Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 06-12-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 12, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held May 19, 1989, and the regular meeting held May 22, 1989. 3. Citizen comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Continue public hearing on assessing project 81-1 - Edgar Rlucas. 5. Consideration of bond sale for street improvement projects 89-02 and 89-03. 6. Consideration of a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for Tax Increment District 1-2 (elderly housing project). 7. Consideration of relinquishing pledge agreement with HRA regarding excess TIF revenue. B. Consideration of request by abutting property owner to lease the balance of undeveloped Linn Street. 9. Consideration of advertisement for bids for garbage collection services for the city of Monticello. 10. Consideration of letter of interest to Wright County for supplying nitrogen for the proposed Wright County solid waste composting facility. 11. Consideration of City policy regarding distribution and maintenance of water pressure reducing valve. 12. Consideration of repaving senior citizen parking in conjunction with the resurfacing of the Holker parking lot. 13. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses. 14. Consideration of approving gambling licenses - VFW and Legion Club. 15. Consideration of requirements for testing of sanitary sewer and water services from the property lines of the home. 16. Consideration of ordinance amendment which would allow limited expansion of a non -conforming use (residences) in the B-4 District. 17. Consideration of advertising for bids for annual seal coating project. 18. Consideration of establishment of land use zone for Evergreens Subdivision Outlots A and B. 19. Consideration of replacing air dryer at waste water treatment plant. �. 20. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, May 22, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 2. Approval of minutes. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 8, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Public hearing on proposed improvements to Mississippi Drive. AND 5. Consideration of resolution ordering improvement, accepting bid, and authorizing contract - Mississippi Drive. City Engineer, John Badalich, outlined the scope of the project, which consists of approximately 2,000 lineal feet of street reconstruction on Mississippi Drive. The first 100 feet of the project is being constructed along with the County Road 39 project. The next approximately 800 feet of street will receive minor patching, subgrade correction, and an overlay with the possibility of 200 feet of drain tile. Badalich mentioned that 1,140 feet on Mississippi Drive will receive major reconstruction. The entire blacktop surface and base materials will be removed along with some reworking of the subgrade. Badalich informed Council that there is approximately 3,775 feet of assessable property. According to the bids received, the total cost of the project will be in the neighborhood of $111,000, including all engineering, inspections, bond fees, etc. This would create a front footage assessment of $29.41 per foot, or about $2,941 per 100 -foot lot. Badalich then went on to outline the rationale for assessing the benefited property owners only 35 percent of the project cost. A reduced assessment rate is suggested because the street began to break up prior to completion of its useful life, and the street broke up early in part due to use of the street in conjunction with construction of the waste water treatment plant. At this point in the meeting the City Council heard comments from the public. Ron Adkins noted that residents should not pay for anything, as the project was installed incorrectly. John Badalich responded by saying that the street was designed with the best information available at the time. Measures were taken to control the springs in the area but were insufficient. The street was inspected as it was being built and was a� constructed in a manner consistent with the specifications. Jim Lawrence suggested that the road was bound to fail at the outset due to Council Minutes - 5/22/89 insufficient design and/or inspection. It was his view that the residents should not be required to pick up any of the cost to reconstruct the street. Linda Rohland noted that heavy construction equipment is allowed on this road all the time and wondered why this is so. John Simola responded by saying that heavy equipment is necessary for home construction and that such equipment must be allowed to pass over the road on occasion. Roy Chaplin pointed out that his property will not be benefiting from the under drain system utilized towards the lower end of the improvement area. It was his view that since his property will not be benefiting from this under drain system, he should not be assessed any portion of that under drain system. City Councilmember Blonigen reminded the audience that the road was corstructed in 1976 and that the road has completed 13 years of useful life. He further noted that an assessment of 35 percent of the project cost is reasonable given the fact that the original street was viable for some period and that the improvement will have a useful life of at least 15 more years, which means that over the long run, the area residents will not be paying an inordinate amount for street improvements. Another citizen noted that he did not think it unreasonable to be assessed 35 percent of the project cost, as the street has been usable for 13 years. Mayor Maus suggested that a formula be developed based on the logic that the City should pay the portion of the project pertaining to subgrade correction and that the area residents should pay 50 percent of the overlay cost with the City paying the remainder. Under this rcenerio, the local contribution would equal 4.53 cents per foot, or approximately 17 percent of the project cost. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that in order for this project to be financed through issuance of a bond, the City must finance at least 20 percent of the project cost. Warren Smith asked what the City has done in the past in similar road reconstruction situations. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that since the major street project in 1977, there have been no similar street reconstruction projects. Warren noted that what we do regarding this project will set a precedent for those reconstruction projects that will be necessary in years to come. Fran Fair noted that the time is right to do the project now, as the bid amount is very favorable. Dan Blonigen reaffirmed his position that he will not vote for the project unless 35 percent of the project is assessed to benefiting property owners. Ren Maus reaffirmed his position that the City should pay a higher portion of the assessment. It was his opinion that the residents on the higher ground not receiving benefit from the under drain system should not be paying a portion of the under drain cost. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to close the public hearing and approve a resolution ordering the improvement, accepting bid, and authorizing contract. Motion includes a suggested assessment rate of 20 percent of project cost. Voting in favor: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Ren Maus, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. SEE RESOLUTION 89-15. J Council Minutes - 5/22/89 b. Public hearing on proposed bituminous upgrading of Oakwood Industrial Park roads. AND 7. Consideration of resolution ordering improvement, accepting bid, and authorizing contract - Oakwood Industrial Park. John Simola described the scope of the project and informed Council that the bid amount submitted by Buffalo Bituminous is very favorable at $99,303. Simola informed Council that the streets in the industrial park are in the 12th year of their 20 -year design life and have shown some wear and tear along with extensive rutting as indicated by the Braun Engineer report. He went on to say that there may not be a better time than now to do the proposed upgrading for the following reasons: 1. The bid amount is very attractive due to the large volume of other work in our area this year. This could result in a 25 percent savings. 