easement described, it's
certainly been the staff's opinion, and I'm sure that of the property
owner, that utility easement would be required at the time of final
platting. Mr. Markling is now contending that he has never given the
City an easement for the utility lines and thus should have the option of
paying the entire cost himself and owning the system privately, thus
cutting off the Country Club from future access. In the City's desire to
be cooperative in Mr. Markling's townhouse development and to allow the
project to proceed before winter construction delays, an actual easement
has not yet been received since it was anticipated that it would be noted
on the final plat. At this point in time, Mr. Markling's final plat does
not include a utility easement, which is another issue that will have to
be resolved prior to final plat approval.
Prior to March 14, Mr. Markling intends to pay for the assessments on the
eight townhouse units totaling $45,940.78, and also separately pay the
additional $16,243.31 for the Country Club's portion of the project
contingent upon the City accepting this amount and considering the system
privately owned. Unless the City Council considers holding a
re -assessment hearing to reapportion the original assessment roll, this
check would be returned to Mr. Markling until the assesament appeal is
determined by District Court.
Although Mr. Markling has indicated a desire to pay for all of the
improvement costs and consider this a private system, the underlying
reason is that he is dissatisfied with the assessment ratio that the
Country Club is payingi and he would rather pay the entire cost and deny
-is-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
access to the Country Club in the future. As I indicated, I believe this
is too late in the ballgame to be reverting to a private system in that
the City followed normal Chapter 429 procedures; and it is now considered
a public improvement project. The City does not finance nor construct
private utility systems; and I believe Mr. Markling has given up this
right once he petitioned for the improvement and the Council ordered the
improvement and adopted an assessment roll. Other problems exist even if
the system was determined to be private and Mr. Markling was allowed to
pay for the whole project in that our Ordinances state that all
individually owned units or properties shall have a direct connection to
the city main. In this case, each townhouse unit could not be sold to a
separate individual unless the townhouse had a direct connection to Golf
Course Road. Until this problem is resolved, the final plat should not
be approved by the planning Commission or the City Council in its present
form. The proper procedure for Mr. Markling would be to appeal the
assessment to District Court; and if the Court determined that the
assessment to Mr. Markling was unfair, the Council could then consider a
re -assessment hearing to increase the assessment to the Country Club or
to leave it as is with the balance being picked up on ad valorem.
0. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Acknowledge receipt of the assessment appeal and inform Mr. Markling
that the improvement is a City -owned utility as petitioned for with
the assessment ratio standing as previously adopted. In addition,
require of Mr. Markling that the final plat contain the proper
utility easements for the City to maintain the system.
Hold a re -assessment hearing and not charge the Country Club
anything, with the entire cost assessed to Mr. Markling along with
considering the improvement a private system owned by the Townhouse
Association. Under this alternative, the Country Club would not have
an accessible sewer and water connection in the future; and the final
plat proposed for the townhouse development would have to be altered
in that the City does not alive individual townhouses to be sold
without a separate direct connection to the City main. when a system
is owned privately, it has to be maintained under one ownership; and
the City could require one water meter be installed for all eight
townhouse units.
3. Order a re -assessment hearing and increase the assessable portion to
the Country Club per the recommendation of the City Engineer at
approximately 62 percent for the townhouse and 38 percent for the
Country Club. Under this alternative, Mr. Markling has indicated he
would be agreeable to providing the easements and would consider it a
public improvement with a fair cost apportionment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
' Unless the Council has had a change of heart and feels the Country Club
has been assessed inappropriately, the staff does not feel there is any
reason to hold a re -assessment hearing at this time. The reason the
-19-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
City is even involved in this project at all was through Mr. Markling's
petition and request for the Country Club's participation in part of the
cost of extending the sewer and water. In order for this to be
accomplished, the City had to do the improvement project. The City
followed all the normal procedures in public hearing notices; and
although Mr. Markling may not agree with the assessment ratio determined
by the Council, we believe his only recourse should be through District
Court if he so desires. If a Court agrees with Mr. Markling, the Council
can then in the future hold a re -assessment hearing to recapture the
difference. Because Mr. Markling does not like the final assessment
allocation, this should not be a reason for the system turning private in
an effort to cut off access to the Country Club in the future. In
regards to the final plat for the townhouse development, it is the
staff's opinion that the Council approve the preliminary plat with the
understanding that the improvement project was to be constructed by the
City with the proper easements included. Although this is not the issue
tonight, I believe it should be made known to Mr. Markling or his
representatives that the final plat will not be approved by the City
Council unless this system is a public utility with proper easements. As
a result, staff recommends alternative ¢1 and let Mr. Markling proceed
with his assessment appeal if he so desires in District Court.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Api,mal uullua; 9/26/68 Council ayanda aup;,lumunl; 9/26/68 Council
minutes.
-20-
{� STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT
`— COUNTY OF WRIGHT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
----------------------- Other Civil: Assessment Appeal
Floyd Markling,
Court File M
Appellant,
vs. APPEAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
City of Monticello,
Respondent.
--------------------------
Appellant, for his appeal herein, alleges:
I.
That he is the owner in fee simple of the following
described premises, now part of the City of Monticello. Wright
County, Minnesota, to -wit:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 121,
Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as
follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of
said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
thence North on the quarter line 333 feet; thence
Westerly on a line parallel to the South line of
said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
300 feet, thence Southerly on a line parallel to
the quarter line, 333 feet; thence Easterly on the
South line of said Northeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter 300 feet to the point of
beginning. Except that part of the above
described tract which lies Southerly of a line run
parallel with and distant 50 foot Northerly of the
following described line: From a point on the
west line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 121,
Range 25, distant 738 feet South of the Northwest
corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter, run Southeasterly at an angle of 48
degrees 03 minutes with the west line of said
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter for
1338.1 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1
W,- degree 00 minute curve (delta angle 12 degrees 58
C
minutes) for 1296.7 feet; thence on tangent to
said curve for 2175.7 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence
deflect to the left at an angle of 47 degrees 52
minutes for 1000 feet and there terminating. AND
a strip 30 feet in width adjoining and Northerly
of the above-described strip: Beginning opposite
a point on the above described line, distant 550
feet westerly of its point of termination (when
measured along said line) and extending Westerly
to the westerly boundary of the above-described
tract.
II.
That on or about February 13, 1989, the Respondent
purportedly adopted an assessment roll to assess Appellant's
property, a copy of the same is attached hereto, marked Exhibit
"A" and hereby made a part hereof to the same extent as if
hereinafter set forth in full.
III.
That on February 13, 1989, Appellant caused a written
objection to be filed with the City Administrator of Respondent
and presented to the presiding officer at a public hearing in the
manner set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 429.061,
subdivision 2, a true and correct copy of said objection is
hereto attached, marked Exhibit "B", and hereby made a part
hereof to the same extent as if hereinafter set forth in full.
Iv.
That the assessment roll adopted by Respondent with respect
to Appellant's land is excessive and unfair, causes Appellant to
pay for or subsidize assessments on adjoining property owned by
others, deprives Appellant of the use of his property, or takes
2
log
it from him, without any or adequate compensation therefor in an
unlawful and unconstitutional manner, and was adopted in an
unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious manner.
WHEREFORE, appellant demands judgment that said assessment
roll be set aside and a reassessment be ordered according to the
statute in such case made and provided, and for such other and
further relief as may be just and equitable in the premises,
together with costs and assessments herein.
Dated: March 6, 1989.
METCALF 6 LARSON
r
James G. Metcalf/ Essq
Attorney ID g72Z8X
Attorneys foi kpep4nt
313 . Broadway, 0. Box 446
Monticello, MN 55362-0446 1
(612) 295-3232; 421-3393
L ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs,
disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be
awarded pursuant to Minnesota Statutes S 549.21, Subd. 2, to the
party against whore the allegations in this pleading are asserted.
Fioyd t9rklfr�g J
3
Council Agenda - 9/26/88
Public Hearing on Improvements to Floyd Markling Townhouse Development
and Monticello Country Club - 88-03 Project AND
Consideration of Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and
Advertising for Bids on 88-03 Project. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous Council meeting, Mr. Floyd Markling had presented a
petition requesting sewer and water extensions to his proposed 8 -unit
townhouse development to be located on the former Betty Grossnickle
property. John Badalich at OSM had prepared a feasibility study for
servicing this property and had estimated the total cost at $62,200
including indirect costs. The feasibility study presented showed a sewer
and water extension that could terminate at the Country Club property and
also provide service for the Country Club. Although they were not part
of the petition, a public hearing was scheduled for this meeting to allow
input from the Country Club on a cost sharing arrangement for this
project.
Although it appears from my conversations with Country Club
representatives that they are not interested in the sewer and water
improvements at this time, the Council certainly has the authority to
order the improvement and provide services if it is feasible. On the
other hand, it is also feasible to terminate the serer and watcr
extension in the Markling property without extending services to the
Country Club property at this time. Unless a utility easement was
obtained from Mr. Markling for a future extension to the Country Club
property line, the Country Club would be faced with a very long extension
to connect to County Road 39 if they needed sewer or water in the
future. It would seem more beneficial for the Country Club to be part of
this project at this time rather than waiting and having to extend their
own service connection all the way down to County Road 39 (Golf Course
Road).
For the public hearing, I have asked City Engineer, John Badalich, to
provide a cost estimate for servicing only Mr. Markling's townhouse
development if it was decided not to extend the services to the Country
Club. In addition, Mr. Badalich will be providing information on whether
the extension would have to be oversized to provide a connection
capability to the Country Club. The feasibility study presented at the
last meeting indicated an 8 -inch newer line along with an 8 -inch and a
6 -inch water main. If it was determined to terminate the project within
the townhouse development, possibly this sizing could be smaller.
Assuming the Council would require the sewer and water mains to be
extended through an easement to the Country Club property line, I am sure
the Country Club is very interested in knowing the dollar cost of their
proposed assessment. As a result, I have asked the engineer to present
his recommendation on how the project should be assessed, i.e., what
percentage or number of units should be chargeable to the Country Club
and Mr. Markling's development. I figured our engineer could better
C
Council Agenda - 9/26/88
determine the appropriate assessment ratio rather than the staff
arbitrarily picking out a figure or assigning a dollar cost to each.
After all testimony has been received, the public hearing can be closed
and a motion to this effect should be enacted.
Based on the public hearing comments, the Council then has a number of
options for proceeding with this improvement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the plans and
specifications for extending sewer and water to both the Markling
development and the Country Club property and to advertise for bids
immediately.
2. The second alternative would be to approve plans and specifications
for only serving the townhouse development and to also advertise for
bids.
3. If the improvement was ordered only for the townhouse development,
the option still exists allowing Mr. Markling to do the project
privately at his own expense.
C. .AFF REw f O SATION:
With the sewer and water petition only being submitted by Mr. Hackling at
this time, the staff is somewhat uncomfortable with recommending the City
order the improvement against the Country Club property against their
wishes. From a practical standpoint, this will probably be the cheapest
method of ever serving the Country Club property, and it may be prudent
for the City Council to order the sewer and water extension for the
Country Club even if they are opposed to the assessment. With the
Country Club expanding the number of holes to 18 and possibly expanding
their club house in the future, it certainly seems appropriate that they
eventually hook up to city sanitary sewer rather than using their drain
field method. The Council has the authority to defer the assessment for
the Country Club until they hook on to the sewer system, which would have
to be within three years after it was available. In this case, there may
be some justification for a ahort deferment in that the Country Club did
not originally petition for the sewer and water extensions but are
involved with the project because of another development.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution. Additional information from the City Engineer will
be included if obtained prior to delivery or will be presented at the
Council meeting.
fa
Council Minutes - 9/26/88
4. Public Bearing on Improvements to Floyd Markling Townhouse Development
\\\ and Monticello Country Cluo - 88-03 Pro3ect. AND
7. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and
Advertising for Bids on 88-03 Project.
A general discussion of the financing of the proposed improvement was
discussed. No opposition to the project was voiced by adjoining property
owners, and it was the general concensus that the assessment formula
would be established after completion of the project.
Motion was made by Bill Fair to adopt a resolution approving plans and
specifications and ordering advertisement for bids to serve property of
Floyd Markling and Monticello Country Club with city sewer and water
main. Motion was seconded by Dan Blonigen and passed unanimously. See
Resolution 88-35.
5. Public Rearing for Moving and Relocation Expenses Pertaining to
Acquisition of Property.
Economic Development Director, 011ie Koropchak, reported that the moving
and relocation expenses associated with the senior housing project site
acquisition represent a portion of the housing site purchase price and is
not an addition to the negotiated purchase price. Identifying the
portion of the purchase price dedicated to moving expci ses is a
requirement of the HUD -Uniform act which governs acquisition of private
land by a gover.ament. Public hearing closed.
After discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair and seconded by Warren
Smith to adopt a resolution approving the Monticello Housing and
Redevelopment Authority acquisition cost inclusive of moving and
relocation expenses pursuant to the HUD -Uniform Act. Motion passed
unanimously. See Resolution 88-36.
6. Public Hearing for Modification 43 of Project Costs for Tax increment
District 42.
Fran Fair described the plan modification and asked for public comments.
There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was cl)sed.
After discussion, Motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to adopt a resolution adopting Modification 13 of the exi3ting
Tax Increment Finance Plan for Redevelopment District 02 pursuant to the
provisions of Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive of the Minnesota
Statute. Motion passed unanimously. See Resolution 88-37.
8. Consideration of a Resolution Issuing an Order for Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings - Clittoro Olson Property.
After discussion, Council requested that staff contact the City Attorney
for further clarification regarding proposed resolution and strategy for
1
EV
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
Consideration of ordinance amendment regulating dogs and other domestic
animals. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last August, the City of Monticello entered into a new contract
arrangement with Patty Salzwedel to take over the dog catching duties and
also cleaning at the dog pound. Patty and her husband, Tracy, live in
Country Club Manor Addition and have been doing an excellent job for the
City as the new dog catchers. Patty has been very enthusiastic in her
duties, and the staff at City Hall has experienced very little problems
regarding animal control. The record keeping has been very sufficient,
and Patty and her husband are extremely knowledgeable in dealing with
animals. Over the past few months, Patty has indicated a desire to
revise our ordinances relating to animal control, as she felt more
control, licensing requirements, and methods of policing could be
instituted. As a result, Patty has checked with surrounding
communities, including Elk River and Minneapolis for example, to get
copies of their ordinances; and she has prepared the majority of the
ordinance amendment being proposed tonight.
The proposed ordinance amendment regulating dogs and cats is much more
detailed than our previous ordinance. Patty's primary concern was
adopting additional regulations to control vicious dogs, and a system to
be used by the animal warden fur citing peupie whu viuiate specific
nuisances such as dogs running at large or loud barking animals. In the
past, our ordinance did not actually specify or provide a provision for
the animal warden to cite individuals who violated our ordinances; and I
do believe that using citations may result in more cooperation from the
residents. In addition, Patty is also recommending that we reinstitute a
two-year dog license that must be renewed by all owners. She has
experienced a number of dogs that are picked up in Monticello that do not
have dog tags, which makes it very diffcult for her to contact owners
informing them that they are now at the dog pound. Several years ago,
the City did have an annual dog license requirement but found very little
cooperation from individuals in purchasing the licenses. Because of the
lar turnout, the City then amended its ordinance and made the license fee
a one-time charge of $10. Patty feels it's important in order to control
rabies and to assure that the animals are properly vaccinated to have the
license renewable every two years. in an effort to seek cooperation from
owners of dogs, Patty to proposing to hold a rabies vaccination clinic in
the near future at a reduced rate through a veterinarian in an attempt to
get more animals vaccinated and also provide the opportunity for issuing
licenses.
One of the main problems in the past has been that if the animal warden
did not receive cooperation when issuing a warning to a property owner,
the police department was usually reluctant to get involved in animal
disputes. The new proposed ordinance would allow, if the Council e0
7 desires, the authority thing granted to the animal warden to iesue
i citations for specific violations of the ordinance, which we feel may
result in better compliance. Although it certainly is not our intent
-21-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
to promote more police regulations, it seems that in the past an
individual could ignore our animal control officer and know that no
further action would be taken.
The ordinance being proposed has been reviewed by our City Attorney with
some minor modifications being made. His main concern is, does the City
Council wish to grant more police powers to the independent contractor
animal warden than what has been granted in the past. With any police
type action, there always exists the possibility that the City could
incur some type of liability by granting such authority; but with our
present animal control officer, I don't feel this would be a problem. I
look at it as being an additional tool that she can utilize to more
effectively control animals and the problems that the City receives
complaints about. In addition to the ordinance concerning dogs, we are
also proposing that the ordinance pertaining to animals such as horses,
caws, goats, sheep, etc., be also amended for more control. Again, I
believe this is one ordinance that has had very little enforcement; and
although we are not aware of any problems in this area at this time, the
proposed amendment would clarify permit requirements concerning other
animals and fowl.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the ordinance amendments pertaining to Chapters 6-2 regulating
uuye alul cider doukaLIC Qrld alb:z, u,: nd the
pertaining to Chapter 6-3, Animals, Fowl.
2. Adopt one or both of the proposed amendments with any modifications
desired.
3. Leave as is, do not amend either ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Because of the enthusiasm shown by Patty Salzwedel and her husband in
their duties as the new dog control officers, I am inclined to recommend
that the proposed amendments be adopted to provide the additional tools
they feel are necessary to adequately control the dog and cat problem in
Monticello. Although I am not convinced that reinstating dog licenses
and a two-year renewal period will be effective, Patty feels confident
that establishing a rabies clinic or other methods to notify the public
of this requirement will result in better control. The staff has been
working with Patty in developing additional forms that will he utilized
when an animal is given or sold at the dog pound that was unclaimed; and
I do believe the authority allowing the animal warden to issue citations
will have more effect than our present ordinances allow.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinancea; Copy of present ordinances; Samples of
citation notices and forms being considered for record keeping purposes.
-22-
6-2-1 C-22-3 /y 7�
CMPTER 2 &��/�. F&)
DOGS 0Je4b1/V 4&
SECTION:
6-2-1: running at Large Prohibited
6-2-2: Definitions
6-2-3: Licensee Required
6-2-4: License Pee and Application
6-2-5: License Tags
6-2-6: Restraint of all Dogs at all times
6-2-7: Confinement Indoors of Certain Dogs
6-2-8: Nuisance Dogs
6-2-9: Dog Pound
6-2-10: Pound Keeper and Assistant
6-2-11: Impounding Dogs
6-2-32: Biting; Impoundment
6-2-13: Dogs Not Impounded
6-2-14: Length of Impoundment
6-2-15: Reclaiming or Disposing of Impounded Dogs
6-2-16: Kennelel Licenses
6-2-17: Reports by Pound Keeper
6-2-1: RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED: No dogs shall be permitted at
largo within any platted residential area of the City, but
this shall not prohibit the appearance of any dog upon or within the
City when said dog is on a leash and kept under control by the accom-
panying person and it shall further be provided that no person shall
keep any dog in the limits of the City without securing first an iden-
tifying tag, such tag to show the name of the owner of the dog and his
address.
6-2-2: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter the following terms
have the following meanings:
OWNER: The "owner" shall mean a person or group or corporation owning,
keeping or harboring a dog.
KENNEL: The word "kennai" shall mean a place where six (6) or more dogs
over three (3) months of ago a.e kept or a place at which the business
of sailing, boarding, breading, showing or treating dogs is conducted
when there are six (6) or more dogs beino sold, boarded or shown.
RESTRAINT: The word "restraint" shall mean as follows: A dog is said
to be under restraint if it is controlled by a leashi if it is within
the limits of the owner's propurty: or while it is confined within a
vehicle being driven or parked in the straots.
AT LARG$s The term "at large" shall mean as follows: A dog is considered
to be at large at any time when it is not under restraint as defined heroin.
6-2-3: LICENSES REQUIRED: No person residing upon lilatted subdivisions
shall own, harbor or keep a dog over three (3) munths Of ago
within this area within the City unions a current license for such a dog
has been obtain• is heroin provided. Licenses shall be of a patmanent
nature and 0* at require renewal. I1-12-76 e6) /^
6-2-4 6-2-11
6-2-4: LICENSE FEE AND APPLICATION: The license fee for such license
shall be a fee schedule set by the City Council. 1
(11/23/81 0107). Application for such licenses shall be madi
to the Clerk or the Pound Keeper. It shall include such descriptive in-
formation as is necessary to provide a reasonable identification of the
dog and his owner.