2. The cost of oil and construction are escalating each year. 3. The streets are currently in the 12th year of a 20 -year design life. The last eight years will see a much more rapid deterioration of the street system in the industrial park. If we wait more than two or three years to do the improvement, the existing street surface may not be suitable for overlay and would have to be removed in their entirety. This alone could double the cost of the job in later years of the life cycle of the Pavement. 4. The ability of the land owners to sell land for development is Increased if the roads are improved from the seven to ten ton capacity. George Phillips of Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership noted that he understands the necessity of upgrading the existing roads but noted that the property owners should not be required to pay 100 percent of the overlay cost. Jay Morrell concurred with Mr. Phillips and noted that the users of the industrial park are paying a large amount of property taxes, and this should be considered when establishing the assessment amount. John Badalich reminded Council that in 1977 the streets were installed and designed to be upgraded as the park developed. The present proposal to upgrade the street is consistent with those plans, and the post upgrade will extend the useful life of the existing roadway at a bargain price. George Phillips suggested that a split in the assessments is in order because Chelsea is now a through street which is used by the general public and not just an industrial road. Therefore, the City should be paying a portion of the assessment. Ren Maus agreed with the logic that the City should share the improvement coat associated with a collector road. Shirley Anderson was concerned that the property has not been moving in recent years and that it might not be wine to continue investing in the roadways if major portions of the area are going to continue to be vacant. Ken Maus suggested that the City should maintain Council Minutes - 5/22/89 its industrial areas and thus protect the potential for industrial y development. Maus reiterated the need for industrial development, as the tax base that such development provides will provide necessary revenue to operate City/School/County services. Maus went on to indicate his support of a 50/50 split of the street overlay costs. Dan Blonigen noted that he would support an 80/20 split of cost with the City paying 20 percent of the project cost. Motion was then made by Fran Fair to approve the project with a suggested assessment ratio of 60 percent of project cost to be paid by property owners and 40 percent by the City. Motion by Fran Fair died for lack of a second. Motion was then made by Shirley Anderson to approve the project with the property owners paying 65 percent of project cost and the City paying 35 percent. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by Warren Smith to approve resolution ordering improvement, accepting bid, and authorizing contract, with a suggested assessment ratio of 50 percent City and 50 percent local property owners. Motion seconded by Fran Fair. During discussion, Warren Smith noted that this street improvement is highly necessary to preserve the industrial development potential of the community. The City should consider this expenditure as an investment in the future financial security of the community, as the industries that eventually locate in the area will help supplant the loss of revenue when the power plant is decommissioned. Voting in favor of the motion: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Fran Fair. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen. Motion approving resolution made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran Fair, ordering improvement and accepting bid and authorizing contract with Buffalo Bituminous In the amount of $87,409.65. Voting in favor of the motion: Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. SEE RESOLUTION 89-16. Consideration of final plat approval - Country Club Court. Applicant, Floyd Mafkling. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the final plat submitted contains necessary utility easements and now meets all City requirements previously noted. After discusson, motion by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve the final plat of "Country Club Court". Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of allowing Monticello Jaycees to use Went Bridge Park for taca-&nrn Tilly 1, ig09- n SIN'L After discussion, motion by �da and seconded by ����r to allow Monticello Jaycesa to une West Bridge Park for teerdance, July 1, 1989. Motion passed unanimously. J 10. Consideration of d v lOPPeI agreement PbA2 r Meadnws Second Addition. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the developer agreement noting that it is very similar to the recently adopted Evergreens developer agreement. O'Neill went on to note that due to the small size the Meadows Project, it is suggested that the gaurantee amount be established at 1006 of project cost rather than 125% of project cost as was required with the Evergreens agreement. After O'Neill's presentation, pan Frie noted his concern regarding Engineering fees. Be wondered why both the City engineer and his engineer mist inspect the project. He also asked if he could have any assurances that the City inspection fees would not be excessive. Mayor Maus noted that projects competed by private developers and eventually maintained by the City must be inspected by the City so as to insure the City that the work meets specifications. This does not mean however that the City engineering inspector must be on the site at all times. City Engineer, John Badalich agreed that inspection fees can be kept at a minimum if the contractor follows a schedule and provides adequate notice of project activity. John Simila noted that the City is willing to provide "shadow" inspection if the developer's private engineer utlizes an inspector with respected credentials and experience. Simola noted that minor modifications need to be made to sections of the agreement pertaining to street sign and street lighting installation. After discussion, motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the developer agreement as presented with amendments to the sections of the ordinance pertaining to street sign and light installation. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Consideration of reauest to orenare olans ana soecification for restroom in West Bridge Park. After discussion, Motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to table item pending preparation of information additional information. Motion passed unanimously. 12. consideration of Purchasing FAX Machinr ro.lig�nce DOia r nronratinn in the Amount of 1.756_ Administrator wolfstellar recommended the purchase of a PAX machine as it will improve the ability of the City to exchange and process information in a timely manner. Transmission of information by PAX machine when necessary will benefit the City by saving time on the progression of current projects, etc. After discussion, motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran Fair, to approve purchase of a PAX machine in the amouth of $1,756. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Consideration of bills for th!t month of May. After discussion, motion by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Warren Smith to approve bilis for the month of May. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Maus suggested that council, consider rescheduling regular meetings to start at 7:00 rather that 7:30 due to the length of meetings and agendas. After )� discussion, motion by Smith and seconded by Anderson to reschedule regular 1 Council meetings to 7:00 PM from 7:30 PM. Motion passed unanimously. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Friday, May 19, 1989 - 1:00 p.m. Members Present: Ren Maus, Warren Smith, Dan elonigen, Shirley Anderson Members Absent: Fran Fair 1. Review purpose of meeting. Mayor Maus and Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed discussion conducted by Meadow Oak area residents regarding public nuisance related issues. Council was informed that the residents supported rewriting of the restrictive covenants and that representatives had been appointed to work with the City and the developer in establishing new restrictive covenants. After discussion, it was the general consensus of Council to participate in the development of the new restrictive covenants and that the City should act to facilitate this process. Following are the public nuisance related issues that Council addressed at the meeting and also provided is a proposed plan of action designed to address each issue. 2. Review and discuss public nuisance related issues. It was the general consensus of Council that the City should not act to establish an ordinance which would severely restrict outside storage of boats and RV equipment in the front yard of city residential lots. It was suggested, however, that the City should develop an ordinance which would limit the parking of recreation vehicles at locations relative to the curb. It was the view of Council that an ordinance should be adopted which would eliminate the potential of vehicles parking in areas that would obstruct traffic site lines. It was also suggested that an ordinance amendment be adopted which would prohibit vehicles from parking for extended periods of time on the green area between curb line and private property line. Council discussed establishing a sodding and seeding requirement for all new homes constructed in the city of Mrnticello. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to develop an ordinance amendment which would require that all lawns be sodded and seeded at the time that an occupancy permit is issued. It was further suggested that a process be established which would require that funds be escrowed for the purpose of lawn installation for those occasions when, because of weather or season it to impossible to establish a lawn at time of occupancy. If a homeowner fails to install a lawn within a reasonable time period, then the City would act to utilize the escrowed funds to install the lawn for the property owner. Council discussed the tree and shrub ordinance which roquires that two trees be planted on each property that is barren of trees. It was the consensus of Council to include tree installation in the sodding and seeding escrow requirement for those situations that apply. Furthermore, it was the suggestion of Council that the minimum tree diameter requirement be reduced from 2 inches to 1-1/2 inches. 19] special Council Minutes - 5/19/89 Council discussed establishing an ordinance amendment that would regulate ` design and placement of storage sheds. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council that storage sheds should meet a minimum standard and that staff should submit an ordinance amendment which regulates the type of materials used in storage sheds. The ordinance should also require painting and staining of storage sheds and also require that storage sheds be tied down. Finally, it was agreed that this ordinance should be enforced as problems arise and that a permitting process for storage sheds should not be enacted. Council discussed enacting an ordinance amendment that would streamline the process of cutting weeds and tall grasses on vacant lots. Dan Hlonigen was concerned that in cutting tall weeds, the City might damage seedlings and be forced to pay damages to property owners that had seedlings growing amongst tall weeds. Ren Maus suggested that the notice to residents should include a request that the property owner identify seedlings on the property prior to City removal of weeds. After discussion, it was the general consensus of Council to streamline the weed removal process by requiring a single notification to property owners per growing season. Under this scenerio, once a property owner has been notified of violation of the weed ordinance, the City would have the option to cut the weeds without further notification each time the weed or grass length exceeds the 6 -inch minimum. The cost to conduct the work would then be billed to the property owner; and if the bill is not paid, the cost to remove the weeds and tall grasses would ire assessed and paid as taxes. Council discussed the problems created when excavated material is removed from one property and piled onto another property. it was the consensus of Council that this particular problem is a public nuisance related problem that can be rectified utilizing the existing City ordinances. It was the consensus that no new ordinance would be created to address this issue. Assiatant Administrator O'Neill noted that he would summarize the group ideas and work with the City Attorney in drafting the appropriate ordinance amendments. Mayor Maus requested that City staff share the results of the special meeting of the City Council with the Meadow oak area residents representatives at their meeting next Wednesday. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jefff4'Nei11 Assistant Administrator 9 Council Agenda - 6/12/89 Continue public hearing on assessing project 81-1 - Edgar Klucas. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the May 8 Council meeting, a public hearing was opened by the Council to consider their additional assessment to property owned by Edgar Klucas and Dan Frie for the 81-1 improvement project consisting of sewer, water, and street improvements within the Meadows subdivision and along East River Street. In 1981, Mr. Klucas owned a total of 651.82 feet of 4 frontage along River Street that was never assessed for any of the ^ D improvements. Since that time, he has sold approximately 160 feet of the \ frontage to Mr. Dan Frie, who has incorporated this parcel into the Meadows Second Addition. At the May 8 meeting, a motion was made by the Council to request an appraisal be completed to verify the increase in value as a result of the improvements. I contacted St. Cloud Appraisal, who recently completed an appraisal of Mr. Klucas's property before and after the improvements. It is their opinion that as of May 17, 1989, the before and after value as a result of the improvements has increased by $61,900. As you can see, this is well within the recommended assessment I had proposed of $40,529.67 for the Klucas property and $8,072.83 for the parcel now owned by Dan Frie as part of the Meadows. Although it appears that the Council would have a basis for increasing the assessment above the figures I had indicated to the property owners, I am not suggesting this occur, but it does verify that the proposed assessment roll is reasonable for the value received. For additional background on how I calculated the proposed assessment, I suggest you refer to the May 8 Council agenda supplement, which I have also enclosed. Both property owners will be notified of the meeting Monday evening and the continuation of the public hearing process. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to adopt the assessment roll as presented. 2. The second alternative could be to adopt an assessment roll at a different dollar amount if the Council should desire up to the amount indicated in the appraisal report. 3. The third alternative would be not to assess the benefiting property at this limo with the intent of collecting a future amount when the property is developed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As I indicated in the May 8 agenda, the staff is uncomfortable with a large potential assessment not being officially recorded as a lien against the benefiting property. I also feel the construction price index increase of 30 percent is a logical method for establishing the y cost today, which to what the proposed assessment to based uponr and according to the appraisal report, it seems fair and reasonable. SM Council Agenda - 6/12/89 D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Copy of worksheet reallocating original assessment amount based on CPI increase; Copy of May 8 Council agenda supplemenc; Copy of portions of appraisal report. -2- Council Agenda - 5/8/89 4. Public hearing on the re -assessment of the 81-1 Improvement Project - Edgar Klucas and Dan Frie. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the 1981-1 Improvement Project, sewer, water, street improvements, and storm sewer improvements were constructed within the Meadows subdivision, and also included the same utility extensions and rural paving along River Street to service the new NSP Training Center. Mr. Edgar Klucas at that time owned 651.82 feet of frontage along River Street that received sewer and water along with street benefits; but because of his opposition to the project and pending appeal of the assessment roll, the Council decided at that time not to assess Mr. Klucas's share of the cost to his property but wait until the future when his property developed and required services. The intent was that either Mr. Klucas or a future property owner who was desiring to develop the property would then have to pay for all the improvements. With the upcoming extension of Marvin Elwood Road from the Meadows subdivision to connect with River Street being planned, Mr. Klucas's property and the new corner lot being created in the Meadows subdivision would benefit from the street improvement; and it is proposed that these parcels be assessed for the Marvin Elwood Road extension. Since this public hearing on the improvement has already been held, it now seems appropriate to also assess the prior improvements from 1981 to Mr. Klucas and Mr. Dan Frie, who will own that corner lot. Of the original 651 feet, Mr. Klucas sold 160 feet of frontage to Mr. John Sandberg, who then sold this parcel to Mr. Dan Frie, who is including it within the Meadows subdivision plat. The original assessment prepared in 1981 totaled $37,206.32 for the entire 651.82 feet. With 60 feet of this frontage now being dedicated for Marvin Elwood Road extension, I recalculated the assessment based on 1981 cost by eliminating the 60 -foot frontage and respreading the old cost amongst the 591 feet remaining. Using this method, Mr. Klucas would have had an assessment based on 1981 cost of $31,026.31, and the remaining 100 -foot corner lot now owned by Dan Frie would have had a $6,179.92 assessment. Had these original amounts been assessed in 1981, the deferred assessment would have totaled almost $70,000 today because of the 13 percent interest rate that would have accumulated for 7-1/2 years. Although this large assessment may be hard for the City to justify, I certainly believe it is logical to adjust the 1981 cost by an inflation factor to account for the increased cost if the project was done today. I previously consulted with John Badalich at OSM to obtain the construction price index increases since June of 1981, when the project was bid, to March of 1989. The CPI has increased 30.63 percent over the last 7-1/2 years, and this would seem to be the appropriate method of adjusting the original assessment roll to bring it into today's cost. Using this percentage increase, it is recommended that Mr. Klucao's share of the 1981 project would total $40,529.67, and the remaining lot consisting of a 100 -foot parcel would amount to $8,072.83. These are the figures I sent to the property owners for this public hearing. 0 Council Agenda - 5/8/89 Even with this assessment roll being adopted today, it is assumed that Mr. xlucas would still qualify for green acres deferrment; and thus, the City may not receive any payment on Mr. Rlucas's share of the assessment roll. But we would at least have it certified to the County Auditor and recorded as a future lien. The portion of the assessment roll pertaining to the 100 -foot lot within the Meadows subdivision is anticipated to be paid when the parcel develops in the near future. It is also recommended that like similar projects assessed recently the interest rate on the assessment roll be at 8-3/4 percent based on the recent cost of City borrowing. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to adopt the assessment roll as presented. 2. The second alternative could be to adopt an assessment roll but at a different dollar amount if the Council desired. 3. The third alternative would be not to assess the benefiting property at this time with the intent of collecting a future amount when the property is developed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff feels somewhat uncomfortable with a large potential assessment not being officially recorded as a lien. By not adopting an assessment roll, it places a large burden on the City staff or Council members to remember that this property has never been assessed for prior improvements. With the upcoming Marvin Elwood Road extension being proposed for assessment to the benefiting property owners, it certainly makes sense now to also assess the benefiting property for prior improvements that was omitted in 1981. Although there are certainly many methods to determine what an appropriate cost would be in today's dollars, I feel the construction price index increase of 30 percent is a logical method for establishing the cost today and would recommend that the proposed assessment amounts be adopted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution adopting assessment rolls Worksheet reallocating original assessment amount based on CPI increase. RESOLUTION 89 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSE39MENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for improvements to west River Street between County Road 75 and I-94 with sanitary sewer, water main, bituminous paving, and other appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included and hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8.75 -percent annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment for the date of this resolution until December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of his resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment of the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted.by the Council this. 12th day of .luno, 1989.'-' ,.• - Ken Maus, Mayo[ '.. - .... Rick Wolfateller City Administrator 1981-1 PROJECT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT - EDGAR RLUCAS Original Frontage 651.82' Less: Marvin Elwood Rd. (60.00)' Assessable Frontage Today 3-91—.8-2-r Sanitary sewer $10,100.38 — 591.82' - $17.0666 ft. Sewer Service $ 363.91 Water Main $ 9,441.20 — 591.82' 4 $15.9528 ft. Water Service $ 268.32 Street $17,032.51 - 591.82' . $28.7798 ft. ORIGINAL TOTAL $37,206.32 (491.82') (1001) Rlucas Frie Sanitary Sewer @ $17.0666 ft. $ 8,393.70 $1,706.66 Sewer Service @ $363.91 ea. $ 363.91 -0- water Main @ $15.9528 ft. $ 7,845.90 $1,595.28 water Service @ $268.32 S 268.32 -0- Street 0 $28.7798 ft. $14,154.48 $2,877.98 ORIGINAL ASMI WITHOUT 60' $31,026.31 TrITTM ROAD FRONTAGE construction Price Index X 130.639 x 130.638 Increase - 7-1/2 yrs. Proposed Assessment $40,529.67 $8,072.83 I lL APPRAISAL REPORT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS EDGAR L. KLUCAS PROPERTY MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA for MR. RICK WOLFSTELLER CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY HALL MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA by ST. CLOUD APPRAISAL, INC. MAY 17, 1989 0 Dear Mr. Wolfstaller: In accordance with your request and authorization, I herewith submit my evaluation of the referenced property. I personally inspected the property on May 17, 1989. The purpose of this appraisal is to cstimat,! the Before and After value of the pro- perty, as the result Of installation of the improvements referenced. As a result of my analyses and conclusions contained in the attached report, I have arrived at A ne.0ore and After value of the subject property, as of May 17, 1989, of: 0 ST. CLOUD APPRAISAL, INC. REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS SUITE 101. ROOSEVELT OFFICE PARK 606 SOUTH 25th AVFNUE ST. CLOUD. mN 56301 PHOME (612) 2534488 n 0�5 =Eull "A JER ,So June 7, 1989 Mr. Rick We IfstallCr City Administrator City liall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Appraisal of Edgar I.. Klucas Property, value Before and After Improvement Project 1981-1 of Sewer, Water, Street Improvements, and Storm Sewer to River Street, Monticello, Wright County, MN Dear Mr. Wolfstaller: In accordance with your request and authorization, I herewith submit my evaluation of the referenced property. I personally inspected the property on May 17, 1989. The purpose of this appraisal is to cstimat,! the Before and After value of the pro- perty, as the result Of installation of the improvements referenced. As a result of my analyses and conclusions contained in the attached report, I have arrived at A ne.0ore and After value of the subject property, as of May 17, 1989, of: 0 FAIR MARKET VALUE PRIOR TO UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENT INSTALLATION THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($33,76$) FAIR MARKET VALUE AFTER UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENT INSTALLATION NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND SEVENTY DOLLARS ($95,670) DIFFERENCE IN VALUE AFTER UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENT INSTALLATION (ROUNDED) SIXTY-ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($61,400) If I may be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me. Respectfully submitted, Charles R. Glassing, SA, AAR Associate Appraiser CRG:cmh 2 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Location: Effective Date of Value: Rights Appraised: Zoning- Improvements: oning:Improvements: Site Size: Owner of Record: West of County Road 175, on Rivei Street, Monticello, Wright Count,. Minnesota. May 17, 1989 Fee Simple R-3, Medium Density Residential An ulder 12' x 68' mobile home, a 32' x 50' metal—clad shed, and miscellaneous sheds. 