6-2-5: LICENSE TAGS: Upon issuance of a dog license by the Clerk
or the Pound Keeper, the licenses shall be provided with a
metallic tag bearing the license number, the words "City of Monticello"
and the year when the license period begins or has begun. A license
tag is not transferable to any other dog nor to a new owner of the dog
for which it was issued. If official tag is lost the owner may obtain
a new tag by surrendering the receipt for the first tag and by paying
the a= of fifty cents (500).
6-2-6: RESTRAINT OF ALL DOGS AT ALL TIMES: No owner residing within
the platted residential property shall permit a dog to be at
large within such area in the City, but shall keep such dog
in restraint at all times.
6-2-7: CONFINEMENT INDOORS OF CERTAIN DOGS: The owner shall confine
within a building or secure enclosure every fierce, dangerous
or vicious dog except when securely muzzled andincontrol of a competent
person. Every female dog shall be kept in restraint at all times.
6-2-81 NUISA14CE DOGS: No person shall keep or harbor a dog within
the aforesaid plattrA residential area which habitually
barks or cites at night between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) p.m.
and eight o'clock (8:00) a.m. Any such dog is hereby declared to be
a public nuisance.
6-2-9: DOG POUND: The Council may provide for a City owned dog
pound or may designate as a dog pound a suitable kennel
either within or outside the limits of the City.
6-2-10: POUND KEEPER AND ASSISTANT: The Council shall designate
the pound keeper, and such assistants as may be deemed
necessary.
6 -2 -lis IMPOUNDING DOGS: Such officers as the Council shall desig-
nate to enforce this may take up and impound any dog found
not to be kept confined or restrained in the manner required by this
Chapter. To enforce this Chapter such officers may enter upon the pri-
vate promises where it appears or where there is reasonable cause to
believe that a dog is not licensed or is not being kept confined or
or restrained as herein required, any owner shall produce for his in-
spection his license or receipt when requested to do so by such officer.
Kqd
6-2-12 6-2-15
6-2-12: BITING; IMPOUNDMENT: Any dog or cat that has bitten a
person shall immediately be impounded for at least four-
teen (14) days and kept apart from other dogs or animals, until it is
determined whether said dog had or has rabies. Such impounding may be
by the owner unless a complaint is signed which required impoundment
at the Pound, the owner shall notify the Pound Keeper and shall fur-
nish proof in writing that such dog is being impounded. On expiration
of such fourteen (14) days if the dog does not have rabies he may be
released and the Pound Keeper shall be notified just prior to such re-
lease. if the dog is impounded in such a Pound, such dog may be re-
claimed as hereinafter provided. Any dog that has been bitten by a
rabid dog or believed to have been exposed to rabies shall be kept in
strict confinement under maximum security conditions for a period of
not less than six (6) months. It is futher provided that the owner
of the said dog may provide for the strict confinement at a private
kennel, however should the owner elect to have the City provide for the
confinement, then the owner must post a bond of sufficient amount to
provide for the care and maintenance of the said dog. If the owner
fails to provide as act forth above for the care andmaintenance of the
said dog, then the City may at its discretion destroy. the dog.
6-2-13: DOGS NOT ZMPOU14DED: If a dog is diseased, vicious, dan-
gerous, rabid or exposed to rabies and such dog cannot be
impounded after a reasonable effort, or cannot be impounded without
serious risk to the person attempting to impound, such dog may be im-
mediately killed.
i
6-2-14: LENGTH OF IMPOUNDMENT: Any dog which is impounded in the
City Pound shall be kept with kind treatment and sufficient
food and water for the dog's comfort. If such dog is not known or su-
spected of being rabid and has not bitten a person it shall be kept
in the Pound for at least seven (7) days unless sooner reclaimed by
its owner. If such dog is known to be or suspected of being rabid or
has bitten a person it shall be kept in the pound for at least four-
teen (14) days.
q
6-2-15: RECLAIMING OR DISPOSING OF IMPOUNDED DOGS: The owner shall
Pay an impounding fee from a schedule adopted
by the City Council. (11/23/#107); plus the cost to the City of keep-
ing such dog in the Pound. If the dog required a City license, such li-
cense shall also be obtained before the dog is released. it at the and
of the impounding period the dog is not reclaimed by the owner such dog
shall be deemed to have been abandoned any may be sold to any person.
If the purchaser will keep or harbor the dog in the City a license shall
also be obtained before possession of the dog is given to the purchaser.
If such dog is not sold then it may be destroyed in a humane manner.
G -2-1G 6-2-17
6-2-16: KENNELS; LICENSES: The owner of si (6 or more dogs of
at leas: three (3) months old, owned ommercially for pro-
fit, breeding or exhibit, or boarding shall be deemed the operator of
a dog kennel. Such dog kennel shall be kept at all tines in a clean
and sanitary condition and the dogs shall be reasonably restrained from
annoying the neighborhood or the general public by loud, frequent or
habitual barking, yelping or howling.
The owner of a dog kennel at his option in lieu of an individual license
to breed dogs, procure a kennel license to expire on December 31 next
from the Clerk upon application payment of a minimum fee of ten dollars
($10.00) for six (6) to ten (10) dogs; fifteen dollars ($15.00) for
eleven (11) to twenty (20) dogs; and three dollars ($3.00) for each
additional five (5) or part thereof, fee for additional dogs being
payable immediately upon excess of one or more if kept more than thirty
(30) days, only dogs over three (3) months of age to be considered.
Dogs impounded by the City at the kennels shall not be counted as do-
termining the kennel fee for license.
The application for a kennel license shall state the name and address of
the owner of said kennel, the location where the kennel is to be kept
and the number of dogs proposed to be kept. No kennel shall be estab-
lished within fifty feet (50') of any dwelling house unless both owner
and lessee of such dwelling house consent in advance in writing to the
sane. The operation of a kennel existing at this time shall not be
affected by this provision.
':ho kennal license is not transrerable except on application of both
the old and new owners and the payment of the sum of two dollars ($2.00)
as a transfer fee to the clerk. Each kennel license shall be posted
conspicuously on the premisoo where said kennol is kept.
6-2-17: REPORTS BY POUND KEEPER: The Pound Keeper shall account for
and pay over monthly to the city, all money received by him
in behalf of the City ouch as license fees or other fees. The Pound
Keeper shall also give an accurate written report each month to the City.
stating all licenses written by him, all fees collected, all sales paid,
all doge impounded and the duration of the impoundment and all dogs do-
stroycd.
rA
Ci
6-3-1 6-3-2
CHAPTER 3 0p 0 e7/
ANIMALS: FOWL a'�fNI6rV
SECTION:
6-3-1: Animals Kept within City Limits
6-3-2: Stables
6-3-3: Fowls within City Limits
6-3-4: Pons; Yards
6-3-5: Animals, Fowl at Large
6-3-6: Manure
6-3-1: ANIMALS KEPT WITHIN CITY LIMITS: No horse, mule, donkey,
pony, cow, goat, sheep, or animal raised for fur bearing
purposes, shall be kept within the City Limits, except in an outlying
district where there are not more than three (3) residences, other
than that occupied by the owner or occupant of the premises upon which
said animals are kept, within a distance of five hundred feet (5001)
of the structure housing or enclosing said animal, unless a special
written permit therefor is issued by the Health Officer after an in-
spection of the premises, and a finding of fact to the effect that
no nuisance shall be created thereby. Such special permit shall be
issued for the keeping of any such animals on any lot only in the
following two (2) cases: (1) Where such animals were being lawfully
kept on such lot prior to anaCtment hureof; (2) Where such animals
were being lawfully kept on such lot after the enactment hereof in
an area in which there were not three (3) residences within a distance
of five hundred feat (5001) of the structure enclosing such animals,
and subsequently other residences were built bringing the structure
housing the animals within a restricted district. Such permit shall
be for the term of one year and shall not be renewed without a rain-
spection.
6-3-21 STABLES:
(A) Every stable or other building wherein any animal listed in Section
6-3-1 is kept shall be constructed of such material and in such manner
tnat it can be kept clean and sanitary at all times.
(B) Every such stable or other building occupied by authority of a
special perm:L 0311, if located within two hundred fent (2001) of
any tenement or apartment house, hotel, restaurant, boarding house,
rotail food store, building used for school, religious or hospital
purposes, or residence other than that occupied by the owner or oc-
cupant of the promises upon which said creatural are kept, be provided
with a water tight and fly tight receptacle for manure. of such di-
ransion as to contain all accumulations of manure,rhich receptacle shall
be emptied sufficiently often and in such manner as to prevent its
becoming a nuisance. Said receptacle shall be kept securely covered
at all times except when open during the deposit or removal of manure
or refuse. No manure shall be allowed to accumulate except in such
receptacle.
6-3-2
G-3-4
(C) The Health Officer shall, if he deems such measures necessary
in order to avoid a nuisance, require that any such building be
�If screened tightly against flies, and/or that it be provided with
L running water, drain sewer connection, flooring impervious to water,
and that such other measures be taken as may be necessary to insure
proper protection to public health and safety , as conditions prece-
dent to the issuance of any such special permit.
6-3-3: FOWLS WITHIN CITY LIMITS:
(A) No chicken coop, dove cote, dog kennel, rabbit warren, or other
yard or establishment where small animals or fowls are kept shall be
maintained closer than forty feet (40') to any tenement or apartment
house, hotel, restaurnat, boarding house, retail food store, build-
ing used for school, religious or hospital purposes, or residence
other than that occupied by the owner or occupant of the premises upon
which said creatures are kept.
(H) Not more than two (2) dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pig, ducks or
geese, more than four (4) months old, nor more than twenty (20) chic-
kens or pigeons, more than four (4) months old, shall be kept on any
premises within the City Limits, except in an outlying district where
there are not more than three (3) residences other than that occupied
by the owner or occupant of the premises upon which said creatures are
kept, within a radius of five hundred feet (500') of the structure or
arca enclosing said creatures, without a special written permit issued
by the Health Officer after an i.ntpeu tion of the premises and a finding
b of fact to the affect that no nuisance will be created thereby. Sum
special permit shall be issued for the keeping of any of such creatures
on any lot only in the following two (2) cases: (1) Where such animals
were being lawfully kept on such lot prior to the enactment hereof:
(2) Where such animals were being lawfully kept on such lot after the
enactment hereof in an area in which there were not three (3) residences
within a distance of five hundred (500') of the structure enclosing such
animals, and subsequently other residences were built briAging the struc-
ture housing the animals within a restricted district. Sum permit shall
be for the term of one year and shall not be renewed without a reinspection.
R
6-3-4: PENS: YARDS: All structures, pans, coops, or yards wherein
animals or fowls are kept or permitted to be shall be main-
tained in a clean and sanitary condition, devoid of all rodents and
vermin, and free from objectionable odors. The interior walls, ceilings,
floors, partitions, appurtenances oe all such structures shall be white-
washed or painted as the Health Off -car shall direct. The Health Officer,
upon the complaint of any individual, shall inspect any such structure
or promises and issue any such order as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions hereof.
0
6-3-5: ANIMALS, FOWL AT LARGE: No person shall suffer or permit
any horses, mules, donkeys, ponies, cattle, sheep, goats,
swine, rabbits, chickens, geese, ducks, or turkeys of which he is the
owner, caretaker or custodian to be at large within the City. Any such
creature shall be deemed to be at large when it shall be off the
premises owned or rented by its owner and unaccompanied by the
owner or an agent or employee of the owner.
6-3-6: MANURE: No manure shall be dumped or left on any street,
alley, sidewalk, nor on any open area or lot in any in-
habited portion of the city. Neither shall any manure be used to
grade in whole or in part any sidewalk, street, open area or lot
in said section, unless said manure is completely covered with at
lease four inches (4") of dirt.
L
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DO HEREBY ORDAIN THAT THE ORDINANCE
TITLE 6, CHAPTER 2, REGARDING DOGS AND OTHER DOMESTIC ANIMALS SHALL BE AMENDED
AS FOLLOWS:
DOGS AND OTHER DOMESTIC ANIMALS
SECTION:
6-2-1: Definitions
6-2-2: Enforcement
6-2-3: Right of Entry
6-2-4: Records
6-2-5: Running at Large Prohibited
6-2-6: Wild or Vicious Animals Prohibited
6-2-7: Animal Control Officer; Animal Wardens
6-2-8: Interfering with Animal Wardens
6-2-9: Vaccination of Dogs Required
6-2-10: Vaccination of Cats Required
6-2-11: Impoundment of Rabies Suspects
6-2-12: Confinement of Animals with History of Biting
6-2-13: Abandonment of Animals
6-2-14: Dog License Required
6-2-15: Dog License Fee and Application
6-2-16: Unauthorized Use of Dog License Receipts, Tags of Inoculation
Certificates
6-2-17: Dog Tags
6-2-18: Impounding Dogs
6-2-19: Impounding Stray Dogs
6-2-20: Disposition of Certain Diseased or Dangerous Dogs or Other Animals
6-2-21: Redemption of Dogs and Other Animals
6-2-22: Possession of Nuisance Animals
6-2-23: Dogs: Disturbing the Peace; Enforcement
6-2-24: Cleaning up Litter
6-2-25: Dangerous Dogs
6-2-26: Permits for Commercial Dog Kennels; Permits for Keeping More than
Three Dogs Over the Age of Six Months.
6-2-27: Maintenance of Animal ouarters and Commercial Dog Kennels
6-2-28: Penalties
6-2-1: DEFINITIONS: Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the
words, combination of words, terms, and phrases as used in this
section at seq. shall have the meanings set forth in the following paragraphs:
(A) "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, or corporation.
(0) "Animal Warden" shall mean the person contracted with by the City
Council, designated as such by them to perform the duties prescribed by this
ordinance, as an independent contractor.
C:
(C) "Commercial Kennel" shall mean a place where more than three (3) dogs
of over six (6) months of age are kept for purposes of breeding, sale, or
boarding.
(D) "Citation" shall mean a notice or complaint issue by the Animal warden
to the owner of any animal apprising said owner of one or more violations of
this ordinance.
(E) "At barge" - A dog is at large when it is off the property of the
person owning, harboring, or keeping said dog, and it is not under restraint.
(P) "Veterinary Hospital" shall mean place for the treatment,
hospitalization, surgery, care, and boarding of animals or birds, which place
is owned and operated by a licensed veterinarian.
(G) "Under Restraint" - A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises
of the person harboring or keeping the dog; if it is within a private motor
vehicle of a person owning, harboring, or keeping the dog; or if it is
controlled by a leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length.
(H) "Dog Kennel" shall mean any place, building, tract of land, boat, or
vehicle wherein or whereupon dogs are kept, congregated, or confined; such dogs
having been obtained from municipalities, dog pounds, dog auction, or by
advertising for unwanted dogs, or dogs abandoneo or stolen.
(1) "owner" shall mean any person owning, keeping, harboring, or acting as
custodian of a dog or other domesticated animal.
T (J) "Premises" shall mean any building, structure, shelter, or land
`- whereon dogs or other animals are kept or confined.
(K) "Public Nuioance Animal or Animals" shall mean any animal or animals
which:
1. If dog or dogs is/are repeatedly found at large;
Z. Damages the property of anyone other than its owner;
3. Is/are vicious animal (a);
4. Causes fouling of the air by odor;
5. Causes unsanitary conditions of enclosures or surroundings;
6. By virtue of number of types of animals maintained, are offensive
or dangerous to the public health, safety, or welfare;
7. Excessively makes disturbing noises;
S. Molests passer(s)by or passing vehicles]
9. Attacks other domestic animals!
14
RE
(L) "Vicious Animal or Animals" shall mean any animal or animals which
constitute a physical threat to human beings or other animals by virtue of one
or more attacks of such severity as to cause property damage or physical
injury, however slight.
6-2-2: ENFORCEMENT: The provisions of this ordinance shall be enforced
by the Animal Warden and those officers designated in this
ordinance. The Animal Warden may issue citations for violations of this
ordinance.
6-2-3: RIGHT OF ENTRY: The Animal Warden shall have the right to enter
upon any premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of
discharging the duties imposed by this ordinance where there is a reasonable
belief that a violation of this ordinance has been committed.
6-2-4: RECORDS: It shall be the duty of the Animal Warden to keep the
following records, subject to inspection by the Council, City
Administrator, or their designated agents as set forth in the following
paragraphs:
(A) Accurate and detailed records of the licensing, impoundment, and
disposition of all animals coming into custody.
(B) Accurate and detailed records of all reported bite cases and
investigations for a period of three (3) years.
(C) Accurate records of all citations issued for violations of this
,I vLAI lance.
(D) Accurate and detailed records of all money collected and expended in
the operation of the functions of hie office.
6-2-5: RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED: No dog shall be allowed by its owner
to run at large and every owner of a dog shall cease the same to
be:
(A) Confined to the owner's property by training, fencing, or leashing,
and females in heat shall be confined in an enclosure and so kept and confined
therein during such entire period and until such dogs shall not attract other
dogs on account thereof.
/ (B) While in any public place as a school, playground, or a park to be on
/Y a leash, chain, or cord of not more than six (6) feet in length and in the
custody of a person of sufficient age to adeq:iately control the dog at all
times.
(C) while in all other areae such as on a public street or in an
automobile, to be in the custody of a person of sufficient age to adequately
control the dog at all times, and to have and keep said dog under control.
6-2-6: WILD OR VICIOUS ANIMALS PROHIBITED: No person shall keep or allow
to be kept any place in the city an animal of a ferocious or
vicious character, habit, or disposition, or any animal which is wild by
1 nature.
G
6-2-7: ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER; ANIMAL WARDENS: The City Council may
appoint or designate an Animal Control Officer to enforce the
provisions of this ordinance and to perform such duties in connection with the
enforcement thereof as the City Administrator or the code of ordinances may
direct. The City Administrator may authorize, at such times as he or she may
deem necessary, persons to be designated as Animal wardens and to purchase
equipment for the purpose of capturing and conveying to an animal pound all
animals in violation of this Code. Such Animal Wardens shall be under the
supervision of the Animal Control Officer and the City Administrator. Such
Animal Wardens are authorized to issue violation tags and to carry and display
appropriate badges or identification.
6-2-5: INTERFERING WITH ANIMAL WARDENS: No person shall in any manner
molest, hinder, or interfere with the Animal Warden employed
directly or by contract with the City to capture animals and convey them to the
animal pound while such person is engaged in such occupation. Whoever violates
this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
6-2-9: VACCINATION OF DOGS REQUIRED: No person shall keep, harbor, or
maintain care, custody, or control over any dog over four (4)
months of age unless said dog has been vaccinated in accordance with the terms
of this section. After three (3) months of age and before four (4) months of
age, the dog shall be first vaccinated with an approved rabies vaccine. Within
twelve (12) months after its original vaccination, the dog shall receive a
booster vaccination with an approved rabies vaccine. Thereafter, the dog shall
receive booster vaccinations every twelve (12) to thirty-six (36) months,
depending on the prescribed frequency of booster vaccinations in the
sn::f.acturar's specllicatiouo iui the vaccine previously used. All rabies
vaccinations shall be performed by or under the direct supervision of a
licensed veterinarian, and the dog owner shall obtain a certificate of
vaccination.
6-2-10: VACCINATION OF CATS REQUIRED: No person shall keep, harbor, or
maintain care, custody, or control over any cat over four (4)
months of age unless said cat has been vaccinated in accordance with the terms
of this section. After three (3) months of age and before four (4) months of
age, the cat shall be first vaccinated with an approved rabies vaccine. Within
twelve (12) months after its original vaccination, the cat shall receive a
boaster vaccination with an approved rabies vaccine. Thereafter, the cat shall
receive booster vaccinations every twelve (12) to thirty-six (36) months,
depending on the prescribed frequency of booster vaccinations in the
manufacturer's specifications for the vaccine previously used. All rabies
vaccinations shall be performed by or under the direct supervision of a
licensed veterinarian, and the cat owner shall obtain a certificate of
vaccination.
6-2-11: IMPOUNDMENT OF RABIES SUSPECTS:
(A) Any dog or cat not vaccinated in accordance with Sections 6-2-9 and
6-2-10 which has bitten any person and caused an abrasion or puncture of the
skin of such person shall be seized and impounded under the supervision of a
licensed veterinarian or at the city contract kennel facility for a period of
not less than ten (10) days. If, after a complete examination by i
? veterinarian, the dog or cat has no clinical sign of rabies, it may be released
`i. to the owner upon the condition that the owner have the animal vaccinated as
required by Sections 6-2-9 and 6-2-10 and licensed as required by Section
6-2-13. In the case of a stray, the animal shall be disposed of in accordance
with applicable laws. It shall be unlawful for any owner or person having
custody or control of any dog or cat, not vaccinated in accordance and which
has bitten any person, to refuse to release such dog or cat and make it
immediately available to the Animal Warden for the purpose of quarantine.