18.76 acres Edgar L. Klucas Route 1, Box 381 Monticello, MN Value Indicators: Prior to Utility and Street Improvement installation: Cost Approach: Not Applicable Direct Sales Comparison Approach: $33,768 Income Approach: Not Applicable After Utility and Street Improvement Installation: Cost Approach: Not Applicable Direct Sales Comparison Approacli: $95,670 Income Approach: Not Applicable Final Estimate of Value: Prior to Utility and Street Improvement installation: $33,768 After Utility and Street ILuhiuvuuwut. installation: $95,670 b SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS (continued) Difference in Value, Before and After Installation of Utilities and Street Blacktopping: $61,902 Say: $61,900 Limiting Conditions: 1) Subject to the attached assumptions and limiting condi- tion. 010 Council Agenda - 6/12/89 Consideration of a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for street improvement projects 89-02 and 89-03. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the recent awarding of contracts for the Oakwood Industrial Park overlay project in the amount of $126,115, and the Mississippi Drive improvement project in the amount of $111,010, authorization will be needed for the sale of bonds to finance these improvements. Additional cost associated with the issuance, including $3,675 as a discount and $4,290 as capitalized interest, brings the total bond issuance amount to $245,000. The proposed bond issue will be titled the 1989B General Obligation Improvement Bond and would be supported by the ad valorem taxes and special assessments of approximately 22 percent of project costs for Mississippi Drive and 50 percent of project costs for Oakwood Industrial Park. Mr. Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., the City's bond consultant, has prepared a recommendation on the sale of these bonds. With the contracts for these projects being signed recently, and the proposed issuance of general obligation taxable bonds for the elderly housing project under the tax increment program being considered on the next agenda item, both of these issues can be conducted by Springsted at the same time, thus reducing some of the overhead cost associated with separate bond issues. Springsted proposes to have the sale date of the bonds July 10, 1989. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the sale --this would give Jerry Shannon explicit direction to secure proposals for the placement of these bonds. 2. Do not adopt the resolution --this does not appear to be a reasonable alternative since the projects have already been awarded and financing will be necessary. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff's recommendation that the resolution authorizing the sale of bonds be adopted as presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution authorizing the sale of bondam Recommendation by Springsted covering this issue. -3- CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES Issuer: The City of Monticello Governing body: City Council Meeting: A meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota held on the 12th day of June, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Halt in the City of Monticello, Minnesota. Council Members present: Council Members absent: Documents: A copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello at said meeting. Certification: 1, Rick Woifsteiler, Administrator of the City of Monticello do hereby certify the following: Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a resolution on file and of record in the offices of the City of Monticello, which resolution was adopted by the City Council, at the meeting referred to above. Sold meeting was a meeting of the City Council, was open to the public, and was held at the time and place at which meetings of the City Council are regularly held. Member moved the adoption of the attached resolution. The motion for adoption of the attached resolution was seconded by Member . A vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor of the resolution: and the following voted against the resolution: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The attached resolution is in full force and effect and no action has been taken by the City Council of the City of Monticello which would in any way atter or amend the attached resolution. Witness my hand officially as the Administrator of the City of Monticello this ^ day of , 1999. City Administrator v CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NUMBER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF $245,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 19898 OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Countil (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Bond Purpose and Authorization Sale. a. Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, the City is authorized to issue bonds for the purposes of providing funds to finance certain improvements (the "Improvements") undertaken by the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. b. It is hereby found, determined and declared that (i) the issuance of the Series 19898 Bonds is necessary and desireable to provide funds to finance the costs of the Improvements in the City; and (ip to provide for issuance costs thereof; and that the City should issue, and the City hereby authorizes and directs the issuance and sale of, Its General Obligation Improvement Bonds. Series 19898 in the aggregate principal amount of $245,000 (the "Bonds"). 2. Sa!e. This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of the Official Notice of Sale for the Bonds attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of opening and considering scaled bids for, and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Notice of Bond Sale. The Council hereby authorizes the publication of notice of advertisement for scaled bids for the Bonds In the official newspaper of the City, and In Commercial West, In substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Each and all of the terms and provisions set forth in such notice are adopted and confirmed as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof. 4. Official Terms of Offering. The Official Terms of Offering of the Bonds in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B shall constitute the terms and conditions for the sale of the Bonds, and the Council hereby authorizes the Incorporation of such terms and conditions In the material to be distributed to prospective bidders for the Bonds. Information and bidding forms may be obtained from the undersigned or from Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143; telephone 012-223-3000, financial consultants to the City. 11 0 Attest: Dated this 12th day of June, 1989. Administrator' Mayor O EXHIBIT A OFFICIAL. NOTICE OF SALE City of Monticello, Minnesota $245,000 General Obligation improvement Bonds Series 1989H NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of $245,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19898 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "Issuer") will be received until 12:00 noon, Central Time, on the 10th day of July, 1989, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143, at which time any bids received will be opened and tabulated. Bids of not less than $241,325 and accrued interest on the Bonds will be considered. The bids will be considered and acted upon by the City Council (the "Council") at a meeting of the Council at 