(B) Any dog or cat vaccinated in accordance which has bitten any person
shall be confined by the owner or other responsible persun in such manner as
the Animal Warden may direct and for a period of not less than ten (10) days.
The Animal Warden, or authorized representative, shall conduct a midterm and
terminal examination of the animal. If no signs of rabies are observed by the
Animal Warden, the domestic animal may be released from confinement. It shall
be unlawful for any owner or person in custody or control of any vaccinated dog
or cat which has bitten any person to refuse or fail to quarantine such dog or
cat as required by this subsection. The Animal Warden, or his agent, shall
seize any dog or cap not quarantined in accordance with this subsection.
(C) Any other animal which has bitten any person and caused an abrasion or
puncture of the skin of such person shall be seized and impounded under the
supervision of a licensed veterinarian or at the city contract kennel facility
for a period of not less than ten (10) days. If, after a complete examination
by a veterinarian, the animal has no clinical signs of rabies, the animal may,
with the approval of the Animal Warden, be released to the owner. In the case
of an unclaimed animal, it shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable
laws. It shall be unlawful for any owner or person in custody or control of
any animal which has bitten any person to refuse to release such animal and
nuke it irmediately available to rhe Animal warden for the purpose of
quarantine.
(D) Any rabies suspect impounded or confined under this section which is
found to be sick or diseased shall be reported immediately in writing to the
Animal Warden by the attending veterinarian or operator of the quarantine
facility. The Animal warden shall then take possession of such animal for the
purposes of determining if it is suffering from rabies.
6-2-12: CONFINEMENT OF ANIMALS WITH HISTORY OF BITING: Every fierce,
dangerous, or vicious animal, including dogs, that has a history
of biting a human or any domestic animal, shall be confined by the owner within
a building or secure, covered enclosure. Such animal shall not be taken out of
such building or secure, covered enclosure unless muzzled and on a leash.
6-2-13: ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS: It shall be unlawful to abandon any dog
or other animal within thin city.
6-2-14: DOC LICENSE REQUIRED:
(A) No person shall own, harbor, or keep a dog over six (6) months of age
within the city unless a current license for such dog has been obtained. The
license shall be issued for a two (2) year period and shall expire an
December 31 of the last year of the license issued. A late payment charge, in
the amount set by the Council for time to time, shall be assessed for failure
to apply for a renewal license by March 1 of the year of expiration of the
current license. The City Administrator may prorate the amount of the license
fee of one who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog over six (6) months of age for
less than a full two-year period.
101
(B) The license fee for the keeping of a dog over six (6) months of age
may be waived on application by a person who shall certify that he or she is
over the age of sixty-five (65) years and has an annual income not in excess of
Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
6-2-15: DOG LICENSE FEE AND APPLICATION: It shall be required of each
person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog to pay a license fee to
the City Administrator or Animal Warden as imposed by this section, except as
provided in Section 6-2-13 herein. The license fee for any dog shall be
computed at the rate duly set by the Council from time to time. Each
application for such license shall include a statement, signed by the person
applying for the license, which certifies that the dog has been inoculated for
rabies not more than twenty-four (24) months preceding the date of
application. Upon receipt of the license fee and the signed application, the
City Administrator shall execute the receipt in triplicate, the original of
which shall be given to the person who pays the fee. The duplicate shall be
given to the Animal Warden, and the third copy shall be retained in the records
of the City Administrator. This receipt shall describe the dog as to color,
breed, age, sex, and weight. Any owner shall produce for inspection the
license receipt upon the request of the Animal Warden.
6-2-16 UNAUTHORIZED USE OF DOG LICENSE RECEIP':S, TAGS OF INOCULATION
CERTIFICATES: It shall be unlawful for any person to use for any
dog a license receipt, license tag, or a rabies inoculation certificate issued
to another person or dog.
6-2-17: DOG TAGS: The City Administrator shall procure a sufficient
number of metallic tags for delivery of one such tag to the person
paying the license fee. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of the dog
for which said tag was obtained to permanently attach the tag to the collar of
the dog in such manner that the tag may be readily seen. The tag is not
transferrable to any other dog or to a new owner of the dog. If a tag is lost
or stolen, the owner may obtain a new tag by surrendering the license receipt
for the first tag and by paying an additional fee as duly set by the City
Council from time to time.
6-2-18: IMPOUNDING DOGS: The Animal Warden shall seize and impound any
dogs found in the city without the tag provided for by this
ordinance, or dogs running at large. To enforce this ordinance, said Animal
Warden may enter upon any private premises in pursuit of a dog running at
large. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to interfere with the
Animal warden engaged in taking a dog hereunder for impounding or to refuse to
surrender a dog to the Animal warden for confinement as required. Whoever
violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
6-2-19: IMPOUNDING STRAY DOGS:
(A) The Animal Warden may seize or mound any dog found estray on public
property or claimed to be estray by the owner of the premises upon which such
animal may be found, provided that the owner of the premises demands such
seizure or impoundment and agrees in writing to indemnify and hold harmless the
City from any claim for damages by the owner of said dog.
(B) Disposition of such impounded stray shall thereafter be pursuant to
tho provisions.
6-2-20: DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN DISEASED OR DANGEROUS DOGS OR OTHER
ANIMALS:
(A) Any dog or other animal displaying symptoms of being rabid may be
seized at any place or time and shall be confined in the City dog pound, or
other appropriate place designated for such purpose by the Council from time to
time, at the expense of the owner, until found to be free from rabies.
(B) If any dog or other animal appears to be diseased, vicious, dangerous,
rabid, or has been exposed to rabies, and such dog or other animal cannot be
taken up and impounded without serious risk, such dog or other animal may be
killed if reasonably necessary for the safety of any person or persons.
(C) When any dog or other animal has bitten any person, wherein the skin
has been punctured or the services of a doctor are required, a report of the
incident shall be made to the Police Department and Animal Warden by the owner
or custodian of the biting dog or animal or the person bitten or his parent or
guardian within twenty-four (20) hours of the bite.
6-2-21: REDEMPTION OF DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS:
(A) The City, upon the impounding of any dog or other animal, may
condition redemption of said dog from impounding upon payment of the required
impounding fee as duly set by the City Council from time to time, plus the cost
of boarding for each day of said dog or other animal that has been confined in
said pound, together with the payment for a current license for said dog if no
current license has been issued. The pound keeper shall issue a receipt in
:ip l cats pUESUauL Lu Liie reyuiremencs of this section, the original of which
shall be given to the person paying the required impounding fee, the duplicate
to be furnished to the City Administrator, and the triplicte to be retained by
the pound keeper.
(B) If at the end of six (6) days after said impounding, the dog or other
animal has not been redeemed, it may be sold at private sale, or the keeper of
the pound may dispose of the dog or other animal in humane manner or pursuant
to the terms of Minnesota Statutes, Section 35.11.
6-2-22: POSSESSION OF NUISANCE ANIMALS: No person shall keep, own,
harbor, or otherwise possess within the City an animal which is a
public nuisance animal or vicious animal.
6-2-23: DOGS: DISTURBING THE PEACE: ENFORCEMENT: It shall be unlawful for
any person to own, keep, have in possession, or harbor any canine
which howls, yelps, or barks to the reasonable annoyance of another person or
persons. Any person violating this section, who, upon first requested by an
Animal Warden or any duly authorized assistant to atop or prevent the
annoyance, and refuses to comply with the request will be issued a citation;
and if the officer deems it necessary to stop the annoyance, may have the
canine taken to the City animal pound. Any canine placed in the pound may be
reclaimed by the owner upon payment of the fee prescribed. If not reclaimed,
it may be disposed of in the proper manner.
6-2-24: CLEANING UP LITTER: The owner of any dog or any Person having the
custody or control of any dog shall be responsible for cleaning up
any feces of the animal anti disposing of ouch feces in sanitary manner. more
than six (6) piles of feces in the yard may result in a violation tag being
issued. (3
It is unlawful for any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog to
cause or permit said dog to be on property, public or private, not owned or
possessed by such person without having in his/her immediate possession a
device for the removal of feces and depository for the transmission of
excrement to a proper receptacle located on the property owned or possessed by
such person.
It is unlawful for any person in control of, causing, or permitting
any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by
such person, to fail to remove feces left by such dog to a proper receptacle
located on property owned or possessed by such person.
-he provisions of this section shall not apply to the ownership or use
of seeing eye dogs by blind persons, dogs when used in police activities by the
City, or tracking dogs when used by or with the permission of the City.
Any Animal Control warden, or any duly authorized officer or agent
authorized by the City Administrator, may issue citations.
6-2-25: DANGEROUS DOCS:
(A) The Animal Warden shall have the authority to order the destruction of
dangerous dogs. A dangerous dog is a canine animal which has:
1. bitten two or more persons, or
2. caused serious bodily injury or disfigurement to any person, or
3. engaged in any attack on any person under circumstances which
W%JU!i indicdte ddnger to personal safety.
(B) The Animal warden or his designee, after having been advised of the
existence of a dangerous dog, may proceed in the following manner:
1. The Animal Warden shall cause the apparent owner to be notified in
writing or in person that his dog appears to be dangerous. The
apparent owner shall be notified as to dates, times, places, and
parties bitten, and shall be given ten (10) days to request a
hearing before the Animal Warden for determination as to the
dangerous nature of the dog.
(a) If the apparent owner does not request a hearing within ten
(10) days of said notice, the Animal Warden shall make such
order as he deems proper. The Animal Warden may order the dog
into custody for destru.:tion. If the dog is ordered into
custody for destruction, the owner shall immediately make the
dog available to the Animal warden, and failure to do so shall
be a misdemeanor.
(b) If the owner requests a hearing for determination as to the
dangerous nature of the dog, the hearing shall be held before
the Courts, who shall set a date for hearing not more than
three weeks after demand for said hearing. The records of the
Animal Warden shall be admissible for consideration by the
Courts without further foundation. After considering all the
evidence pertaining to the temperament of the dog, the court
shall make a determination as to whether or not the dog is
N
dangerous. If the dog is found to be dangerous, the Court shall
make such order as it deems proper. The Court may order the
Animal Control Supervisor to take the dog into custody for
destruction. If the dog is ordered into custody for destruction,
the owner shall immediately make the dog available to the Animal
Control Supervisor and failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor.
2. If a dangerous dog is running at large, the Animal Warden shall
apprehend the dog; and if, upon apprehension, the dog bears no
identification which reasonably reveals its ownership, the Animal
Warden shall impound the dog until the quarantine period is
completed. If the dog has not been claimed, it shall be
immediately destroyed.
3. Any person who harbors a dog after it has been found by the Animal
Warden to be dangerous and ordered into custody for destruction
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
6-2-26: PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL DOG KENNELS; PERMITS FOR KEEPING MORE THAN
THREE DOGS OVER THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS:
(A) No person shall operate a commercial dog kennel in this city without
first obtaining a permit. Application for such permit shall be made to the
City Administrator and shall be accompanied by the permit fee established by
the City Council.
(B) Commercial kennel permits shall be issued on an annual basis, expiring
vu Deccaiixc 31 fuiiuwiny the firac effective day of the kennel permit. The
commercial kennel permit fee shall be the amount per year or fraction thereof
as set by the City Council from time to time.
(C) Commercial kennels shall be kept in a clean and healthful condition at
all times and shall be open for inspection by duly authorized City authorities
at any reasonable time. A commercial kennel permit may be revoked by the City
Council by reason of the violation of this ordinance or any health or nuisance
order, laws, or regulations.
(D) No person shall own, harbor, or keep upon his premises more than three
(3) dogs over the age of six (6) months unless in a commercial kennel duly
licensed under this section.
(E) The number of dogs permitted in Subsection 4 may be increased by
obtaining a permit issued by the Animal Warden. Such permit shall specify any
restrictions, limitations, conditions, or prohibitions which the Animal Warden
deems reasonably neceaaary to protect any person or neighboring use from
unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or to protect
the public health or safety. Such a permit may be modified from time to time
or revoked by the Animal warden for failure to conform to such restrictions,
limitations, conditions, or prohibitions. Such modification or revocation
shall be effective from after ten (10) days following the mailing of written
notice thereof by certified mail to the person or persons keeping or
maintaining such dogs.
0
(F) The Animal Warden may grant any permit pursuant to this section after
the applicant has sought the written consent of AT LEASE EIGHT PERCENT (808) of
the occupants of the several descriptions of the real estate situated within
100 feet of the applicant's real estate. SUCH WRITTEN CONSENT SHALL BE
REQUIRED ON THE FIRST AND INITIAL APPLICATION AND AS OFTEN THEREAFTER AS THE
ANIMAL WARDEN DEEMS NECESSARY.
6-2-27: MAINTENANCE OF ANIMAL QUARTERS AND COMMERCIAL DOG KENNELS:
(A) Animal housing facilities and commercial dog kennel facilities shall
be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. Indoor housing facilities
should be adequately ventilated and have ample light and heat, either natural
or artificial.
(B) Dogs kept outside shall be provided with access to shelter to protect
them from the sun, rain, and snow, together with adequate bedding when the
temperature falls below 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
(C) If dogs are confined by chains, such chains shall be so attached that
they cannot become entangled with the chains of other dogs or any other
objects. Chains shall be of a size commonly used for the size of dogs involved
and shall be attached to the dog by means of a well-Eitted collar. Such chains
shall be at least three times the length of the dog as measured from the tip of
its nose to the base of its tail.
(D) Enclosure shall be of sufficient size to allow each dog to turn around
fully and stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable normal position. The floors of
the cacicsure shat! be CvmcLcuutej du ds to prevent injury to the dog's legs
and feet.
(E) The temperature for indoor housing facilities shall not be allowed to
fall below 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures.
(F) Disposal facilities shall be provided to minimize vermin, infestation,
odors, and disease hazards.
(G) Adequate storage and refrigeration shall be provided to protect food
supplies against contamination and deterioration.
6-2-28: PENALTIES:
(A) Whoever violates a section of this ordinance whenever said violation
is designated a misdemeanor, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a
fine of not more than $700 and/or imprisonment in the county jail for not .more
than 90 days.
(B) Whoever violates any section of this ordinance not otherwise described
in paragraph (A) of this section, upon conviction thereof, shall be guilty of a
petty misdemeanor and shall be punished according to a fine schedule adopted by
the City Council from time to time.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 1989.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick WOlfateller
City Administrator
N
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DO HEREBY ORDAIN THAT ORDINANCE
TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, REGARDING ANIMALS; FOWL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER 3
ANIMALS; FOWL
SECTION:
6-3-1: Animals kept within city limits
6-3-2: Stables
6-3-3: Fowls within city limits, permits
6-3-4: Application for permit
6-3-5: Duration of permit; fee
6-3-6: Conditions for keeping animals; revocation
6-3-7: Refusal to grant permit
6-3-8: Pens; yards
6-3-9: Animals, fowl at large
6-3-10: Manure
6-3-1: ANIMALS REPT WITHIN CITY LIMITS: No horse, mule, donkey, pony,
cow, goat, sheep, or animal raised for fur bearing purposes shall
be kart within Chir Cily i1mil8, eACept in an uutlyiny disrracr wnere there are
not more than three (3) residences, other than that occupied by the owner or
occupant of the premises upon which said animals are kept, within a distance of
five hundred feet (500') of the structure housing or enclosing said animal,
unless a special written permit therefor is issued by the Animal Warden after
an inspection of the premises, and a finding of fact to the effect that no
nuisance shall be created thereby. Such special permit shall be issued for the
keeping of any such animals on any lot only in the following two (2) cases:
(1) Where such animals were being lawfully kept on such lot prior to enactment
hereof] (2) Where such animals were being lawfully kept on such lot after the
enactment hereof in an area in which there were not three (3) residences within
a distance of five hundred feet (5001) of the structure enclosing such animals,
and subsequently other residences were built bringing the structure housing the
animals within a restricted district. Such permit shall be for the term of one
year and shall not be renewed without a reinspection.
6-3-2: STABLES:
(A) Every stable or other building wherein any animal listed in Section
6-3-1 is kept shall be constructed of such material and in such manner that it
can be kept clean and sanitary at all times.
(B) Every such stable or other building occupied by authority of a
special permit shall, if located within two hundred foot (200') of any tenement
or apartment house, hotel, restaurant, boarding house, retail food store,
building used for school, religious or hospital purposes, or residence other
than that occupied by the owner or occupant of the premises upon which said
creatures are kept, be provided with a water tight and fly tight receptacle for
91
I
manure, of such dimension as to contain all accumulations of manure, which
receptacle shall be emptied sufficiently often and in such manner as to prevent
its becoming a nuisance. Said receptacle shall be kept securely covered at all
times except when open during the deposit or removal of manure or refuse. No
manure shall be allowed to accumulate except in such receptacle.
(C) The Animal Warden shall, if he deems such measures necessary in order
to avoid a nuisance, require that any such building be screened tightly against
flies, and/or that it be provided with running water, drain sewer connection,
flooring impervious to water, and that such other measures be taken as ray be
necessary to insure proper protection to public health and safety, as
conditions precedent to the issuance of any such special permit.
6-3-3: FOWLS WITHIN CITY LIMITS, PERMITS:
(A) No person shall anywhere in the city keep, harbor, or maintain, care,
custody, or control over any small animal such as a rabbit, or any fowl such as
a chicken, turkey, or duck, or any pigeon, without obtaining a permit therefor
issued by the Animal Warden.
(B) The Animal Warden MAY grant any permit pursuant to this section after
the applicant has sought the written consent of AT LEAST EIGHT PERCENT (80%) of
the occupants of the several descriptions of the real estate situated within
100 feet of the applicant's real estate. SUCH WRITTEN CONSENT SHALL BE
REQUIRED ON THE FIRST AND INITIAL APPLICATION AND AS OFTEN THEREAFTER AS THE
ANIMAL WARDEN DEEMS NECESSARY.
(C) No pe nnir simll be granted to keep any animal, fowl, or pigeon within
a dwelling unit or part thereof, nor on any real estate which contains three or
more dwelling units.
(D) This section shall not apply to dogs or cats nor to veterinarians or
licensed pet shops or licensed kennels.
6-3-4: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: Any person desiring a permit under this
chapter shall make written application therefor to the Animal
Warden upon a form prepared by the Animal Warden, which application shall
describe the real estate upon which it is desired to keep said animals and
shall require the giving of such information by the applicant as the Animal
Warden may desire. Such application shall contain a statement by the applicant
that he will at all times keep ouch animals in accordance with all conditions
prescribed by the Animal Warden and failure to obey such conditions shall be a
violation of this chapter and shall be cause for cancellation of the permit by
the Animal Warden.
6-3-5: DURATION OF PERMITS FEE:
(A) Each permit issued hereunder shall expire on March 31 next after the
issuance unless sooner revoked.
(B) The annual fee for a permit shall be Five Dollars (55.00) which shall
be paid at the time of the making of the application therefor.
v
6-3-6: CONDITIONS FOR KEEPING ANIMALS OR FOWL; REVOCATION: The Animal
j�
animals Warden may prescribe general conditions for the keeping of
or fowl and specific conditions as to a particular animal or fowl or
particular premises as in his or her judgment is necessary to safeguard public
health and the general welfare. The Animal Warden may revoke any permit
granted pursuant to this chapter if any such condition is violated or if any
pet becomes a public nuisance.
6-3-7: REFUSAL TO CRANE PERMIT: The Animal Warden may refuse a permit
to keep or maintain animals or fowl hereunder for failure to
comply with the provisions of this chapter and shall refuse a permit if in his
judgment such animals or fowl should not be kept upon the premises described in
the application for permit. If any such permit be refused, the fee paid with
the application shall be retained by the City to pay its expenses in the
investigation and consideration thereof.
6-3-8: PENS; YARDS: All structures, pens, coops, or yards wherein
animals or fowls are kept or permitted to be shall be maintained
in a clean and sanitary condition, devoid of all rodents and vermin, and free
from objectionable odors. The interior walls, ceilings, floors, partitions,
appurtenances of all such structures shall be whitewashed or painted as the
Animal Warden shall direct. The Animal Warden, upon the complaint of any
individual, shall inspect any such structure or premises and issue any such
order as may be necessary to carry out the provisions hereof.