7:30 p.m., Central Time, of the same day. The Bonds will be issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 475 and 429, for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the City of Monticello. The Bonds will be Issued as fully registered bonds in denominations of $5,000, or any integral multiples thereof as requested by the purchaser, will be dated August 1, 1989, and will mature serially on February I in the following years and amounts: YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 1991 $15,000 1996 $ 25,000 1992 20,000 1997 25,000 1993 25,000 1998 25,000 1994 25,000 1999 30,000 1995 25,000 2000 30,000 Interest will be payable on each February I and August 1, commencing August 1, 1990. The Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1998, will be subject to redemption and prepayment on February 1, 1997 and any Interest payment date thereafter, at a price equal to par plus accrued interest. Exhibit B OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $245,000 CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 19898 Seated bids for the Bonds will be received by the City on Monday, July 10, 1989, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101.2143 after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1989, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1990. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the dose of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1991 $15,000 1994 $25,000 1997 $25,000 1999 $30.000 1992 $20,000 1995 $25,000 1998 $25,000 2000 $30,000 1993 $25,000 1996 $25,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1. 1997, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 1998. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, in inverse order of maturity and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will plodgo Its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessments against bonofittod property. The proceeds will be used to finance public improvements within the City. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not loss than $241,325 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. and shall be accompanied by a certified or cashiers chock in the amount of $2,450, payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said Chock has not been received. The City will deposit the chock of the purchaser, the amount of which will be doductod at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the tlmo sot for receiving bids unless the mooting of the City scheduled for award of the bids is adjnurngd, recessed, or continued to another data without award of the ns Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 118 of 1 %. There is no limit on the interest rate spread if bid in ascending order; however, no rate for any maturity shall be more than 1% lower than any prior rate. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, it any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar Interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shalt be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject ;o receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of, Holmes 8 Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds. and of customary closing papers, including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for tho Bonds shall be made In federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designed not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made Impossible by action o1 the City, or Its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reasons of the purchaser's non-complianco with said forms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening. The purchaser will be provided with 25 copies of the Official Statomont. Dated Juno 12, 1989 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL is/ Rick Wolistollor Administrator Recommendations For City of Monticello, Minnesota $260,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1989A $245,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1989B Study No. 3519 SPRINGISTED Incorporated June 7, 1989 0 SPRINGSTED r11 PUBLIC FIiJ/7JCr ADVISORS ei Las: 4 �..n:r, I'G0.c S,r n• rUG $.I n .cola iilUl 21 .3 612 ?23 3UU9nn 1 � • Irl? 223 300 June 7, 1989 Mr. Kenneth Maus, Mayor Members, City Council Mr. Rick Wollsteller, City Administrator City Hall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of: $260,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1989A $245,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19898 We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the issuance of these bonds In accordance with the attached Official Terms of Offerings. The two bond Issues will provide financing for Tax Increment Financing District 1-2 and for two public improvements projects in the City. We will discuss each Issue separately. $280,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1989A The proceeds of this Issue will be used to purchase land and for demolition In preparation for the construction of a housing project by Broadway Square I Imited Partnership. The City's budget for this project is: Jones Property $ 65,244 O'Connor Property 51,988 Steltons Property 70,732 Ford Property 88,771 Foes 5.231 Subtotal $281,984 Capitalized Interest $ 40,000 Allowanco for Discount Bidding 4,880 Issuance Costs 12.000 Total Costs $338,844 Loss: Land Salo 158.000) Not Costs $202,844 Less: Bond Issue 1260.0001 Balance To Be Funded $ 22,844 { ^e glum wmn;'", r, $,,.1,; IS,U 5W (1111, G,0- goatl Su 1.. 101 Inl annll::::, Ina nnc,Lim (ilov,f WilCorp„1531 10011 41. ItQ 1m 91/?117 ;1(.1, 1m ap./N? ?i104 S O City of Monticello, Minnesota June 7, 1989 The financing plan for the District, adopted by the City, allows a maximum bond issuance of $260,000. Therefore, the City must fund approximately $22,644 of the remaining costs from other sources. Appendix I shows our projection of tax increment income from the District. The District is currently generating revenues based on a captured value of $24,406 for taxes payable in 1969. The approximate same value will be in place for taxes payable in 1990. The new project will be at least 50% completed in 1989 with a partial value on the tax rolls as o1 January 2, 1990 for taxes payable in 1991. Full value of the project, $866,590, will be on the tax rolls as of January 2, 1991 for taxes payable in 1992. For levy year 1969, the District increment income will be $20,035; for levy year 1990, $33,970; and beginning in levy year 1991 and thereafter, $38,230. The income is based on the City's current total tax capacity rate of 82.09196. The current session of the Legislature enacted changes In computing tax capacity for various types of property throughout the State, which Governor Perpich subsequently vetoed. The property ratio for Title 11 housing in the vetoed bill was not changed from the current 2.5% 01 market value. The Governor has said he will call a special legislative session In September to pass a new property tax bill. New property tax legislation may change the Title II housing ratio and/or may have the effect of substantially changing the City's total tax capacity rate from this year, thereby sharing the future tax Increment to be received. With the unknown effect of a new property lax law in mind, we have structured the bond Issue as shown in Appendix If. The bonds will be dated August 1, 1989 and will mature annually on February 1, 1992 through 2007. The projected tax Increment Income from Appendix 1 Is used in column 12. To mitigate any adverse property tax law changes, we have capitalized $40,000 for Interest due on this Issue through February 1, 1991 so there is no reliance on new tax Increment income until the 1990 levy, collectible in 1991. Also, the annual combined debt for this issue and the current obligations payable from the District's Income (column 11) has been kept under the projected Increment so that, if projections are on target, a cumulative surplus Is achieved. We recommend the bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2000 be callable commencing February 1, 1999. If a substantial surplus Is created, the City may wish to call some of the longer bonds for early maturity. The Interest rates used In column 4 of Appendix II are representative of taxable Interest rates we believe you would receive If the bonds were sold today. The actual rates received on July 10 may be substantially different. Should the rates rise, the projected surplus would decrease accordingly, $243,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19898 The Improvement bonds will finance two Improvement projects for which construction bids were opened on May 22, 1989. The following page shows costa which reflect the actual bids: Pago 2 0 City of Monticello, Minnesota June 7. 1989 Project 89-02 Mississippi Drive Construction $ 87,410 Indirect Costs 23,600 Project 89-03 Oakwood Industrial Park Construction $ 99,305 Indirect Costs 26.910 Total Construction Costs $237,125 Allowance for Discount Bidding 3,675 Capitalized Interest (to 10-1-89) 4.290 Total Costs $245,090 Bond Issue (Rounded) $245,000 We understand the City wishes to assess approximately 22% or $24,425 of Project 89-02 and approximately 50% or $63,058 of Project 89-03. We also understand the assessments will be filed on or about October 1, 1989 for a collection period of 10 years. Interest will be charged at 1-1/2% over the average interest rate received on the bonds. Appendix III is our projection of the annual assessment Income. We have used an assumed interest rate of 8.00%. Based on the projected assessment Income in Appendix III, we have prepared the recommended maturity schedule for the Issue as Appendix IV. The bonds will be dated August 1, 1989 and will mature annually each February 1, 1991 through 2000. Columns 1 through 6 show the years and amounts of principal and Interest due. Column 7 is the capitalized Interest to October 1, 1989, the projected date at which Interest on special assessments will begin to accrue. The projected assessment Income from Appendix III is shown In column 10. Column 11 is the estimated annual tax levy which the City will be required to make for Its share of projected costs, beginning in levy year 1989. This Includes the 5% overlovy mandated by State law. The average levy will be approximately $23,792 or e 0.154% tax capacity rate based on current values. The first Interest payment will be due August 1, 1990 In the approximate amount of $25,922. This will be paid from a combination of capitalized Interest and first-half collections of taxes and special assessments payable In 1990. The socond-half of the 1990 colloctions and surplus first-half collections will be sufficient to pay the principal and intorost coming due February 1, 1991. Common To Both Issues We recommend the use of discount bidding which has boon an effective marketing tool for past City bond Issues. The underwriters may bid up to 1.5% loss than par for the Improvement bonds and up to 1.8% less than par for the tax Increment bonds. The discount amount Is taken by the undorwritor as his working capital and profit and allows him to rooffor the bonds at par to the ultimate Investor. This makes the bonds more attractive to underwriters and rosufts In lower interest rates to the Cly. Tho improvement bonds are subject to the arbitrage rogulations In the Tax Reform Act of 1988. However, since the Cly does not plan to Issue more than $5,000.000 of tax-exempt debt during calendar year 1989, no rebate reporting will be required. Pogo 3 City of Monticello, Minnesota June 7, 1989 We recommend the bonds be offered for safe on Monday, July 10, 1988, with bids to be received In the offices of Springsted Incorporated at 12:00 Noon. The bids will be opened and tabulated and presented to the Council for award that evening at its regular meeting. Proceeds will be available to the City approximately 30 days later or mid-August. Respectfully submitted, SPRINGSTED Incorporated mmr Pago 4 0 NOTE: C APPENDIX I City of Monticello, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing District 1.2 Projection of Increment Income 1989.90 Current Tax Capacity $34,818 Original Tax Capacity (10,412 Current Captured Capacity $24,406 Current Tax Capacity Rate 82.091% Current Increment Income $20,035 1990.91 Current Tax Capacity $34,816 New Project (P 75% 16.974 Projected Tax Capacity $51,792 Original Tax Capacity (10,412 Projected Captured Capacity $41,380 Current Tax Capacity Rate 82.091% Projected Increment income $33.970 1991.92 Current Tax Capacity $34,818 New Project Q 100% 22.165 Projected Tax Capacity $56,983 Original Tax Capacity (10.4121 Projected Captured Capacity $46,571 Current Tax Capacity Rate 82,091% Projected Increment Income $38,230 Assumes current apartment project will have a tax capacity of 2.50% of Estimated Market Value of S888,590 at full completion. Pago 5 O S CITYOF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 5260.000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1898A TIFO 1.2 Bated: 8- 1-1989 Mature: 2- 1 Iota: Capita l- Net Current Year of Year of print l T' /ted to" 1059 0"t"" Lavy 1401. print /pal Rates Interest 5 Interest Interest Aa,. i red of 1!01.1 Debt (1) (21 Ill (41 IS) 161 (7I IBI 191 1101 1989 1991 0 0.00% 35,384 35.384 40.000 0 0 11.385 1990 1992 5,000 B. lS1 23,589 29.589 D 2B. SB9 30.018 4,385 1991 1993 5,000 9.751 23,151 29.151 0 28.151 29,559 4,385 1992 1994 5,000 8.75% 22.713 27.113 0 21.113 29.099 4,385 1993 1995 10.000 8.75% 22,275 32,215 0 32.275 33.889 4,385 1994 1996 10,000 8.801 71.400 31.400 0 31.400 32,970 4,38S 1995 1991 10.000 8.80% 20.520 30.520 0 30.510 32.046 4,385 1996 1998 15,000 8.90% 19,640 34,640 0 34,640 36.312 0 1997 1999 15.000 9.90% 18.305 33.305 0 33.305 34.970 0 1998 2000 15.000 9.001 16.970 31,970 0 31.970 33,569 0 1999 2001 20,000 9.00% 15.620 35.620 0 35.620 37,401 0 2000 2002 20,000 9.10% 13.920 33.820 0 33,920 35,511 0 2001 2003 20,000 9.10% 12,000 32.000 0 32.000 33.600 0 2002 2004 25.000 9.20% 10,180 35,180 0 35.180 36,939 0 2003 2005 25.000 9.20% 1,880 32.980 0 32,880 34,574 0 2004 2006 30.000 9,30% 5.580 35.580 0 35.580 37,359 0 2005 2007 30.000 9.30% 2.790 32.190 0 32.790 34,430 0 TOTALS: 260,000 291.617 551.911 40.000 519.433 $42.256 31.695 Bond rears: 3.195.00 Annual Interest: 291.811 Avg, maturity: 12.29 plus Discount: 4,680 Avg. Annual gate: 9.1341 Not Interest: 296.49! N.I.C. Rate: 9.2801 Interest rates are estimates: changes say cause significant alterations of this schedule, the actual unihimriter's discount bid way also vary. Prepared June 6. 1989 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Projected Total Increient Cumulative DebtIncome Surplus (1 11 (12) (13) 11.385 20.035 1),266 34.403 33.970 12.833 33.944 38,230 17.119 33.484 38.230 21.865 38.274 38.230 21.821 31,355 38,230 22,696 36.431 38.230 24,495 36.311 38.230 26.353 34.970 36.230 29.613 33.569 38.230 34,214 37.401 38,230 35.103 35,511 38,230 37,822 33,600 38,730 42,452 36.939 36.230 43.143 34,S24 38,230 47.449 37.359 38,230 48.320 34.430 38.230 $7.120 579.951 621,455 i v. V m 2 O k City of Monticello, Minnesota $245,000 G.O. improvement Bonds, Series 1989B Projected Assessments Filing Collect Year Year 1989 1990 1990 1991 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 TOTALS N J Prepared June 6, 1989 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated -.TOTAL - - - - - Principal Interest Total 8,749 8,763 PROJECTED ASSESSMENT INCOME 8,749 Mississippi Drive 89-02 Oakwood industrial Park 89-03 Filing Date: 10/ 1/1989 Filing Date: 10/ 1/1989 89749 Interest 12,248 8,749 Interest 11,548 Principal --------- @ 8.000% -------• Total Principal ----••--- @ 8.000% -------- Total ---•- 2,443 2,447a 4,890 6,306 6,316b 12,622 2,443 1,759 4,202 6,306 4,540 10,846 2,443 1,563 4,006 6,306 4,036 10,342 2,443 1,368 3,811 6,306 3,531 9,837 29443 1,172 3,615 6,306 3,027 9,333 29443 977 3,420 6,306 2,522 8,828 2,443 781 3,224 6,306 2,018 8,324 2,443 586 3,029 6,306 1,513 7,819 29443 390 2,833 6,306 11009 7,315 2,438 195 2,633 6,304 504 6,808 24,425 11,238 35,663 63,058 29,016 92,074 a) Includes interest from filing b) Includes interest from filing date to 12/31/1990. date to 12/31/1990. J Prepared June 6, 1989 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated -.TOTAL - - - - - Principal Interest Total 8,749 8,763 17,512 8,749 6,299 15,048 8,749 5,599 14,348 8,749 4,899 13,648 89749 4,199 12,948 89749 3,499 12,248 8,749 2,799 11,548 8,749 2,099 10,848 8,749 1,399 10,148 8,742 699 9,441 87,483 40,254 127,737 1 t R City of Monticello, Minnesota $245,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1989E Dated: 8- 1-1989 Mature: 2- 1 Prepared June 6, 1989 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Capital- Met Projected