6-3-9: ANIMALS, FOWL AT LARGE: No person shall suffer or permit any
horses, mules, donkeys, ponies, cattle, sheep, goats, swine,
rabbits, chickens, geese, ducks, or turkeys of which he is the owner,
caretaker, or custodian to be at large within the city. Any such creature
shall be deemed to be at large when it shall be off the premises owned or
rented by its owner and unaccompanied by the owner or an agent or employee of
the owner.
6-3-10: MANURE: No manure shall be dumped or left on any street, alley,
sidewalk, nor on any open area or lot in any inhabited portion of
the city. Neither shall any manure be used to grade in whole or in part any
sidewalk, street, open area or lot in said section, unless said manure is
completely covered with at least four inches (4") of dirt.
Adopted this 13th day of March, 1989.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
09
PROPOSED PEE/FINE SCHEDULE
Dog License - Altered Pet
$10.00 - 2 years
- Unaltered Pet
$15.00 - 2 years
- Late Pee
$ 5.00
- Replacement Tag
$ 1.00
Barking - First offense
Written/oral warning
- Repeat Offenses
$25.00
Feces Pickup - First Offense
Written/oral warning
- Repeat Offense
$10.00, $25.00
Running at Large - First Offense $25.00
- Second Offense $35.00
- Third Offense $50.00
-If iapounded - + Board
commercial Kennel Permit - $40.00 per year
IL
04?
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
FOR THE SALE OF ANIMALS
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this date by and between BUYER, hereinafter described,
tad _ ANIMAL CONTROL,
WITNESSETH: In consideration of the purchase price herein and other good and
valitable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
and in consideration of each and every mutual covenant contained herein:
IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
1. That the animal sold herein by ANIMAL CONTROL, is a stray animal
which has been picked up running at large. BUYER acknowledges that any description of
the animal sold herein which may be posted or otherwise represented by A,CI`L,L
CO:<TROL, makes no warranty as to the care or condition of the animal sold herein. BUYER
purchases, AS IS, the animal sold herein.
2. The purchase price of the animal sold herein shall be paid at the time that
possession is transferred from _ ANIMAL CONTROL to BUYER.
3. Within seventy-two (72) hours of transfer of possession of the animal sold herein,
BUYER shall take said animal to a veterinarian for a complete examination and for
vaccinations.
4. Upon a finding by a veterinarian that the animal sold herein is injured or diseased,
BUYER may return said animal to ANIMAL CONTROL to exchange for another animal
or for a refund of the purchase price. BUYER shall return said animal within a period of '
six (6) days from this date. , ANIMAL CONTROL shall not be responsible for any
costs or claims in excess of the purchase price herein.
5. This agreement shall constitute the entire Agreement between ANIMAL
CONTROL and BUYER with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede all proposals,
oral or written, all previous negotiations, and all other communications between the parties.
6. The animal sold herein is described as follows:
USDA 9
TICKET 6 BUYER
Authorized Agent Name (PRINT)
Dated
Address
Community State 2i
Signature
Purchase Price: $
License: $
TOTAL CHARGE $
-rAfxPtL
REPORT OF ANIMAL BITE
..te of Bite: Day of Week:
Address or Location of Occurrence:
Date of Complaint:
Report Taken By:
Name:
VICTIM Address:
Location of Bice:
PERSON Name:
REPORTING
(Not virrfm)
Dog ___Cat _ Other
TYPE OF
ANIMAL Color and Breed:
OWNER OF Name:
A IMAL Address:
`WITNESS Name:
Detailed Description of Incident:
e Provoked: Y _ N
Tag Issued:
Quarantine: Homo _
Pound Cage 0
Other
Time Received:
Case Control Number:
Time: hr:
hrs
Age: Sex: _
Telephone l:
Type (Puncture/Scratch):
Severity of Bite (Rate 1 through 5):
Relationship to Victim:
Sex: _ Weight: _ Lt. ense:
Name/Other LD:
Telephone 0:
Telephone 0:
Above description of incident is correct:
Signature:
U
I
L
'5-A/, Pt S,
Mi. DATE:
T LME:
ANIMAL CONTROL
Y A R N I N G N O T I C 8
This notice to to advise you that a violation of a animal control ordinance has
been observed and reported to the Department. Please take immediate
corrective action to resolve the problem .
Type of violation and corrective action to be taken -
0 Licensing - Obtain license by
0 Paces - Clean yard/kennel by
dLeashing - See reverse 0 Other
0 Barking - See reverse
Nana
Location of violation
Comments
WARDEN SIGNATURE
RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS NEED TO KNOW
MINNEAPOLIS ANIMAL POUND
If your pet is lost, contact the Minneapolis Animal Pound
(348-4250) located at 506 iltn Ave. N. (112 block east of
lltn Ave. No. and Lyndale Ave. No.).
RABIES VACCINATION
All dogs and cats kept in the City mus: be vaccinated for
rabies. Pet owners will obtain a certificate from a
veterinarian to snow proof of such vaccination.
Minneapolis Ordinance #(66.10 and 66.20)
LICENSES
Tet owners must obtain a license for their dog or cat after
the animal has reached four months of age. (64.10)
COLLARS
A1717—cogs and cats in the City must wear a collar to which
the rerjired license is securely attached. (64.20)
MAXIM'::v NUMBER OF ANIMALS
Pet owners can nave no more than three animals (i.e., one
dog and two cats, two dogs and one cat, three cats, etc.)
per property unless a permit is obtained from the Health
Department; 348-4250. (64.100)
L iASii I NG
When kept outdoors dogs must be leashed or be confined in a
fenced yard. If a dog can jump, squeeze through or crawl
under the fence it must be leashed within the yard.
FECES CLEANUP
Pet owners must clean up their animals feces. More than six
piles of feces in the yard may result in a violation tag
being issued. If you walk your dog on park property you
must carry something to clean up the feces. (64.50)
BARKING
ewers must prevent their dogs from continuously
barking. Dogs barking more than 10 times in 5 minutes may
cause a violation tag to be issued. (64.90)
DANGEROUS ANIMALS
Animals are considered dangerous if they attack a person or
Other domestic animal witnout provocation, have a
disposition to attack unprovoked or are a pit bull.
Dangerous animals must be securely confined indoors or in a
locked, enclosed kennel. When being walked they must be
nuzzled, on a three foot leash, and be under the control of
a responsible adult. The Health Department may hold an
administrative hearing if an animal is considered dangerous.
(64.110, 64.120)
J
i IOM: '1'LICATION License0d 0I CE USE
Dale
Pound ID p
You must, compIata._thi3_ialormotion
Vaccination Vet Clinic
New lrcense Dog or Name of Pel $e�/ Neutered license Breed Color Date of Rabies Name at
nl OcncwalT _Cnt? er a rd? ce Vaccination Vet Clinic
/
Iota[ Fee Duel Mail to:
1 certify
Appl (cant must Sign
all information to be true and complete.
DATE ZIP
Dvnor'c Monro Pnono I NEASt Rup-isroRMarloN
Owner
Bu.l nea P. I
Pet Locattonlu tllfloront I ----ON RfVfRSf_SIOf.._.._
f roan Ina 111ng atltlrenal
Make check payable to: I RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT
Oe(1.19
SAApt E
0
CDMMEv if
REA30N ROP PELF SE
IN
I Comity trial f am the rlgfttful owner of above aoscriDoo animal, ana to [Me pest of my knowledge It not
not Dire" or scm fCnea any Conlon ."Inn one last fourteen (14( Days. I release ownersmp of gait; animal
to Ina Animal {control Agency and nota eanle na—loss of any liability.
E �A014LU
1-0— i C.EC.Eo w � ibi.l CP.RaES
ea
14
101
ANIMAL CONTROL PuuaEP
OWNERSHIP RELEASE FORM
�wuwGP.ury
{CriE �TKi nue+9Ea
+0ESCP1PT4N
IIAMMAL
---LS ...E. AGE
IS/MAS
I'/ES No i AlNIMNL ISlMAS I vcs I NO I '
s__ DP NEUTEREa�............
I I I GOOD wiTN CrILDPEN ............ I
rouSEaPD+tEN ........
I I I S.OTS....................... I I I
IaEG13;RtTIOn—firs............
( I IIP GOOD -Ul rr................ I I I
CDMMEv if
REA30N ROP PELF SE
IN
I Comity trial f am the rlgfttful owner of above aoscriDoo animal, ana to [Me pest of my knowledge It not
not Dire" or scm fCnea any Conlon ."Inn one last fourteen (14( Days. I release ownersmp of gait; animal
to Ina Animal {control Agency and nota eanle na—loss of any liability.
E �A014LU
1-0— i C.EC.Eo w � ibi.l CP.RaES
ea
14
101
amu. �j/
i ? / � Council Agenda - 3/13/89
10. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to
Wright Hennepin Electric Association. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association provides electrical
service to a small part of the city of Monticello mainly on the east end
of the city along East County Road 39 and within areas recently annexed
from Monticello Township. As a result, as with other utilities serving
residents within the city, Wright Hennepin has requested a franchise
right to utilize the City's public right-of-ways for construction of
their distribution system and transmission lines.
The City of Monticello currently has franchise ordinances governing the
cable TV distribution system, one with North Central Public Service for
natural gas distribution, and naturally, one with NSP for electrical
distribution. The ordinance franchise proposal submitted by Wright
Hennepin has been reviewed by the City staff, and a few modifications
were requested which are incorporated into this new franchise. The
franchise agreement appears to be consistent with other utility
franchises that have been granted by the City and appears to adequately
protect the City of Monticello. Some of the modifications requested by
the City included a provision requiring the company to provide annual
updated as builts of all their transmission lines and equipment located
within our right -or -way, re -wording of provisions which allow the City of
Monticello to require relocation at no cost of transmission lines and
/ equipment when required for any utility construction on our part. This
franchise ordinance is actually more descriptive in this nature than any
of our existing franchise agreements.
/ \ X\ B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the ordinance amendment granting a franchise right to Wright
1 Hennepin Electric Association.
2. Do not adopt the franchise agreement.
C. STAFF RECOHMFXI)ATION:
After reviewal by the City staff and comparisons to the existing
franchise agreements from other utility companies, the staff feels
comfortable with the Council adopting this franchise agreement covering a
20 -year period of time. As I indicated, modifications were made to the
initial agreement presented which the staff feels adequately protects the
City of Monticello. It is certainly in the City's best interest to adopt
a franchise agreement since Wright Hennepin has and will in the future
have more utility extensions as the City grows within the annexed areas.
As noted in the franchise agreement, Wright Hennepin will pay for all
publication cost of this ordinance upon approval.
iD. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of franchise agreement.
-23-
ORDINANCE NO.
City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota
\
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO WRIGHT -HENNEPIN
COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, A MINNESOTA
CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE
CITY OF - MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES,
INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, POLE LINES AND FIXTURES
AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY TO THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS,
AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF
SAID CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Definitions
Subd. 1. In this Ordinance "City" means the City of Monticello,
County of Wright, State of Minnesota.
Subd. 2. "City Utility System" refers to the facilities used
for providing any public utility service owned or operated by City of
nEency thereof, including serer and uatcr ocr:ice.
Subd. 3. "Company" means Wright -Hennepin Cooperative Electric
Association, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns.
Subd. 4. "Notice" means a writing served by any party or
parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be
mailed to the General Manager thereof at P.O. Box 330, Maple Lake, MN
55358-0330. Notice to city shall be mailed to the CITY CLERK.
Subd. 5. "Public grounds" means city parks and squares as well
as land held by the City for the purposes of open apace.
Subd. 6. "Public ways" means streets, avenues, alleys,
park -ways, walkways, and other public rights of way within the City.
SECTION 2. Grant of Franchise
City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date
hereof, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light,
heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and
through the limits of city as its boundaries now exist or as they may
be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct,
operate, repair and maintain electric distribution system and electric
transmission lines, including poles, pole lines, duct lines, fixtures,
and any other necessary appurtenances in, on, over, under and across
the public wayo and public grounds of City. Company may do all
reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes,
subject, however, to the further provisions of this franchise.
C/O
SECTION 3. Restrictions
Subd. 1. Company facilities included in such electric
distribution system, transmission lines and appurtenances thereto,
.hall be located and constructed so as not to interfere with the
safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over said public
ways. Company's construction, operation, repair, maintenance and
location of such facilities shall be subject to such regulations as
may be imposed by City pursuant to charter, ordinance or statute.
Subd. 2. Company shall not construct any new installations
within or upon any public grounds without receiving the prior written
consent of an authorized representative of City for each such
installation.
Subd. 3. Company shall provide field locations for all its
underground facilities when requested by City within a reasonable
period of time. The period of time will be considered reasonable if
it compares favorably with the average time required by the cities in
the County to locate municipal underground facilities for Company.
("County" refers to the County In which City is located.)
Subd. 4. Company shall provide annual updated as builts of all
electrical transmission lines and other equipment located in, on,
over, and under the public right-of-ways and public grounds of city
when requested by the City.
SECTION 4. Tree Trimming,
LCompany is also granted the permission and authority to trim all
trees and shrubs, including spraying the same with herbicides approved
by the Environmental Protection Agency, in the public ways and public
grounds of City interfering with the proper construction, operation,
repair and maintenance of any poles, pole lines, and fixtures or
appurtenances installed in pursuance of the authority hereby granted,
provided that Company shall save City harmless from any liability in
the premises.
SECTION 5. Service Rates
The Company will provide adequate, efficient, and reasonable
electric service and at rates which fairly reflect the costa of doing
business on its utility system.
SECTION 6. Relocating
Subd. i. Whenever City shall grade, regrade or change the •line
of any public way, or construct or reconstruct any City utility system
therein and shall, in the proper exercise of its police power, and
with due regard to seasonable working conditions, when necessary order
Company to relocate permanently its lines, services and other property
located in said public way, Company •shall relocate its facilities at
its own expense. City shall give Company reasonable notice of plane
to grade, regrade or change the line of any public way or to construct
or reconstruct any city utility eyetem therein. However, after
c-m;sn. Gaz ar if 8 /,r r4;!'.[71i.n
shall be ordered within ten years from and after the first relocation,
the City shall reimburse company for such non -betterment relocation
expense which company may incur on a time and material basis, provided
if subsequent relocations are required because of the extension of
city utilities to a previously unserved area, or for the upgrading,
reconstruction, or maintenance of existing utilities and streets,
company shall be required to relocate at its own expense at any time.
Subd. 2. Nothing contained in this franchise shall require
Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconnect at its own expense
its facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or
reconnection is for convenience and not of necessity in the
construction of reconstruction of a City utility system or extension
thereof. Provided, however, relocation shall be considered a
necessity and not a convenience if the City determines that it will
incur additional cost or time delays for construction or
reconstruction of a city utility system or extension without
relocation, removal, replacement, or reconnection of company
facilities.
Subd. 3. Any relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any
Company facilities made necessary because of the extension into or
through City of a federally aided highway project shall be governed by
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46 as supplemental or
amended; and further, it is expressly understood that the right herein
granted to Company is a valuable property right and City shall not
order Company to remove or relocate its facilities without
c:=pcccat1cn whoa a public ...^y 10 vacaotcd, '-r' .^a cr rc-al ignncd
because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially
subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency
thereof, unless the reasonable non -betterment costs of such relocation
and the lose and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to
Company.
Subd. 4. Nothing contained herein shall relieve any person,
persons or corporations from liability arising out of the failure to
exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring Company's facilities while
performing any work connected with grading, regrading, or changing the
line of any public way, or with the construction or reconstruction of
any City utility system.
SECTION 7. Indemnification
Company shall indemnify, keep and hold City free and harmless from
any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to
property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair or
operation of Company's electric facilities located in, on, over,
under, or across the public ways and public grounds of City, unless
ouch Injury or damage grows out of the negligence of City, its
employees, or agents, or results from the performance in a proper
manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, but such
performance is nevortheleso ordered or directed by City after notice
div ,
of Company's determination. In the event a suit shall be brought
against City under circumstances where the above agreement to
indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend
City in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to
Company within a period wherein Company is not prejudiced by lack of
such notice. If such notice is not reasonably given as hereinbefore
provided, Company shall have no duty to indemnify nor defend. If
company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have
complete control of such litigation, but Company may not settle such
litigation without the consent of City, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a
waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to City; and
Company, in defending any action on behalf of City shall be entitled
to assert in any action every defense or immunity that City could
assert in its own behalf.
SECTION 8. Vacation of Public Ways
The City shall give the Company at least two weeks' prior written
notice of a proposed vacation of a public way. Except where required
solely for a City improvement project, the vacation of any public way,
after the installation of electric facilities, shall not operate to
deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such electrical
facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the
loss and expense resulting from ouch relocation are first paid to
Company. In no case, however, shall City be liable to the Company for
failure to specifically preserve a right-of-way, under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 160.29
SECTION 9. Written Acceptance
Company shall, if it accepts this ordinance and the rights and
obligations hereby granted, file a written acceptance of the rights
hereby granted with the City Clerk within ninety (90) days after the
final passage and any required publication of this ordinance.
SECTION 10. Provisions of ordinance
Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared
separate from every other section, provision or part; and if any
section, provision or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect
any other section, provision or part. Where a provision of any other
City ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this ordinance, the
provisiono of this ordinance shall prevail.
SECTION 11. Publication Expense
The expense of any publication of this franchise ordinance
required by law shall be paid by Company.
SECTION 12. Effective Date
This ordinance io effective an provided by statute or charter, and
upon acceptance by Company as provided in Section 9.
`1
Passed and approved: , 1989.
Attest:
I
City Clerk
Mayor
0/0
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
;t. Consideration of commuter parking lot status. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the December 12, 1988, Council meeting, Mr. Tom Dolly appeared before
the Council to outline a proposal to relocate the commuter parking lot to
an area directly east of the Silver Fox Motel for the purpose of
converting the commuter lot into a commercial establishment. Mr. Dolly
had proposed to construct a larger commuter lot, including the required
curb and gutter, blacktopping, and any lighting required, in exchange for
the City agreeing to exchange or sell the present commuter site for an
unidentified commercial business. Mr. Dolly was informed that the City
constructed the existing commuter lot on property that was turned over by
the State of Minnesota to Wright County, which at this time had not been
actually deeded to the City of Monticello. The County had previously
agreed to deed over the commuter site to the City of Monticello provided
it was used for a commuter lot only. Mr. Dolly was informed the
restrictions would limit the development of the property for any use
other than a park and ride facility; and the staff was directed to
consult with the County on the progress of receiving a deed and what
restrictions might be forthcoming.
Mr. Dolly, along with City staff members, has appeared before the Wright
County Board inquiring as to the status of the quit claim deed for the
commuter lot. Altnougn the City has not received any notification frim
the County as of yet, the Wright County Board, on February 28, 1989,
voted to authorize the quit claim deed transferring ownership of the
commuter lot to the City of Monticello be approved contingent upon
restrictions and clauses in the deed requiring that the property be used
and maintained forever as a public parking lot; and if any part of the
property is not used for this purpose, it reverts back to County
ownership.
At the February 13 Council meeting, indications were given to MN/DOT
representatives that the City would in all likelihood maintain ownership
of the commuter lot for possible use in the future for a cloverleaf
design ramp onto eastbound I-94. The purpose of this agenda item is to
decide whether to commit to the commuter lot being accessible for the
purpose of a cloverleaf ramp in the future; and if so, to inform
Mr. Dolly of the City's desire and intent regarding this property.
Mr. Dolly has been quite persistent in attending the Wright County Board
meetings to seek a quit claim deed for the City without any restrictions
or allow the City to relocate the commuter parking lot if it so desired.
Although Mr. Dolly has not given up, it would seem appropriate, if the
City is committed to maintaining the commuter lot in its present location
regardless of whether any restrictions were applied by the County on the
deed, to so inform Mr. Dolly of the City's intentions. Although it's
been a number of years since the property should have been transferred to
the City, a deed has not been presented at this time. It also appears
that the County Board is adding a lot of restrictions in the deed
limiting the use to public parking only, whereas other transfers of
property along the freeway within other communities or townships may not
have this provision for similar type properties.
-24-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to leave the commuter parking lot
status as is and inform Mr. Doily that the City is not interested in
relocating this site regardless of whether it is permissible once a
deed is received.
Inform Mr.. Dolly that the City is willing to consider a possible
relocation site for the commuter parking lot provided the City
obtains a quit claim deed without any restrictions. At this point,
it appears that either Mr. Dolly or the City would have to continue
negotiations with the County Board to receive the property without
restrictions to allow this option to be available. Whether the City
wishes to expend legal expense or other time involved in reversing
the recent County Board decision is the question. Presently, the
County Board has adopted resolutions or made motions agreeing to
transfer similar type property near the interstate to other
communities and townships without this type of restriction. I'm not
sure if this would be a valid argument because I assume Mr. MacPhail,
County Attorney, will just recommend that when the deeds are prepared
for these other jurisdictions, a similar restrictive covenant is also
placed on those deeds.
3. Continue to pursue an unrestricted quit claim deed be provided by the
Count, for the =--nater Ew+rR cig lul but adopt a motion or a
resolution indicating the City's desire to at the present time keep
the parking lot available for possible use by MN/DOT for future
highway purposes.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although the staff is certainly not opposed to additional commercial
development of some type near the interstate, the staff is concerned
about relocating the commuter lot from its present location and the
result it may have on commuters using the lot. The site is ideal for its
present use, and the City has also found other opportunities to use this
convenient location for such things as junk amnesty day, and may in the
future find this property suitable for other public purposes. If the
Council to serious about pursuing a design for cloverleaf access to the
freeway off of Highway 25, it seems prudent to maintain its present use
as a commuter lot and thus have it available if needed by MN/DOT in the
future. The staff does feel that the County Board and County Attorney
have been slow in providing a quit claim deed that should have been given
to us years ago and questions the number of restrictions that are being
placed on the property when other communities or townships are not
receiving the same type of restrictions, but 1f it is our intent to
continue to use the property as a commuter lot or for any type of highway
purpose, the restrictions do not become a problem. At this point, staff
is not convinced that relocating the commuter lot would be beneficial for
the City in that it may discourage use by commuters and encourage
-25-
1A
L
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
commuters to again utilize the downtown lots for convenience. If the
Council agrees, Mr. Dolly should be informed of the City's intent so he
doesn't continue with his efforts needlessly.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Pebruary 28, 1989, County Board minutes; Copy of May 18, 1982,
and March 27, 1984, minutes indicating similar transfers without any
restrictions noted.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
On Priday morning, the City received a quit claim deed from the County Attorney
conveying the commuter lot to the City. As expected, the quit claim deed
contained a very restrictive reversion clause on the last page which the City
staff feels is inappropriate and should be revised. Regardless of what action
is taken by the Council concerning Mr. Dolly's proposal, the staff has
reservations about the reversion clause in that it appears it is ver
restrictive; and even at this point, since the City is not utiliz�the entire
property for a commuter parking lot, the County could actually take the
property away from us now. The staff is not opposed to a reversion clause if
this is applied to all parcels being transferred by the County to other
communities; but we feel it should be revised to allow the City to use the
co;mm;ter parking lot for other public purposes without losing control of the
property. The staff wiii nave additlonai intormation on Monday night to
discuss with the Oouncil concerning this reversion clause and possible options
we may want to consider.
-26-
C�-I-strictions
29/89 WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
cPhail presented to the Board a Quit Claim deed he drafted for their review, conveying
e Monticello commuter lot property to the City. He stated that it contained the sae..
as in 1983, i.e., that it be used for highway purposes only. He further
.tated that he added a Reversion Clause that the property be used and maintained forever
as a public parking lot, and if any part of the property is not used for this purpose, it /
will revert back to the County. He also suggested that the County request that the City
formally accept it at a meeting and provide us with a copy of the minutes showing their
acceptance. Schillewaert then moved to authorize the signatures of the Chairperson and
County Coordinator an the Quit Claim Deed under the conditions as outlined therein.
Wittkowski seconded. Vote as follows: Sdhillewaert, Wittkowski, Bogenrief, Nelson — Aye.
Engstrom — Nay. Motion carried 4-1. MacPhail stated that he will forward the deed to the
City and get it properly recorded.
Bruce Thielen, Parks Administrator, presented agenda items at 9:32 A.M.
Thielen noted that he has been working with other agencies in an attempt to streamline
the park system. He said it is his goal to transfer some of the smaller parks to otha+-
governmental agencies. In response to his letter, the Minnesota DNA has expressed an
interest in pursuing acquistion of 12 acres of the Lind County Park in Silver Creek
Township between Eagle b Little Eagle Lakes; therefore, he is seeking authorization for
transfer of the property. On a action by Engstrom, seconded by Scnillewaert, all
voted to authorize the transfer of Lind County Park to the Minnesota Dept. of Natural
Resources Trails b Waterways and authorize the proper signatures on a Quit Claim Deed
stating that it remain in public use.
Thielen stated that one of Pb21s requests for rezoning (Trygve Moll) has a 4.3 acre
parcel wnicn the owner wishes to dedicate in lieu of the park dedication fee. He noted
that in the past we have taken the Cash but in this case it warrants taking,_. the
property (outlat B of the Holl property) as recommended by the Parks Advisory Board._.
Following some further discussion the Board concurred to support the recommendation of
the Parks Advisory Board to accept the property rather than the park dedication fees on
this particular parcel.
Thielen said that upon acceptance of Outlat B, this is the time to look at acquiring
the property Just west of the park in the flood plain. He added that he has talked
with the GRR and there are no funds available from thea; however, the Nature
Conservancy would obtain an option to hold the property for one or two years fat no
cost to the County) giving him time to work an obtaining state or federal funding to
purchase it. He said it would mat Commit the County in any way. We could make those
opt one contingent upon the County receiving the state or federal funding. He added
that the Township was enthusiastic about this option and even made a action to approve
the utili:ation of the Nature Conservancy. There was Considerable further, discussion
and Bagonrief expressed concern about the Cost per acre, access to park, his budget
isolications, etc. Thielen responded by stating that it is his plan to @@rely extend
the trail system and would raised the open areas with native grasses... that it would
not be a park with a lot of activity but rather acre of a *passive' park.
Nelson expressed her supbort for the Conservancy securing and holding the options. She
also suggested that a motion be made on the earlier concurrence with the Parks Advisory
Board. Schillewaert saved to concur with the recommendation of the Parks Advisory
Board accepting the 4.3 acres of property next to Otsego Park (Holl property) instead
of the park dedication fees. Bogenrief seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Sch111ewaert to authorize Thielen to proceed with the 1 or 2 year
e
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date .,--; 17 1086 - Resolution No. •54-21
` Motion by Commissioner Boaenrief SeconZcd by Commissioner Enasc.om
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS. the State of Minnesota, pursuant to Mianegota Statutes -161.16 and 161.24, haw
previously conveyed to Wright County certain portions. of real estate foe highway pur-
poses Iocated. along and adjacent to Interstate Highway No. 94+,
AND WHEREAS, port:onstof this said real estate im located is Clearwater Township (TL2=::,
R26W, RZ7W) in Wright Couaty,
AND WHEREAS, certain portions of this said real estate for highway purposes should cart
appropriately be under township jurisdiction,
AND WHEREAS. these said portions of real estate include both roadways and adjacent lands,
AND WHEREAS, is is the desire of the Wright -County Board to convey approximately 16.7
acres of real estate, inclusive 'of roadways, which is described on the attaehad Legal
descri pcion,
AND WHEREAS, this conveyance is eonciageac upon the Clearwater Township Board of
Supervisiors waiving the hearing requirements for county road revocations as found in
Chapter 163. 11, subdivision: SA, is the for= of a Letter to Wright County from the
CLearwacez Township Board,
THEREFORE Br IT RESOLVED, by the Wright County Board of Cocnissiosers• that the real
r tscacr dese ibed herein be conveyed to the Township of Clearvacar.
YES
NO'
McAlpine I
McAlpine
Bagenrief r
Bagenrief
Engstrom r
Engstrom
Nelson If
Nelson
Schillewae rt •
Schillewaert
STATE OF MINESOTA)
ss -
County of Wright )
I, Richard W. Norman, duly appointed, qualified, and acting Clerk to
County Board for the County of Wright, State of Minnesota, do hereby cerci
that I have compared the foregoing copy cf a resolution or motion with the
original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners,
Wright County, Minnesota, at their sessiai held on the t!rh day of
-�� •19 14, now on file in my office, and have found the
came to be true and correct copy thereof.
mess my hand and official seal at Buffalo, Minnesota, this 27.h day of
March 19 BA n
Clerk to the County Board
Att=c--P-ttt to Resol $84-2i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.111 that part of those lands"forhighway purposes located in Government Locs 7 and
8 of Section 7 and in Government Lot 3 of Section 18, Township 122, Range 26 and in
Government Lot 1, Govera*ent Lot 2 and the Northeast quarter all in Section 12,
Toymship 122, -Range 27, Vrigh c Caunty, Minnesota described in a quit claim deed -
recorded in Hook 300 of'deads.-page 714, on file in the office of the County Recorder
in and for said Wright County that lie Southerly of the Southerly right of way line
of Incerstace Highway No, 94,
ALSO:
A 100 foot strip of land for highway purposes located in Government Loc 7 of said
Section 7, and in Government L.ot3 of said Section 18 all in Township 122, Range 26,
Wright County, Minnesota that lits Northeasterly, of the Northeasterly right of way
line of Interstate Highway Number 94 and Southerly of a line 75 feet Southerly of
and parallel with the centerli nsof State Aid Highway Number 75.
Subject to casements, restrictions and reservations if any.
Above descriptions containapp roximacely 16.7 acres inclusive of roadway.
ICU
o/!
^"!!aY 13, 1982
M� L�
_ May 11, 1982
a.-
Wr_ght C^urty Board met in special session on Nay 11, 1982, at 9:00 A.M. with
v Via, Mcilpine, 5oger a£, and Nelson present. Zac--an absent.
Mr. Ar"en, F-wc. See., read the minutes of May 4, 1982. Cn a motion by E:est.---n,
sec^_.ded by .Nelson, all present voted to arrive the mitutes as read after charging
t! -.e word "ask" to "info=", deleting the last sentence UieLLrecht) and &•engine, GE
word ",-sue" to "prosecution" (Jensen) .
William Pete --son, Exte•isien Director, presented his reascrs for asking for ad�+ticral
clerk hire in his departent. Nelson moved '-at we defer a decision on the crsidera_cn
of clerk hi -e in the Mctemsion office and ask the Persernel Cttrnittee to leak at tw.i-
porarl relief help in offices having L:-" ited office pe_-scrrel. Oexx'r^.g on what
re^srendaticn comes f--t:n that Q-nzittee and possible solutio s , t`.e Budget Ccmi t-..ee
would thea review : . Bccerrief secrced the motion. Vcte as fcLeas: Nelson,
Bogen rief - AL. E•gst—m, Mr-U=ixe - 117-v. Zac:.an assent. !•boon failed.
E•gst--u made a moon to aut'-.er<ze Mr. Pet---scn to £+l1 tm pa --a prefessicra posit_rn
in t'ne Extrunsion office. Nelson seconded the motion. Vote as follows: E gst_-em and
Nelson - Ar. Bcgerrief and %r-Upine - DAY. Zac-zn absent. Mnt!.= failed.
Mr. Fingalsen, Ccunti Engineer, -resented Pesolut:on 402-15 rGat_.g to WeIght County's
Five Year Hig: 4ay irpr_•vwP-n.t Program. Nelson moved that Resolution 482-15 be
adhered. E-.gstoam seconded t'm =ticn. Vote as follcrs: Nelson, E:csz-=, Begenrief,
and %Sr-U;i_ne - AY:. Za&--.un-atse^.t.
Ker. Sore^xn and Mich"! J. Wethi.gt=r., Market'^:g Representatives Fzn me -rax, presented
a slide presantat=an on a ;=posed in pr;duc_+•rit•1 a cast of making copies.
On a meticn by �r --e:m�, •e •sad', by P7e!-on +1 pre_= _ .tor: ._ - t` -t o
Exec. Seel. to dra,r UP specifications for bids for new copying equipment.�
Mr. Fi^.galsan ar:lai.ed t`^e Erosion Gant--ol Pro;ec along MM 475 (old #152) . ASC
w,,m provide the engis:eari:q plan and will pay at least $15,000 towards the cost. Mr.
Fi_•:galscn arxcss the total cost to to berwven S_0,000 and $60,000. E:gst—m
moved that we authorize the C-•vnt-r Highway Esg_.eer to prcceed with the critical
Erasion C=rt-ol Project on CSAR 875, at.asFti.g to keep costs as low as possible.
Nelson seconded the mmoticn. All =esent voted to azorove.
Cn a motion by Becenriaf, seconded by Nalscn, all prasant voted to au arize thA
County Engi.esr to secare the necassarl legal descriptions and proceed wit`s a quit
claim deers to trsnafer arprrx=vtely 1/4 of an ace to the City of Alba-.rille for
e as a C:MM-I•tar pas9cI- + of ro pray=cal use to the Ccw..
i
Nelson moved that Resolution 432-I6 recindiz; the ra;cr coL's^or and EAS Ftute
desigratien of a porn-Icn of C-^untl State aid Hi3+ay No. 35, and desi;: ating a new
alJgrr ent for t".e ma;cr eollec;=r and FAS Route far Lhe port-'cn of CCvntf State Aid
Highway No. 35 be adrptad. Bogw%eiaf seconded is motion. Vote as follows: Nelsen,
Bogaar.af, Engst--=, Mc\lpie - AYE. Zachmtan-absent.
F.ngst•-n reported that he had mat with Ditch #10 Catmittes on "crs'ay evening,
May 10, 1982. At this time, t'uy are consider -It; vacat_-..g t'A township
read.
David S. Douglas, C:unty Auditor, aFpeared ba£zre tI% Boa --d at 10:15 A.M.
Cn a motion by Nalson, seconder by Bcgwxiaf, all present voted to appme the
i annual Cn/Cf! Sale bear license application of David Hura (Silvar C --".c G r.- r
Bar) - Silver Creak Township
Mr. JohnSimola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
250 East Bcoadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Office of
"IGHT COUNTY ATTORNEY
WILLIAM S. M.cPHA1L
Phone: 612-682-3900
Wright County Courthouse - Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
March 9, 1989
RE: Commuter Packing Lot Quit Claim Deed
Dear Mr. Simola:
Enclosed herewith please find Quit Claim Deed conveying to the City of
Monticello the same interests which was conveyed to Wright County by
the State or. Minnesota. Please bring to the council's attention the
Reversion Clause on the last page and also the Waivec of Maintenance
Rights, which the County has already expended money foc. Inocder that
there be a pcopec record made this time, the Board respectfully
requests the city council to formally approve and accept the Deed, and
also requests that the Deed be recorded.
Thank you very much foc your cooperation.
Very sincerely yours,
William S. MacPhail
Wright County Attorney
WSM:lyd
Enc.
CC: Richard Norman, County Coordinator
Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineec
F1
0
3
QUIT CLAIM DEED
The County of Wright having acquired the real estate hereinafter
described for highway purposes, and the County Board of said County
having determined that the same is no longer needed by said County for
highway purposes, and that the same may be conveyed and quit claimed
to the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, Upon said determination and pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 163.11, Subdivision 5, said County of Wright, in
consideration of the future maintenance, improvement or reconstruction
by Grantee of such roadways, the County of Wright, Grantor, hereby
conveys and quit claims to the City of Monticello, Grantee, for
iighway purposes, all its interest including any conditions,
restrictions, covenants and easements that run with the land, together
with and including the right of access control as shown herein; see
exception to access conveyance as described heroin; except that access
to Trunk Highway No. 392, renumbered 94, to Trunk Highway No. 129,
renumbered 152, or to Trunk Highway No. 25, from the lands herein
described shall be restricted as hereinafter set forth in the
reservation clause; and subject to the Reversion Clause; in and to the
real estate situate in the County of Wright, Stato of Minnesota,
described as follows:
Pago 1 of 5 0
PROPERTY DESCRUIrION OF COM LITER PARKING LOT ALONG 1-94 11; M NTICELLO
All that part of the S� of the S.W.k of Section 11, Township 121 North, Runge 25 West,
which lies 33 feet northeasterly of a line running parallel with Line 1 described
a
below and southwesterly of Line 2 described below:
LINE 1 (This constitutes the Centerline of the Frontage Road)
cannencing at a point on the east line of said Section 11, 99.8 feet
north of the southeast corner thereof; thence run northwesterly at a
bearing of N 64.56'00" W (the east line of said Section 11 is assumed to
bear North) for a distance of 209.9 feet; thence proceeding at a bearing
of N 75' 26'00" W for a distance of 4925.7 feet along the Centerline of
Westbound I-94; thence proceeding at a bearing of S 14' 34'00" W
for a distance of 217.0 feet to the point of beginning of Line 1;
thence proceeding at a bearing of S 75` 26'00" E for a distance of
288.1 feet; thence proceeding on an 8'00 tangential curve concave to
the southwest (having a central angle of 27` 00'00") for a distance of
337.5 feet; thence proceeding on tangent to said curve at a bearing of
S 4$• 26'00" E for a distance of approximately 755 feet and there terminating.
LME 2 (This constitutes the southerly R/W limits of I-94 and the westerly R/W
limits of Trails Highway No. 25)
commencing at the point of beginning for Line 1; thence proceeding at a
bearing of N 14° 34"00" E for a distance of 33 feet to the FJW line of
I-94 and the point of beg ming, of Line 2; thence proceeding southeasterly
along the southerly R/W line of I-94 parallel to and 184 feet southwesterly
of the centerline of WPstt-:v4nd I-94 fv- a cis: nce Cf aprrc:s::atel, 350
feet; thence proceeding southeasterly along the R/W line of I-94 for a
�. distance of approximately 600 feet to a point 280 feet southwesterly
(measured at right angles) of the centerline of Westbound 1-94; thence
proceeding southeasterly along the R/W line of I-94 for a distance of
approximately 490 feet to a point 465 feet southwesterly (measured at
right angles) of the centerline of Westbound 1-94 and 75 feet northwesterly
(measured at right angles) of the centerline of T.H. 25; thence proceeding
southwesterly along the westerly WW line of T.N. 25 for a distance of
approximately 65 feet to a point 75 feet northwesterly (arasured at
right angles) of the centerline of T.N. 25; thence proceeding southwesterly
along the RfW line of T.H. 25 for a distance of approximately 115 feet to
a point 50 feet northeasterly (measured at right angles) of Line 1. (This
point on Line 1 is approximately 20 feet from the Line 1 termination point);
thence proceeding southwesterly toward the termination point of Line 1 to a
point 33 feet northeasterly (measured at right angles) of Line 1 and there
term nna ting.
'ihe above tract of land lies within the S .of the S.W.k of Sec. 11-121-25 and
contains 2.4 acres, more or less, exclusive of the present road right-of-uany.
Pago 2 of 5
(9
1]
RESERVATIONS CLAUSE:
Subject to the following restriction and reservations:
No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No. 392 renumbered 94,
to Trunk Highway No. 129 renumbered 152 or to Trunk Highway No. 25
from the lands herein described and conveyed in Parcel 3 on S.P.
25-23, in Parcels 6, 8, 8A,'18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 35A,
36, 37, 38 and 39 Rev. on S.P. 152-129-21-1, in Parcels 29 and 35 on
S.P. 8610 (152-129) 901, in Parcels 329, 335, 337, 429 and 437 on SP.
8680 (94=392) 901, in Parcels 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 27, 28, 39,
40, 42, 208, 212, 220, 220A, 221, 239 and 321 on S.P. 8680 (94=392)
902 and Parcels 7A, 9, 12, 14 and 17 on S.P. 8680 (94-392) 903; except
that access shall be permitted within a distance of 50 feet on each
side of the following described line: From a point on the east line
of Section 11, Township 121 North, Range 25 West, distant 99.8 feet
north of the southeast corner thereof; run northwesterly at an angle
of 64 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds from said east section line
(measured from north to west) for 209.9 feet; thence deflect to the
left at an angle of 10 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds for 3349.8 feet;
thence deflect to the left at an angle of 77 degrees 31 minutes 00
seconds for 546.5 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 8
degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds for 186.2 feet; thence deflect to the
right at an angle of 113 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds for 300 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run
southeasterly on the last described course for 600 feet and there
terminating; also access shall be permitted along a line run parallel
with and distant 33 feet esteriy of the west line of Section 36,
Township 121 North, Range 24 West; also access shall be permitted
along the following described line: Beginning at the point of
intersection of the southerly extension of thec-li:c of aloc-� 6 of
the Plat of Blocks A, B and C in Government Lot 9of said Section 36
with a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet southerly of the
north line Section 1, Township 120 North, Range 24 West; thence run
southerly to a point distant 75 northeester)y (measured at right
angles) of the point of termination of Line 1 described below and
there terminating:
Line 1. Beginning at a point on the east line of said Section 1,
distant 953.8 feet north of the east quarter corner thereof;
thence run northwesterly at an angle of 57 degrees 57
minutes 00 seconds from said east section line (measured
from north to west) for 2338.9 feet and there terminating$
also access shall be permitted along the following described line:
Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet
southerly of the north line of said Section 1, distant 1.00 feet
easterly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant
384 feet northeasterly of Line 2 described below; thence run northerly
to a point distant 33 feet southwesterly (measured at right angles) of
a point on Line 3 described below, distant 61.7 feet northwesterly of
its point of termination and there terminating;
Line 2. Beginning at a point on the east line of said Section 1,
distant 972.44 feet north of the east quarter corner
thereof; thence run northwesterly at an angle of 45 degrees
00 minutes 00 seconds from said east section line (measured
from north to west) for 2688.92 feet; thence deflect to the
.left at an angle of 36 degrees 24 minutes 00 seeonda for
669.1 feet and there terminating;
Pago 3 of 5 ��
Line 3. From the point of termination of Line 2 described above, run
northeasterly at right angles to said Line 2 for 217 feet to
the point of beginning of Line 3 to be described; thence
deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds for 100 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 2
degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 8 degrees 49
minutes 00 seconds) for 440.8 feet; thence on tangent to
said curve for 1069.4 feet; thence deflect to the right on a
12 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 49 degrees
15 minutes 00 seconds) for 410.4 feet and there terminating;
The State of Minnesota reserves a perpetual drainage easement,
including the installation and maintenance of related drainage
structures on that part of the lands herein conveyed in Government
Lots 7 and 8 of Section 7, Township 122 North, Range 26 west, which
lies within a distance of 25 feet northwesterly and 50 feet
southeasterly of Line 4 described below:
Line 4. From a point on the east and west quarter line of Section
12, Township 122 North, Range 27 west, distant 991.5 feet
west of the east quarter corner thereof, run southeasterly
at an angle of 36 degrees 43 minutes 00 seconds from said
east and west quarter line (mc-:asured from east to south) for
727.3 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30
minute 00 second curve (delta angle 16 degrees 15 minutes 00
seconds for 1083.3 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for
335.5 feet to the. point of beginning of Line 4 to be
described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 231.7 feet; thence deflect
�— to the right on a 38 degree 11 minute 50 second curve (delta
angle 66 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds) for 174.0 feet and
there terminating; r
also the State of Minnesota reserves a perpetual drainage easement,
including the installation and maintenance of related drainage
structures on that part of the lands herein conveyed in Government Lot
3 of Section 32, Township 122 North, Range 25 West, which lies within
a distance of 25 feet on each side of Line 5 described below:
Line 5. From a point.'on the west line of Section 30, Township 122
North, Range 25 West, distant 2036.3 feet north of' the
southwest corner thereof, run southeasterly at an angle of
57 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds from said west section line
(measured from south to east) for 8106.3 feet; thence
deflect to the left on a 0 degree 30 minute 00 second curve
(delta angle 2 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds) for 453.3
feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 276.7 feet to the
point of beginning of Line 5 to be described; thence deflect
to the left at an angle of 87 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds
for 600 feet and there terminating.
Pago 4 of 5 ��
(' \ REVERSION CLAUSE 2
Grantee agrees that the subject property shall be used and
maintained forever as a public parking lot. If any part of the
property herein conveyed shall not be used and maintained for this
purpose, or if any part shall be used for any other purpose
inconsistent with such purposes, then all the right, title, and
interest in and to the property and to the improvements thereon, shall
revert to and revest in Grantor, as fully and completely as if this
instrument had not teen executed.
WAIVER OF MAINTENANCE RIGHTS
Grantee, by acceptance of this deed, specifically waives the
provisions of M.S. 163.11, Subd. 5b, and specifically agrees Grantor
shall not be liable for maintenance pursuant to said statute.
Nn 'Ipp'i tar, dile hereon. COUNTY SOF WRIGHT
14—By IVAX.�.atw- \
Arfyn`N son Its Board Chairman
7
By i " .w—
R charrman Its County
Coordinator
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this �°day of
March, 1989, by Arlyn Nelson and Richard Norman, thu _hairman of the
County Board and County Coordinator of Wright County, a corporation
under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the County Board.
n
This Instrument was drafted by: Notary Public
William S. MacPhail
Wright County Attorney
J ; a•1.•,.,:,, �wi;au
Wright County Court House•'U;u.m
Buffalo, MN. 55313
(612) 682-3900, Ext. 110
Attorney I.D. 966151
Page 5 of 5
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
12. Consideration of approving Request for Proposals on curb -side recycling
and authorization to advertise. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the February 13 meeting, the City Council approved the recycling plan
with some modifications and authorized the recycling committee to prepare
a request for proposals for contract curb -side recycling in Monticello.
That task, which took significant efforts of the recycling committee over
the past month, has been completed, and the document is enclosed for your
review. The City Attorney is reviewing the document at this time, and we
expect to have his comments by Monday evening.
Basically, the request for proposals details the existing municipal solid
waste disposal activities in the city of Monticello and outlines the
requirements of the City's curb -side recycling plan.
The request for proposals gives a schedule of events with scheduled
completion dates, scope of the services to be provided by the curb -side
recycling contractor, and the general conditions under which he has to
operate. The RFP includes the pickup of three basic materials,
newspaper, bi-metal and aluminum beverage cans, and glass. It includes
an option for an office paper pickup and also an option for additional
recyclable materials, as well as the possibility in the future to change
materials. The contract period will be for three years beginning July 6,
L_ 1989, and will allow the City or the recycling contractor, upon 120 days
notice, to dissolve the contract.
The information to be provided by the contractor allows him/her to be
flexible, yet should give the City enough information to select a
contractor by April 10, 1989, with which to enter into final contract
negotiations and ultimately execute a contract by May 9, 1989. Please
review the RFP in detail and bring your comments or suggestions to Monday
evening's meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the request for proposals
and authorize its release through direct mailing to various
contractors and advertisement through the newspapers.
2. A second alternative would be to alter or modify the request for
proposals based upon discussion at Monday evening's Council meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the recycling committee consisting of
Councilmember Dan Blonigen, City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller,
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill, Public works Director John Simla,
-27-
it
m
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
and Building and Zoning Official Gary Anderson, that the Council approve
the RPP as included with this agenda packet and authorize its release as
indicated in alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the request for proposals.
-28-
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TO PROVIDE CONTRAC" NRB -SIDE RECYCLING SERVICES
FOR
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
I. Introduction
The City of Monticello, Minnesota, is requesting proposals from qualified
recycling firms to provide curb -side recycling services in the city of
Monticello.
II. The City of Monticello currently contracts with a refuse hauler for the
pickup of municipal solid waste twice per week on Mondays and Thursdays
from all residential property within the community. Individual pickups
are made up of 906 single family homes; with 426: mobile homes,
individual apartments, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, and townhouse
units; making a total of 1,332 individual pickups. There are currently
16 apartment buildings with 18 or less units for a total of 178 units,
and 11 apartment buildings ranging from 24 units to 48 units for a total
of 327 units. The total apartment units is 505.
Hauling records for the past 2-114 years show that 5,916 cubic yards of
mixed municipal waste is picked up from the above residential units on an
annual basis. This yardage does not include leaves, but does include
grass clippings. Grass clippings will not be included in the City's
pickup beginning the sunnier ul 1963.
Detailed hauling records are available and can be reviewed at the City of
Monticello, City Hall, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota, 55362.
A pre -proposal conference will be held on Tuesday, March 28, 1989, at the
Monticello City Hall at 2:00 p.m. for all prospective proposers. All
prospective proposers will be required to familiarize themselves with the
layout of the city of Monticello and the requirements of the curb -side
recycling program. Specific questions concerning the request for
proposals can be addressed to John Simola, Public Works Director, at
(612) 295-2711.
The term of the contract services shall be three years with an option for
renewal at the end of the contract term. Contract services, which will
consist of pickup of three recyclable materials on every other Thursday
and marketing of same, will commence on July 6, 1989.
III. Schedule of Events
Item Scheduled Completion Date
1. Submittal of proposals April 3, 1989
2:00 p.m., City Hall
2. Selection of contractor April 10, 1989
�� io
f
Request for Proposals
Curb -side Recycling
City of Monticello
Page 2
Item Scheduled Completion Date
3. Final contract negotiations April 17, 1989
4. Contract executed May 9, 1989
5. Start of contract services July 6, 1989
N. Scope of Services
The proposal shall be submitted in duplicate on the six (6) forms
provided by the City. The contractor is free to include any other
pertinent information along with the required forms. Failure to complete
the forms provided may result in rejection of the proposal. The proposal
shall detail all costs, including proposed increases for additional units
over the life of the contract, terms and conditions with respect but not
limited to the following items:
1. Provide curb -side pickup and marketing of at least three recyclable
materials consisting of newspaper, aluminum and bi-metal beverage
cans, and glass on every other Thursday in the city of Monticello
beginning July 6, 1989. The hours of pickup shall be no earlier than
8:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m. Should Thursday be a holiday
or should inclement weather exist prohibiting pickup, Friday shall
become recycling day for that pickup only.
2. Contract services shall include but not be limited to the provision
for all wages, benefits, salaries, fuel, consumables, materials, and
supplies.
3. Provide a sufficient number of qualified personnel, vehicles, and
storage facilities as necessary to accomplish curb -side recycling and
marketing in an acceptable manner. The contractor shall provide a
list of personnel, vehicles, equipment, and facilities to be used
with this project. The contractor will utilize two hand scanners to
read bar codes located on each of the recycling contairnars. The City
will furnish two hand scanners (and provide normal maintenance of
sane) to the contractor and will provide residents with three plastic
recycling containers per individual pickup, three 90 -gallon
roll -around containers for apartment buildings above a 4-plex but
leas than a 24 -unit, and nix roll -around 90 -gallon containers for
apartment buildings over 24 units. Should any of the hand scanners
or containers be damaged when in the use of the contractor and not
considered normal wear and tear, the contractor shall be liable for
the repair and/or replacement of the scanners or recycling
containers.
a rA
Request for Proposals
Curb -side Recycling
City of Monticello
Page 3
If a contractor requires additional scanners, he may purchase them
through the City of Monticello at cost. Should the hand scanning
system fail temporarily, the contractor shall provide documentation
of those individuals recycling and the products they recycle until
the necessary repairs can be made. The contractor will not be asked
to do more than three consecutive city wide pickups using the hand
written documentation method without additional compensation.
5. In addition to providing the information regarding recycling pickups
as listed above, the contractor shall provide accurate and verifiable
records of tons of individual materials picked up along with
marketing reports on a monthly basis to be submitted with request for
payment. If a market for a particular material is unavailable and a
market develops for an alternate material, the City shall have the
option of switching materials.
6. All of the contractor's equipment, including vehicles, shall be
clearly marked with the contractor's name and phone number. The
contractor shall maintain the cleanliness and appearance of his
equipment to "the standards of City equipment and the City's contract
refuse hauler."
i
7. The contractor shall provide certificates of insurance for worker's
compensation, general liability, and auto in the following amounts:
General Liability - aggregate $1,000,000
- personal injury $1,000,000
- each occurrence $1,000,000
Auto Liability - $1,000,000
Workmen's Compensation - $ 100,000
The contractor shall hold the City harmless for responsibility for
any recycled materials once they come into the possession of the
contractor.
8. The contract shall provide for a monthly rate per unit for individual
pickups and a separate monthly rate for multiple units above a
d-plex. The contract shall provide payment for all households within
the city of Monticello whether they are recycling or not. The base
rate will be determined by 1,332 individual pickups and 505 multiple
unit pickups. The pickup of recyclable materials at five (5) City
buildings every two weeks shell be incidental and included in the
base bid. The contractor shall keep all monies from the sale of
recyclable materials picked up at curb side.
The City will track all new construction through a building permit
process: and as occupancy to granted, the City will tally the new
units and make additions to the contract sum on a quarterly basis.
Request for Proposals
Curb -side Recycling
City of Monticello
Page 4
The contractor shall request payment on a monthly basis, and his
requests for payment shall include all the necessary documentation
requested. payment will be made no sooner than 15 days and no later
than 30 days after acceptance of the request for payment by the City
of Monticello.
9. The contractor shall include with his proposal a statement of
qualifications and financial responsibility. In addition, the
contractor shall describe in detail his storage facilities for the
recyclables, his marketing efforts and plans, and proposed
transportation. He shall also include a detailed set of
specifications regarding the preparation and condition of the
recycled materials to be picked up at curb -side.
10. As an option, the City of Monticello requests a cost per pickup for
the pickup of office paper every other Thursday at various sites
throughout the city. Minimum number of pickup points will be three.
If it is feasible to recycle this office paper, the City will attempt
to establish other pickup points throughout the city and pay the
CotiLractor at the proposed rate per pickup per month.
11. The contract shall have a provision tar a termination clause dlluwinq
either party termination rights upon 120 days written notice to the
other party.
12. Bonds: No proposals will be considered unless sealed and filed with
the City Administrator of Monticello and accompanied by a cash
deposit, cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond payable to the
City of Monticello, for five percent (59) of the amount of the annual
base proposall to be forfeited as liquidated damages in the event
that the proposal be accepted and contractor shall fail to enter
promptly into a written contract and furnish the required performance
bond.
No proposals may be withdrawn for a period of forty-five (45) days
from the date of opening of proposals. The City of Monticello
reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.
The successful proposer, at the time for the execution of the
contract, shall furnish and at all times maintain a satisfactory and
sufficient bond in full amount of the annual contract as required by
law with a corporate surety satisfactory to the Owner. The Farm of
Bond is that required by statute. Personal sureties will not be
approved. A new yearly contract bond shall be posted no later than
120 days prior to expiration of the current contract bond.
I
I
Request for Proposals
Curb -side Recycling
City of Monticello
Page 5
V. Selection/Negotiation
As set forth herein, the detailed proposals require submittal of the
required forms. A contract will be based upon the City's specifications
and the proposal of the contractor.
All proposals submitted on time will be reviewed and a firm selected for
final contract negotiation by the City Council. The selection will be
based upor., but not limited to, the following consideration:
1. The qualifications and experience of the contractor related to
curb -side recycling and marketing.
2. The financial capability of the contractor to provide proper bonding,
insurance, and undertake this project as well as his/her commitment
to the business, including years of experience in the solid waste
and/or recycling field.
3. A description of the personnel, equipment, vehicles, storage
facility, and marketing plans of the contractor.
4. A list of references identifying customers with your firm Fut .Mich
you currently provide similar recycling services and a description of
the services provided.
All the proposals should include sufficient information to evaluate the
firm based upon the above criteria as well as any additional information
which would assist the City in making its decision.
VI. Submittal of Detailed Proposals
Two (2) copies of a detailed proposal muat be received at the Monticello
City Rall, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362, by 2:00 p.m.,
on Monday, April 3, 1989, in order to be considered. Clearly mark the
outside of the envelope "1989 Contract Services, Monticello Curb -side
Recycling Program."
NOTE: This is a request for proposals. The City reserves the right to
reject all proposals, negotiate individually with one or more
firms, and select the firm on the basis of all factors, not just
the price, or to break off negotiations with any contractor if
deemed in the best interest of the City of Monticello by the City
Counts 1.
Request for Proposals
Curb -side Recycling
City of Monticello
l Page 6
VII. Inquiries
Questions or clarifications of this request for proposals should be
directed in writing to John Simola, Public Works Director, Monticello
City Hall, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362, (612) 295-2711
or 295-3170.
Dated: March 13, 1989 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Rick Woltsteller
City Administrator
C
Ken Maus, Mayor
I
PROPOSAL FORM 1 OF 6
FOR
CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
(To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms)
To the City Council of the
City of Monticello
Monticello, Minnesota
Members of the City Council:
1. The following proposal is made for a curb -side recycling project for the
City of Monticello.
2. The undersigned certifies that the "Request for Proposals" has been
carefully examined, and that the site of the project has been personally
inspected. The undersigned declares that the amount and nature of the
work to be done is understood, and that at no time will misunderstanding
of the scope of the work or "Request for Proposals" documents be
pleaded. On the basis of the Request for Proposals and the information
included on the required proposal forms, the undersigned proposes to
furnish all necessary men, vehicles, equipment, and facilities as
necessary to complete the project in the manner specified and to accept
oc fUll CO.:,,.enssf.on therefor the sum stated below.
3. ITEM I: BASE BID "A":
Curb -aide recycling every other Thursday to include marketing of
materials from:
1. 1,332 individual units at
per unit per month e S
2. 505 multiple units (27 buildings) at
per unit per month e $
3. Number 1 + Number 2 v S total monthly cost.
1. BASE DID "A": (12 X Number 3)
S total annual cost.
PROPOSAL FORM 1 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
4. ITEM II: ADDITIONAL UNITS OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT ADDED QUARTERLY.
1. Individual units at $ per unit per month.
2. Multiple units at S per unit per month.
5.
ITEM III: ALTERNATE sID.
Office paper pickup and marketing from three (3) sites on every other
Thursday at $ per site per month.
6.
The owner reserves the right to award a contract based upon the amounts
included in either Items I, II, or III, and other information as
presented on the remaining proposal forms, whichever is in the best
interests of the City.
7.
The undersigned further proposes to execute a contract agreement and to
furnish satisfactory bond no later than May 9, 1989. The undersigned
further proposes to begin work as specified, to complete the work as
specified, and to maintain at all times an annual contract bond approved
by the City in an amount equal to the total annual bid.
8.
Accompanying this proposal is a bid security in the amount of 59 required
to be furnished by the Request for Proposals, the same being subject to
forfeiture in the event of default by the undersigned.
9.
In submitting this proposal, is it understood that the right is reserved
by the Owner to reject any or all proposals and to waive informalities.
10.
This proposal may not be withdrawn after the opening of the proposals and
shall be subject to acceptance by the owner for a period of 45 calendar
days from the opening thereof.
11.
If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation:
12. If a partnership, state full names of all co-partners:
H
PROPOSAL FORM 1 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
OFFICIAL ADDRESS FIRM NAME
DATE: r 1989
H
BY
Title
BY
Title
PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6
FOR
CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PRojECf
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
(To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms)
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
I. Material 1: Newspaper
A. Description of types of paper accepted:
B. Conditions of acceptance:
14
PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
II. Material 2: Glass
A. Description of types of glass accepted:
B. Conditions of acceptance:
I
PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
III. Material 3: Aluminum and bi-metal cans
A. Description of types of cans accepted:
B. Conditions of acceptance:
I
PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
IV. Office paper pickup, if applicable.
A. Description of types of office paper accepted:
B. Conditions of acceptance:
V. Other materials with available markets included in proposal:
A. Description of materials:
I
PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
B. Conditions of acceptance:
P
PROPOSAL FORM 3 OF 6
FOR
CURL} SIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
L FOR THE
CITY OF MONPICELLO, MINNESOTA
(To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms)
VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, AND PERSONNEL
I. Vehicles Type Capacity Model Year
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
8.
II. Equipment 41e Capacity Model Year
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
I
0
I
PROPOSAL FORM 3 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
III. Personnel Position Years in Position
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
LN
9)
PROPOSAL FORM 4 OF 6
FOR
CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
FOR THE
CITY OF moTPICELLO, MINNESOTA
(To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms)
PRODUCTS MARKETING AND STORAGE
I. MARKETINC PLAN: Describe marketing plan, including personnel and efforts
of company to ensure continued marketing of products picked up in
Monticello.
II. STORAGE FACILITIES: Describe storage facilities, including capacity and
location.
0
C
PROPOSAL FORM 5 OF 6
FOR
CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
(To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms)
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
A. CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE: Give description of past experience in solid
waste and recycling.
B. CLIENT LIST: Include client, years or months of service, service
provided, contact person, and phone number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
IN
PROPOSAL FORM 6 OF 6
FOR
CURS SIDE RECYCLING PROJEC':
PROPOSAL FORM 6 OF 6
(CONTINUED)
C. Please list any other communities or clients to whom you have provided a
performance bond. Also indicate dollar amount or bond supplied in each
case.
FIRM NAME
SIGNATURE
TITLE
DATE
C
0
I
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
13. Consideration of approving specifications and authorizing advertisement
for bids for recycling containers. (.1.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of our recycling plan, the City of Monticello will provide three
recycling containers for individual pickups in the City of Monticello.
Half of the cost of these containers will be billed back to the residents
on the water and sewer bill. Since the estimated cost of these
containers is in excess of $15,000, the City needs to develop a set of
specifications and advertise for bids for the containers.
The City staff has drafted a simple set of specifications and delivery
conditions based upon the type of container presented to the Council at
the February 13 meeting. The containers will be three colors to denote
different materials: yellow for newspaper, blue for cans, and red for
glass. In addition to the colors denoting different materials, the
containers will be labeled and will have a modified City logo imprinted
on the front.
The bids for containers are expected to be due on April 3 at the same
time we receive proposals on curb -side recycling. A copy of the
specifications is enclosed for your review.
H. ALTERNATIVE WrIUNS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the specifications for the
recycling containers and authorize advertisement for bids to be
returned April 3, 1989.
2. The second alternative would be not to advertise at this time but to
delay advertisement until after receipt of the request for
proposals. This would not leave us sufficient time to take delivery
of the materials and does not appear to be practical.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the
specifications as drafted and authorize advertisement for bids as
outlined in alternative I1.
It should be noted that this request does not include the 90 -gallon
containers, as they are of a small enough quantity that they can be
purchased through quotes rather than the bidding process.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the specifications on containers.
-29-
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR
CURB -SIDE RECYCLING CONTAINERS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for furnishing 4,200 curb -side
recycling containers will be received by the City of Monticello until 2:00 p.m.
on Monday, April 3, 1989. These bids will be publicly opened and read aloud at
that time.
Each bid shall be submitted on a proposal form which is attached to the
specifications. Specifications are on file in the office of the City
Administrator, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362. Specifications
will be furnished free upon request.
All bids must be sealed, marked "Curb -side Recycling Containers," and addressed
to the City Administrator. Each bid shall be accompanied by a certified check,
cashier's check, or bid bond in the amount of 59 of the total amount of the
bid. Bids shall be based upon such payment for the product described in the
specifications.
The right is reserved to reject any or all bids or to waive informalities
therein. Bids may be rejected for any alterations or erasures. No bid may be
withdrawn for a period of 45 days after opening.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MONTICELLO
1. DATED: MARCH 13, 1989
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
I
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
CURD -SIDE RECYCLING CONTAINERS
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INVITATION FOR BIDS
1. Time and Place:
Sealed bids will be received by the City of Monticello, 250 East
Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota until 2:00 p.m., Monday, April 3, 1989,
for furnishing and delivery of 4,200 curb -side recycling containers as
specified.
2. Intent of the Contract:
Furnish and deliver to the City of Monticello 4,200 curb -side recycling
containers.
3. Bid Bond:
All bids must be accompanied by a certified check or bidders bond made
payable to the City of Monticello for at least 5% of the amount of the
proposal, said surety to be forfeited to the City if the bidder is
awarded the bid and fails to enter into a contract in the specified
!rind.
4. Specifications:
The bid containers shall be new, currently advertised, standard
production models with all the latest changes and features. The
following specifications contemplate the furnishing and delivery of the
containers to the City of Monticello. The containers shall be bid as
complete units in the colors opacified, including all the apecified
labeling.
A. Size:
TTcontainers shall have the following inside bottom dimensions:
17-1/2 inches to 18 inches wide by 13-9/16 inches to 13-3/4 inches
deep and 11 inches to 12 inches in height.
B. Construction:
The containers shall he atrong, durable, injection molded,
polyethylene plastic with heavy rib -type external reinforcing. The
walls and bottom shall be of solid construction with a minimum of
four small diameter drain holes in the bottom of each container.
The containers shall be otackable and shall have integral reinforced
lift handles.
The front of the container shall have a traditional cut-out for
deposits of recyclable materials when the containers are stacked.
The construction and materials of the container shall be ouch that
they do not deteriorate from the effects of the sun, nor break,
fracture, or collapse from the effects of the extreme temperatures
found in Monticello when used for the purposes for which they were
intended, curb -aide recycling. 1
Specifications
City of Monticello
Curb -side Recycling Containers
Page 2
C. Quantity and Color:
The total quantity of containers shall be 4,200. The vendor shall
provide 1,400 yellow containers, 1,400 red containers, and 1,400 blue
containers; FOB Monticello, Minnesota.
D. Labeling:
Each of the containers shall have imprinted on it the City of
Monticello logo as provided elsewhere in the specifications. The
logo shall be in an offsetting color to the container.
The yellow containers shall have imprinted on them the word
"NEWSPAPER;" the blue containers shall have the word "CANS;" and the
red containers shall have the word "GLASS." The label shall be
imprinted in an offsetting color to the container, and the labeling
shall be made as durable as the containers and expect to last for the
life of the containers.
5. Warranty:
The successful bidder shall furnish a minimum one-year warranty and shall
properly replace or repair defective containers for defects in materials,
WIwIC -61iShip, ur inddequate design at no cost to the purchaser in
accordance with such warranty. The warranty shall begin on the date of
the container's first use, no earlier than July 6, 1989, and no later
than December 31, 1989. Any warranty less than one year shall be noted
in writing with the bid as an exception.
6. Delivery Points:
The bidder shall include delivery in their price. The containers shall
be delivered to the City of Monticello.
7. Delivery Dates:
The bidder shall indicate on the attached proposal form the number of
calendar days after receipt of order by which time all specified
containers shall be delivered. A City of Monticello purchase order shall
constitute notification of official order date.
B. Liquidated Damages:
Time of delivery of the containers is an essential and critical provision
of these specifications. If the successful bidder fails to deliver the
containers pursuant to the delivery schedule he/she has indicated on the
proposal form, the purchaser shall have the right to deduct from any
money or monies due or coming due to the successful bidder as liquidated
damages, the sum of $50 per calendar day for each day delivery is
postponed beyond the delivery date as indicated on the attached proposal
1 form, except for delays caused by acts of God or manufacturer strikes
/3
Specifications
f City of Monticello
l Curb -side Recycling Containers
Page 3
which are beyond the control of the bidder. Any sums so deducted are not
to be construed in any sense as a penalty, but rather liquidated damages
sustained by reasons of extra costs incurred by the purchasers.
9. Collusion of Bidders:
Collusion between bidders is cause for rejection of all bids of bidders
thus involved.
10. Detailed Description of the Product Bid:
Along with each bid, the bidder shall include a detailed set of
specifications on the container bid and shall include a sasple of the
container bid.
11. Award:
No 6Td may be withdrawn for a period of 45 days after opening of the
bids.
12. Pa nt:
PayuK, el -all l;a aaJe Wiil;in 30 Jays of delivery of the cc^fairer
0
E,rg/6/T 4
cjTy L060
MONTICELLO
0
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
16. Consideration of further action on the Monticello Celebrate Minnesota
Program. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
If you have read the paper, you probably already know that the City did
not receive the matching funds from the State of Minnesota which were to
be used to finance a portion of the cost to execute two of the Celebrate
Minnesota projects. The two projects included the development of a
nature walking trail on the island in the Mississippi, and the other
project consisted of installation of four community entrance signs. The
bad news, of course, is that we did not get matching funds. The good
news is that sufficient funds were budgeted by Council to allow both
projects to be completed without matching funds. Council is asked to
consider if it wishes to continue this program without the matching funds
and utilize only City funds and the strong backs of the many volunteers
to complete the projects.
When the City established its budget in October 1988, the costs to
complete the projects were preliminary and based on a rough idea of
project costs. In the process of completing the Grant Application in
December of 1988, a refined cost estimate was prepared and it came in
lower than the preliminary budget established in October. Consequently,
the City actually budgeted sufficient funds in October to complete the
island project and to install three of the four community entrance signs
without the match from the State. Please see the attached budget plan
which shows the refined project costs and revised cost allocations given
the denial of matching funds. Also included in parentheses in the table
are the original budget amounts established by Council in October 1988.
You will note that the revised plan calls for a total City contribution
of $54,549 versus the preliminary plan cost estimates of $56,500. Also,
although the City total cost remained the same, the percentage of the
total project cost increased from 288 to 338.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to reaffirm participation in the Celebrate Minnesota Program
and direct the advisory committee to proceed.
2. Discontinue all or a combination of planned Celebrate Minnesota
projects.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Celebrate Minnesota Advisory Committee recommends that Council
reaffirm the original plan. Due to a reduction in the total project
cost, sufficient funds are available to complete the project as
originally intended. The subcommittee would also like to remind council
of the community support for this project as evidenced by volunteer
commitments. "fie Lions Club has allocated 1,500 hours, Rotary $1,000,
and an additional 35 volunteers have come forward.
-30-
l D. SUPPORTING DATA:
C
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
Final budget table based on denial of grant request; Letter of denial;
Copies of certain portions of grant application.
ISLAND ACCESS UPDATE:
Subsequent to submission of the grant application, the City was informed by the
DNR that the island did not belong to the DNR as previously understood. In
fact, the island is controlled by the U.S. Department of Interior. We were
informed by the State that we would need permission from the Department of
Interior to use the island prior to obtaining a DNR permit to cross the river.
In response to this situation, staff submitted an application to the Department
of Interior to use the island for recreational purposes. I was informed that
given the proposed use and management plan, the City should have no problem in
gaining access to the island. I was later informed by the Department of
Interior that the DNR had requested control of the island back in 1982, and
that request has never been resolved.
The Department of Interior is now asking the City to get a letter from the DNR
which withdraws the request submitted in 1982. Given the positive response by
the DNR to this project, I do not think it will be a problem to obtain this
letter.
_31-
CELEBRATE M I NNESOTA/MCNT I CELLO PROJECT FINAL PLAN BASED ON
DENIAL OF STATE MATCHING FUNDS
11'I 'ARCH 10, 1989
j I SOURCE OF FUNDS
'1FINAL BUDGET
IIFINAL IIISCHOOL ICITY ICELEB.
ISTATE (LOCAL ICOMM IPLAY
ICELEBRATE MN
IIBUDGETS (IDISTRICT (OF IMV
IPGM IORGAN I- IVOLUN- IGRND
(PROJECTS:
II (PRELIM)II IST• I
IHNCPPED IZATICNS ITEERS ICOMM
DO
11 BUDGET)iI I I
1 I I
1
(PROJECTS:
11-1 1
l
I
II II I I
I 11` I
$1.000
ILANDSCAPING
11 $32,800 if $0 1$31,800 1
$0 I 1 ll --,4, L_
ICOMMUNITYII
II I I I ! I h ! 3�
{55.000}�Ul,��.
(ENTRANCES
11 ($40,000)1 I !($25,000}f$10,000)I
lyvt/f.
I
I
(ISLAND PARK
11
II $18.982 11 1$10,249 1
$0 i I I $8,733 j
(TRAIL SYSTEM/
II !1 I I I
IBRIDGE ETC.
1 I ($47*000)# 1 1($!9,000)({512,000)!
I (($16,000)(
I
ILEATHERS PLAY
I
I1I i 1$111.500 1 i I 1 $12.500 1$12,500 1
I 1 ( f
$0 1 $5,000 1$15.000 IS51,500 1$15.000
1STRt7CTURE*
I
f I $111,500)(1 ($12,500)1 $12,500)(
I!I � I
�
($0)I ($5,000)1 $1 OS 00)1 551,500)) $15,000)
I
ITOTAL OF
IPROGRAM 8UDGE-TS— 11$163,282 11 $12.500 1$54,549 1
$6 1 $5.000 1$16.000 1$60,233 1$15.000
I($198,500)II($12.500)($56,500)(S22.099),($5.000)($20,000)I$67,500)($t5,000)
PERCENT OF TOTAL
II i1 8%1 33$i
0%1 3%j 10%11 37%1 9%
(61) (282)
(111) (31) (102) (341) (82)
1 •saw:w�c«*'»-vr:sn-« 1 I w�r,r rr«...a• I I .,r w-w+,na-r 1 wo, w-Iuccr. I varxu�w.w
I »_«sw»...«.w I ww:..w+c«:« I rww«. «w. I r»-..�«'«y«
BUDGET DOES NOT INCLUDE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CELEBRATION ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE
FOR SUMMER OF 1990. THESE COSTS TO BE DETERMINED IN 1989 AND INCLUDED IN
IN 1990 BUDGET. BELOW ARE SUGGESTIONS FOR CELEBRATION ACITVITIES.
ACTIVITY IDEAS - "THE CELEBRATION" - SUMMER OF 1990
LITTLE MOUNTAIN
SETTLEMENT PROMO
ARTS FESTIVAL
HISTORICAL WALKING TOUR
TASTE OF MONTICELLO
OLYMPIC TORCH RUN
/I VER RIOES
REGIONAL LITTLE
LEAGUE TOURNEY
JUNK AMNESTY
FISHING CONTEST CANOE RACE
RECOGNITION PROGRAM DEDICATION OF PLAY STRUCTURE
HOMECMNG PARTY PARADE
FIRE HYDRANT PAINTING MONTICELLO OLYMPICS
OLYMPIC BIKE EVENT
FLOWER SOX/BIRD FEEDER PROMOTION
BEST APPLICATION OF CITY LOGO
NEWSPAPER RECOGNITION -YARD OF WEEK ETC.
DO
Community Development Division
900 American Center
150 East Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul. MN 55101-1421
612/296-5005
Fax: 612/290-1290
February 27, 1989
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Celebrate Minnesota 1990
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
The Department of Trade and Economic Development has completed its review of
applications for the Celebrate Minnesota 1990 Grant program. Because of the
limited grant funds available, we are not able to offer you a grant this year.
We received 328 applications for $3,351,915 and were able to award only 84
grants.
However, we hope your community can scale back the project and complete the work
for your 1990 celebration even though grant funds are not available. Of course.
you are still eligible for the many benefits of membership as a Celebrate
Minnesota 1990 community such as the special road signs, visit from the torch
runner, and publicity for your community event.
In addition, Governor Perpich has recommended a $1.0 million appropriation to
the Minnesota legislature to fund additional Celebrate Minnesota 1990 cleanup,
beautification, and community improvement projects. If this recommended
appropriation is passed into law, we will notify you regarding application
procedures, grant amounts, and deadlines.
Best wishes for a successful project.
S t�e l?y`{-
Louis F. Jam oitor
Community Assistance Unit
LFJ:cd
CM/7-CP
I
M Ea WI Opponumrr Empbvm O
/v
02
CA
a
c
11 1
ov 3
qT I
OFZ .
c
M
tot
I
`-'Skg2I
c
8
P
PARk.
�� o0
G?
ISLAND PARK SITE PLAN ,
'The goal at the Island Park Development is to develop a passive,
' natural recreation area on an island now inaccessible to the general
,'public.• By. spanning the channel of the Mississippi with a
removable footbridge, this 7 acres of pocket wilderness will* be'
accessible to those who'want to get away *from the hustle and -
bustle of the nearby• commercial and residential area. The
useability. of the park is enhanced by existing parking area.
.-In aadition, restrooms are located at the nearby West Hatdge Park.
Also, proposed is development of a trail and steps from the parking
area to'•,ttie footbridge.
STATE HIGHWAY 25 w
I
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
17. Consideration of Change Order #1 for Pump House #3, Project 88-01C.
W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
During the pump house project, it was necessary to relocate the slop sink
and demand hot water heater in the generator room, as it was located very
near an electrical control panel. The contractor has given us a cost of
$105 to relocate these items.
Also, during start-up of the pump house and wells #3 and #4, it became
apparent that the water service supplying water for the chlorine booster
system was unvalved and ran continuously 24 hours per day, not just when
needed. The cost to install and wire an electric solenoid valve to
control the water service is $500.
In order to simplify interim operation of the new telemetric system
utilizing the old water tower, it became necessary to add a digital
display to the water tower level transmitter. This unit, located in pump
house #11 will be transferred to the Monte Club Hill once our new
reservoir is built. The cost of adding this digital display is $843.
The total cost for all three of the items included in Change Order ll is
$1,448.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve Change Order #1 for the
pump Muse 13 project in the amount of $1,448.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the change order for
the listed work. This does not appear to be practical, as these
changes are needed for the operation of the system, and OSM has
negotiated the best possible prices with the contractor, Richmar
Construction.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director
that the City Council authorize Change Order #1 to the pump house #3
project for Richmar Construction, Inc., of Fridley, Minnesota, in the
amwnt of $1,448.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Change Order #1.
-32-
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. • SUITE 238
MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55413
CHANGE ORDER NO. .... 1.
5..1,4.49.00......... RE: . ,,,88-01C
Richm.ar .Construction,. . . . . . . . Inc. .. Contractor
............
7776 Alden May
...............................................
Fridley, NM 55432
..................... I..........................
Dear Sir (s)
Under your contract dated ........ AugySt. 10 ...... ....................... 19-08 with
City. of.konticello,. Minnesota ............................. Owner for
Putttp and Pt"house No. 3 and Appurtenant Work.
we are authorized by the owner to hereby direct you to . MOye. the, sink, and, water, heater,
furnish and install solenoid valve -on -the. chlorine supply rater liner add
digital display to water tower level transmitter.
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
. SEE. ATTACHED SHEET
......................................................................
and to odd to (d#iIpV rpyb) the contract, to accordance with contract and speemcmdon. the sum of
.One ,Thousand Four. Hundred Forty. Eight and oo i loo Dollen
There win be in extension of ...151........ days for completion.
The date of completion of contract was .l?731 18 . B8 and now wIII be .06'Ul... I989....
Amount of Original tonlroet Total Addition, Total DOdutlton. COm.Oc1 to Dat.
$227,630.00 $1,448.00 -0- 1 S229,078.00
Approved .......................... 18.... Respectfully Submitted.
................................. I.........
Own.. ORR-SCHELEN-MAY ERO N
Approved19.... 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
..........................
........................................... Par .. ...................
Cowvera.
U
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
PUMP A PUMPHOUSE N0. 3
MONTICELLO. MN 88 -OIC
1) Move sink and water heater to better suit the
room layout after electrical panel installed.
ADD
S 105.00
2) Furnish and install of solenoid valve on water
supply line to chlorinater.
ADD
390.00
3) Wire solenoid valve to operate with either well.
ADD
110.00
4) Add a digital display to the water tower
level transmitter.
ADD
843.00
5) Extend the completion date to cover exterior
painting to June 1, 1989.
-0-
TOTAL FOR CHANGE ORDER
N0. 1
$1,448.00
t
R
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
18. Consideration of additional payment request by City Engineer - OSM.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the City requirements for a preliminary and final plat in the
city of Monticello, the developer must prepare a topographic map of the
area which would include vertical contours of not more than 2 feet.
Individual developers had found it to be very expensive to get
topographic information on a piece -meal basis and requested that the City
obtain this information and charge the developers for use of the
information for their particular properties. As a result, in April of
1987, John Badalich of OSM obtained quotations from firms specializing in
topographic mapping by using aerial photography and presented this
information to the Council. The City Council approved hiring Horizons,
Inc., of Rapid City, South Dakota, to photograph approximately 3,200
acres of the city, including parts of the OAA area, at a cost of
$10,570. In addition to this cost, Mr. Badalich indicated in a letter
dated April 27, 1987, that there would be an additional cost of $2,000
for ground control work that had to be furnished to Horizons for them to
complete the topographic mapping. The project was expected to take one
to two months to complete, but the final product was not available until
approximately August or September.
7 It is my understanding that OSM encountered delays in providing the
ground control information to Horizons in that additional survey work had
to be performed by OSM that they did not originally anticipate. On
September 21, 1987, the City received a billing for the ground control
work from OSM in the amount of $5,856.51 rather than the S2,000
Mr. Badalich had originally indicated his firm would do the work for. As
a result of the bill and the original quote of April 27, I only paid
$2,000 per his quote and indicated in a separate letter that I assumed
the bill would be adjusted accordingly.
As you will note in the July 21 letter from OSM, Mr. Badalich is
requesting additional compensation above the $2,000 to cover the extra
work they had to perform by their under estimating the original cost.
Although I cannot dispute that additional cost may have been incurred by
OSM in performing this work, I felt the City Council authorized the
expenditure of $2,000 for the ground control work based on his letter of
April 27, 1987. Until the project was completed and the billing was
received in September of 1987, I was not aware that the engineering
services were exceeding the $2,000 quote, especially by this large of a
sum. As a result, I indicated to Mr. Badalich that a formal request
before the City Council would have to be made if their firm expected any
payment above the $2,000 quote.
I believe Mr. Badalich will be in attendance at the meeting to explain
hie firm's position regarding this coat overrun and reasons for
requesting the additional compensation.
-33-
t
council Agenda - 3/13/89
B. ALTERNAME ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to authorize payment of the additional
$3,856.51 requested.
2. Agree to a compromise settlement between the original $2,000 estimate
and the actual $5,856 billing,
3. Authorize only the $2,000 payment as quoted originally.
C. STAFF RECOMVENDATION:
As I indicated, the staff does not dispute that OSM may have incurred
additional cost associated with providing the ground control information
for the topo maps but questions why the estimate is only one-third of the
actual cost. The staff feels that the Council may have relied on the
engineer's estimate in deciding to do the topographic napping project,
and had the Council realized the engineering fees would be triple the
estimate, the project may have been cut in scale. In addition, the
project was delaved bavnn9 the June 1°O7 ectimatcd _.,. ..able until
September of 1987; and at no time was the City aware that the engineering
fees were exceeding the estimate by this large of amount. I believe it
would have been appropriate for the engineer to notify the City that
problems were being incurred that would cause the cost to exceed the
estimate, thereby allowing the Council to approve any cost overrun before
they happened. Although the total cost of the project will be exceeding
the estimated cost in April of 1987, the staff is not opposed to
additional compensation being made to OEM if the Council feels it is
appropriate. The staff is concerned about future quotations being
reliable.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Soo agenda supplement from February 27, 1989, Council meeting.
-34-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
19. Consideration of gambling license application - Ducks Unlimited Banquet.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Annually, the Wright County Ducks Unlimited Association holds their
annual banquet at the Monticello Roller Rink, this year scheduled for
May 8, 1989. As part of their activities, the Association has requested
a one -day gambling license from the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control
Board.
The one -day gambling license has been granted by the State in the past
with no apparent problems. If the City council is not opposed to the
State issuing this license, no action is necessary by the Council other
than acknowledging receipt of the application. If the City Council
opposes the application, the City must notify the State Gambling Board
within 60 days of February 27, 1989, that it is opposed, and the State
will not issue the license.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of gambling license application.
-35-
Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION
Room N475 Griggs -Midway Building I FOR BOARD USE ONLY
1821 University Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104.3383
(812)842-0555
...STRUCTIONS: 1. Submit request for exemption at least 30 days prior to the occasion.
-,r , 1-2. When completing form, do not complete shaded areas.
3. Give the gold copy to the Ciry or County. Send the remaining copies to the Board. The copies will be
n -•_ : =t returned with an exemption number added to the form. When your activity is concluded; complete the
PLEASE TYPE financial information, sign and date the form, and return to the Board within 30 days.
0-0,��f�'IC� ll NL /rh )`F.D X Y 1.0 2 7i
Addrlm CAV. cowdv. sm.. 2rp cod.
Kk 3 (fiOff/ Tiel- C( v , et// u> off'v Z
CN.f E. eOfflc.r•. N.m. Ph—Nwnpv In.r,.e.ry Nlmw "7NwnOn
IL rt,ff �;FA �/N i`%S—Z79e— J,._'.�C- /e, •
Ty of Orawdanan If Oft, N-0.1. Org—fg 1Ch.Ck Orr!
❑ Fraternal QVeterans C] IRS
Designation
❑ Religion Other Nonprofit Organization ❑ Incorporated with Secretary of State
NrAffiliate of Parent Nonprofit Organization
N.m. of Mars... Who* AC w will Omw Dn.bl of AC1miT
/►1 o ,,) 7 I c' c -C.0 o 4 o t L /_ / -4 04 P OL
Games Yes No Gross Receipts Value of Prizes Expenses Profit
Bingo
Raffloc
addlewheels
Tipboerds
Pull -Tabs
Uw of Motif
D,anfwfor From Whom Go"U" ER ffl Avow " I DnnlMoi . UC— No
I affirm all information submitted to the Board is true, &ecu- I 1 affirm all financial Information submitted to the Board Is
rate, and complete. / true, accurate, and complete.
,li.•i'i: ' S
r['r•/'!!I /1/71,
chwf F.—I.. off".r Sennw. 11 0.1. Cn.f F..... Offkn iryufw. Om
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt, I admit having been served with notice
that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and will become effective 30 days from the
date of receipt (noted below) by the City or County, unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which specifi-
cally disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within 30
days of the below noted date.
CITY OR COUNTY__ TOWNSHIP
N.m `OI LT..f G. .@ aM, KAY o Cwn1v1 iff"SN. N.m. Riwf M r #Iwd whm COUMV a 1M,w v 6 .TI
q Ii C P li I An / ( / I. ( t/_ _ _
view. of P.rmo R-" RN
O" III*— R.n.y A..Yc.,.f
fI. ,
' l�► / : // .�♦ ! /��q Tod. or.
/..
CO 00020 O. 14, ee1 Wh..•-aw c.rYry•- eW '.hl.. W Ore.til.R.o -4 .-If
►Ihk - dafw.nan aw - c.v a c-.Rv
t
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
20. Consideration of authorizing final payment on County Road 39 Project,
88-01B, and Dundas Circle Project, 88-02 - LaTour Construction. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Both the East County Road 39 Project and the Dundas Circle Project have
been completed and are in operation. There are a few minor items to be
warrantied or completed in the spring. The City Engineer, however, has
recommended final payment; and City staff concurs.
The final cost of the project is $501,318.85. The total amount due the
contractor is $24,932.94. Of this amount, the City will withhold $3,580
until spring. After the minor items have been completed, we would
release all but $1,000 for liquidated damages which are being held for
untimely completion of the lift station on County Road 39. The payment
requested to the contractor at this time amounts to $21,352.94.
The total project cost includes two change orders related to the water
supply line for wells /3 and p4, and the water supply line for the new
water reservoir. These two change orders amounted to $30,319.90. If we
deduct these two change orders from the project, the final project cost
is $479,938.95. This is under the original contract for the project of
$487,424.30.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to make final payment on the project in the
amount of $24,932.94, withholding $3,580, with the actual check to
LaTbur at this time being $21,352.94. After completion of the
warranty work and minor items in the spring, $2,580 will be released
to the contractor.
2. The second alternative would be to delay the final payment. This
does not appear to be applicable, as the project is essentially
complete and is being used.
C. STAFF REOOMENDATION:
It is the recoarmiendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director
that the Council authorize final payment on the project as outlined in
alternative O1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA: \� \�
Copy of the PAX sheet supplied by OSM.
V`
-36-
IW D3 '89 IS: 32 (51IIRS. III P.I
FAX LEADSHEET
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2021 EAST HENNEPIN AVENUE - SUITE 238
MINHEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55413
PHONE: 612) 331-8660
FAY+ 61`2) 331-7806
( /
SEND T0: CJ t ( m CQ ,.!
/Z/1110N...___M
COMPANY:
CITY:1
LIS 85
FAX PHONE No.:
FROM: —Ulm m E S , OSN
SHEET I OF A (INCLUDING THE FAX LEADSIIEET)
i '/ O6
Lo101 N0. +I� `DATE SEM �! �' 0_� TIME SENT
I
Pro 1i 881IR and 88-02
m
OS14 Com. No. 4100.00
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
i
On March 7, 1989 our office received a written request for final payment of this
project. Previously, Mr. Slmola and myself mot on February 74, 1989 to discuss the
amount of the final payment and any relevant deducts for liquidated damages or
uncompleted work. the specifics of each contested item are summarized In the
attachment.
I
inclosed for your consideration is Construction Payment Voucher No. 7 and Final on
the referenced project In the amount of $24,932.94. The total wltholdlnq for all
deducts is 13,bBO, therefore the check to LaTour at this time shall be in the
amount of $21,352.94. The total project amount for all work is 3501,318.85 with
the orginal contract Doing S487,474.30.
Pursuant to our fiold observation, as performed In accordance with our contract, we
kerDy certify that the materials are satisfactory and the work performed in
accordance with the plans and specifications. Upon receipt of affidavit, State or
Minnesota form 134, and also 4ocelpt and Waiver of Lien Rights from Latour
Construction Company, please make payment to LaTour Construction Company, Route al
Box 76, Maple Lake, Minnesota 55358 at your earliest convenience.
Very truly your&,
I
ORR-SCIILLLN-MAYERON
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
Charles A. Lepak, P.E.
Project Engineer
CAL : LLA
Enclosure
cc: LaTour Construction Company
John Simla, City of Monticello
i
j[.7wf c�panumry ungq.r
hiq IIP.- 8-83 tJED 15:37 612 331 8664 P.01
......... ....................... .....•....... ..............
i
1,P09 1533 Dail Pa'LS.rii P.2
I
ITEM
I
DEPOSITION
DEDUCT AMOUNT
In operable lift
City was required to provide temporary
$1,000
Station after comple-
pumping for 1 week at a cost of approx.
tion date
$1,000. 7 days liquidated damages amount
to $2,100. OSM will not charge for extra
IIII
start-up visit. Negotiated amount equals
I
$1,000.
Extra work claim by
Invoice was submitted to City but County
-0-
Wour Construction
is ultimately responsible. LaTour to
revise invoice to reflect cost for each
I
value box repair.
Hydrant flange Repair
LaTour shall provide as incidental item
-0-
0-
Kit
it
per the specification.
Lift station control
Mork to be done in spring during warm
$ 200*
panel paint repair
I
waather and payment released.
Steel fence post
Contractor agreed to install rolled steel
$ 200*
markers at curb boxes
fence posts at all industrial locations
and undeveloped residential lots. Release
Il
payment at completion. 10 posts at $20.
I
Sod or fiber matting
Contractor agreed to install as directed
$ 260*
in ditches at Dundas
by City in spring at Contract price.
Circle
200 S.Y. @ $1.30 unit price. Release
Ii
payment at completion.
Bituminous wear
City wishes to delay acceptance until
$1,740*
source on Dundas
spring and withhold cost of seal coating
Circle
the cul-de-sac. Payment to be released
I
s
upon acceptance. $70 S.V.@ $2.00 estimate.
surf restoration at
Work was done in late fall by Mark Month
$ 180*
lift station
after paving. Delay acceptance until
spring and withhold cost of seeding 0.10
acres @ $900.
1 Denotes amounts to be paid upon acceptance of work.
1
MHP- 8-89 WEU 15:38 612 331 8660 P.02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP, 08 '89 1533 0519 1 fl`�LS.1-114 P.3
IEittiaait Voucher No. 7 i Final CONSTRUCTION PAYIEIR VOLDIER
Dse March 7. 1969 For Period Ending s February 28. 1989
IProject No. 88-0111. 88-02 and OB -03
Class of Work I Trunk Nater Main. Sanitary Sever, Sanitary Lift Station and A"ortenant Work
To I LaTour Construction
Route 11
Location s P.O. Box 76
Maple Lake, Mn. 55358
For s City of Monticello. Wright County, Minnesota 16121 963-5993
A. Original Contract Ameont f 487.424.30
B. Total Additions 1 38.898.30 C.O. ml, 42, 43. 84 It 19
C. Total Deductions t 0.00
D. Total Funds Encumbered t 526, ML 60
E. Total Value of Work Certified to Date 1 501.318.85
F. Less Retained Percentage Z 11 0.00
O. Less Total Previous Payments m 476,335.91
N. Approved for Payment, this Report t 26932.94
i
1. Total Payments Inclvdiat This Voucher 1 501.318.85
J. &lance Carried Forward 1 25,003.75
APPROVALS
IQd-MCLETef1AYEM a ASSOCIATES. INC.
Pursuant to our field observation. as performed in accordance with our contract. me hereby certify that the materials
late satisfactory and the work properly Performed in accordance with the Plans and ipocificalions and that the total
1work is f00 S completed a of February 28, 1989 . We hereby recommend porwenl of this voucher.
Signed 1 Signed I
Construction Observer
this is to certify tut to the best of mer Ynaledge. information, ad belief. the quantities and values o/ work
certified herein is a lair arpraylmete estimate fpr tM period covered by this voucher.
Contrattor I LoTour Construction Signed By
iDite t Title
� ....... ..._ .,.. .... ..... ................_,. ......_, .... .... ...... .. ..,..
City o/ MontlnlloApproved for nympat
Voucher
Chocked By I Authorited Representative
Date I
(Date I
IP491 1 of 5 - 4100
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
21. Consideration of authorizing a cost analysis for upgrading streets in the
Monticello Industrial Park. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In early summer of 1988, the City Council approved an evaluation study of
the Oakwood Industrial Park street system in regard to pavement
strength. The testing was performed in July by Braun Pavement
Technologies and involved loading or deflection testing on approximately
1.6 miles of streets within the industrial park. The primary goal was to
determine the in-place strengths and to obtain information in regard to
an upgrading to a 10 -ton, all-weather design for the industrial park
which would not inhibit heavy truck traffic in the spring.
The report was completed and reviewed by the City Council in September.
The report basically indicated that all the streets within the industrial
park, with the exception of a few small isolated areas, were at or above
the 7 -ton design.
ROAD DESIGNATION SPRING AXLE LOAD
Chel sea Road 8 tons
Dundas Road 8 tons
Fallon Road 7 tons
Theme Circle 10 tons
Thomas Park Drive 9 tons
t
It was recommended to and approved by the City Council to upgrade and
overlay those areas of lower strength last fall because the winter time
table would make it difficult to complete the entire project. However,
the upgrade and overlay to these areas of lower strength was not
completed last fall because of the early onset of winter.
The evaluation study further indicated the corrective work and necessary
overlay to achieve the goal of 10 -ton all-weather roads for the
industrial park (10 tons is the new county/state standard). Requirements
are as follows:
ROAD DESIGNATION DVERLAY THICKNESS REQUIRED FOR 10-70N
Chelsea Road 2.5 inches
Dundas Road 2.5 inches
Fallon Avenue 3.0 inches
Thomas Circle 0.0 inches
Thomas Park Drive 1.0 inches
Upgrading of the Industrial Park streets has been a goal of the
Monticello Industrial Development Committee. With spring fast
approaching and the potentiality of axle road limit posting in the park,
the IDC, at their March meeting, made a motion recommending the City
Council authorize a cost analysis inclusive of a comparative cost between
upgrading the currently paved streets and/or replacing the streets with
It concrete to achieve the 10 -ton all-weather road standard. The motion
-37-
R
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
included the probability to complete the project in a two-year phase; and
if found necessary, to request Wright County to upgrade the streets to
and from the industrial park.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize the cost analysis for upgrading
streets in the Monticello Industrial Park to 10 -ton, all-weather road
standard and to authorize a cost analysis for replacing the
industrial park streets with concrete.
2. The second alternative is to deny the authorization of either cost
analysis for upgrading the streets or replacing the streets with
concrete.
3. The third alternative is to authorize only the cost analysis for the
upgrading of the streets in the industrial park.
4. The fourth alternative is to authorize only the cost analysis for
replacement of concrete streets in the industrial park.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends alternative ,1 which would meet the recommendation
made by the Industrial Development Committee. The cost analysis could be
conducted by OSM or Braun Pavement Technologies; however, City staff
recommends Braun Pavement Technologies in light of the fact that they
conducted the original testings.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-38-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
22. Consideration of authorizing the industrial park streets not be posted.
(O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Following the Industrial Development Committee motion recommending the
City Council authorize a cost analysis for upgrading streets in the
industrial park and/or to replace them with concrete, a second motion was
made recommending "in the spirit of promoting new industrial business and
out of courtesy of the existing businesses in the industrial park, the
industrial park roads not be posted this spring." Reasons stated at the
IDC meeting of why not to post the roads: 1) if posted, not marketable
(was NSP advised of road limits); 2) most communities don't post
industrial roads; 3) not strictly enforced (if so, Minnesota State
Highway Department wouldn't have access to their industrial park
location); 4) combination of speed and weight cause breakup of roads, not
weight alone; and 5) school buses travel County Road 118, a 5 -ton road.
After the IDC meeting, City staff discussed the possibility of not
posting the indusrial park roads. According to the City Public works
Director, road limit postings are expected to be erected in approximately
two weeks.
I contacted Mr. Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer, and he
stated that spring road restrictions appear in this part of the country
(north central) because of the freeze/thaw conditions. Spring road
restrictions are erected when roads are at their most vulnerable
condition. The vulnerable condition of the roads occurs as the top
unfrozen portion of the roadway moves downward and meets the frozen level
of the underground soil. The combination of this vulnerable road
condition along with weight is the most destructive or damaging to
roads. Statutes allow for road limit posting from March 20 through
May 15. County Road 117 or Oakwood Drive is a 9 -ton road.
The general consensus of the City staff was that not to post the
industrial park streets could cause increased destruction or damage to
the streets, thereby increasing the cost to upgrade the roads because of
the combination of the vulnerable road conditions and weight. City staff
recommends the industrial park streets be posted this spring as outlined
by previous City Council action. However, the decision is before the
City Council.
H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the industrial park roads not be posted this spring.
2. Authorize the industrial park roads to be posted this spring.
-39-
Council Agenda - 3/13/89
t. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As stated above, the City staff recommends the City Council authorize the
industrial park roads be posted this spring (alternative $2) so as to
prevent increased damage or destruction, thereby to prevent possible
increased costs for upgrading the roads.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
t
-40-
t-'
C)
I
CITY OF YOIITICCLLO
Itonthly Building Department RepOrt
flanth of Fnbruary , 1909
+ PCRIIITG MID USCG
1 PLMffi6 ISDUED Lant 'his 6a.. ...th LO.t Y..r 7h1. Yea[
Ital, .ianuery flonth Fabruary Wet TO- TO nota To Oeto
nr.IDDITIAL
Numbar 5 5 1 2 10
v.L..tion S ,800.00 5 16,500.00 $58,800.00 $ 63,000.00 S 200,300.00
Feoe 1,417.11 ID0.00 749.26 799.26 1,597.11
Curchacgaa 91.90 7.50 29.40 31.90 99.40
CONIICRCIAL
Nuattar2 1 2
F:..
I..tlon 47,000.00 225,OOD.00 47,000.00
Fee. 402.00 i, 077.00 402.00
Surcharge. 23.50 112.50 23.50
111OUSTRIAL
"-b or
v.l i-
7eo
Surcharg..
Put1D IVG
It bar ] 1 3 J
Tea. 71.00 23.50 63.00 71.00
Gurcha[gas 1.50 .50 1.50 1,50
OTRCR S
11-baY
vai u.ilan
FaoO
Curcharg.a
TOTAL n0. P1:RI11TO 0 7 1 6 15
TOTAL VALUAT1014 103,000.00 63,500.00 58,000.00 288,000.00 247,300.00
TOTAL PCC- 1,400.11 502.00 772.26 1,939.26 2,070.11
TOTAL GUnC1IARGEB 93,40 31.00 29.90 145.90 124.40
CUGRGRT MOUTH
FL09 Number to nota
PBUIIT NATURE Itunher Pr.RnIT LURCnARCP. Ya ivatton -Irl. Year' Last Yaa[
tll lig la Pamily 5 3 1
tl' D
Dupiaa 0 D
Ilulti-Tamlly 0 0
Commerciai 0 0
Ind -1, 11 al 0 0
R.a. Cars9.• O 0
Gig.. 0 0
Publla Building. 0 0
ALItRATt073 OR REPAIR
N ding• 5 100.00 7.50 t6, 500.00 7 i
COlemelcl el 2 402,00 23.50 47,00D.00 2 1
Industrial 0 0
P WtID 2110
At TFPaa 3 3
ACCEOSOev OTRUCTURLO
Brimaing Peale 0 0
Oscks 0 0
TCNFORMY PDWIT 0 0
ODIOLI Sto" 0 0
TOTALS 7 $82.00 31.00 63,500.00 15 6
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
TOTAL REVERUC 6613.00
Manth at February 1909
PERMIT
DESCRIPTION
TYPE
NAME/LOCATION
VALUATION
PERMIT
FECS
SURCHARGE-PWMIISltC - 6UACNAROE
NUMBER
'
89-1307
Basement FSnleh
AD
Jim Koiserlik//1t Kevin Loaglay Drive
S 7,000.00
5 30.00
3 1.50
09-1700
Kitchen Remedial
AC
Perkins/700 Pine etreat
45,000.00
302.00
27.50
69-1349
8aaemeht Fl nleh
AD
Paul 4 garb Cuttsy/110 Vine Street
1,500.00
15.00
.50
09-1710
Bathroom Remodel
AD
James AIng/Ga0 Mot Droedvay
1,500.0
15.00
.50
89-1311
Building Remodel
AC
eery Nemaof/154 Mest Oroadvey
2.000.00
20.00
1.00
89-1312
Nauss G Care9e Rsal0 inp
AO
Danny R Lu Cy Koch/375 Prairie Rd.
9,000.00
105.00
4.50
09-1313
sasament Finloh
A0
Joanne Johnson/112 Marvin B1. ad Rd.
1,500.00
15.00
50
. TO =
63,500.00
782.00
31.00
TOTAL REVERUC 6613.00