Tota) Total Year of Year of Assessment Net Interest Principal Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest h Interest (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1989 1991 15,000 6.35% 23,883 38,883 1990 1992 20,000 6.40% 14,969 34,969 1991 1993 25,000 6.40% 13,689 38,689 1992 1994 25,000 6.45% 12,089 37,089 1993 1995 25,000 6.45% 10,476 35,476 1994 1996 25,000 6.50% 8,863 33,863 1995 1997 25,000 6.50% 7,238 32,238 1996 1998 25,000 6.55% 5,613 30,613 1997 1999 30.000 6.60% 3,975 33,975 1998 2000 30,000 6.65% 1,995 31,995 TOTALS: 245,000 102,790 347,790 Prepared June 6, 1989 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Capital- Met Projected Tota) ized Levy 105% Assessment Net Interest Required of Total Income Requirement (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 4,290 34,593 36,323 17,512 16,811 0 34,969 36,717 15,048 21,669 0 38,689 40,623 14,348 26,275 0 37,089 38,943 13,648 25,295 0 35,416 37,250 12,948 24,302 0 33,863 35,556 12,248 23,308 0 32,238 33,850 11,548 22,302 0 30,613 32,144 10,848 21,296 0 33,975 35,674 10,148 25,526 0 31,995 33,595 9,441 24,154 4,290 343,500 360,675 127,737 232,938 Bond Years: 1.572.50 Annual Interest: 102,790 Avg. Maturity: 6.42 Plus Discount: 3,675 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.537% Net Interest: 106,465 N.I.C. Rate: 6.770% Tax Capacity Rate 1988 Gross Tax Capacity: $ 15,405,139 Total Levy (Average of Levy Years: 1990-1998) S 23,792 0.154% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $260,000 CITY OF MONTIICELLO, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1989A Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City on Monday. July 10, 1989, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143 after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1989, as the date of original issue, and will bear Interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1990. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holders address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1992 $ 5,000 1996 $10,000 2000 $15,000 2004 $25,000 1993 $ 5,000 1997 $10,000 2001 $20,000 2005 $25,000 1994 $ 5,000 1998 $15,000 2002 $20,000 2006 $30,000 1995 $10,000 1999 $15,000 2003 $20,000 2007 $30,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elocl on February 1, 1999, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2000. Redemption may be In whole or in pan and if in pan. In inverse order of maturity and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued Interost. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will plodge Its full faith and credit and powor to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will plodgo tax increment Income from the Citys Tax Incromont Financing District No. 1-2. The proceeds will be used for the acquisiticn of property and site Improvements. TAXABILITY OF INTEREST The Interest to be paid on the Bonds is Includable in gross income of the rociplont for United States and State of Minnesota Income tax purposes, and Is subject to Minnesota Corporate and bank oxcise taxes measured by not Income. Pago 9 O S TYPE OF BID Bids shall be tot not less than $255,320 and accrued Interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds, and shall be accompanied by a certified or cashiers check in the amount o1 $2,600, payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been received. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 o1 1%. There is no limit on the interest rate spread B bid in ascending order; however, no rate for any maturity shall be more than 1% lower than any prior rate. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from,, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar Interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive Informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and,. -(iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services o1 the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS 11 the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept dolivory of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of thoir award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a PISCO mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of, Holmes & Gravon, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printod on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shalt be made in fodoral, or oqulvalont, funds which shall be rocoivod at the offices of the City or Its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have boon made impossiblo by action of the City, or Its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reasons of the purchasers non-complianco with said terms for payment. Pago 10 O OFFICIAL STATEMENT Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening. The purchaser will be provided with 25 copies of the Official Statement. Dated June 12, 1989 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Rick Wolfsteller Administrator Pago 11 O S OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $245,000 CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1989B Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City on Monday, July 10, 1989, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices o1 SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143 after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award o1 the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1989, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1990. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,100 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and Interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holders address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close o1 business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1991 $15,000 1994 $25,000 1997 $25,000 1999 $30,000 1992 $20,000 1995 $25,000 1998 $25,000 2000 $30,000 1993 $25,000 19% $25,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 1997, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 1998. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if In part, in Inverse order of maturity and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued Interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will ptodgo Its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will plodge special assessments against bonofitted property. The proceeds will be used to finance public improvements within the City. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not loss than $241,325 and accrued interest on the total principal amount o1 the Bonds, and shall be accompanied by a coniflod or cashiers check in the amount O1 $2,450, payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said chock has not boon received. The City will deposit the chock o1 the purchaser, the amount o1 which will be deducted at settlement and no Interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be rotainod by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the time sat for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the bids Is adjourned, rocossod, or continued to another data without award of the Pago 12 0 Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. There is no limit on the Interest rate spread if bid in ascending order: however, no rate for any maturity shall be more than 1% lower than any prior rate. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest doller interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition o1 any amount less than par, to the total dollar Interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and. (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds quality for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of, Holmes & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers. Including a noaitigatlon cortilicate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made In federal, or equivalent. funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have boon made impossiblo by action of the City, or Ito agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reasons of the purchaser's noncompliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening. The purchaser will be provided with 25 copies of the Official Statomoni. Dated Juno 12, 1989 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /a/ Rick Wolfstolior Administrator Pago 13 S Council Agenda - 6/12/89 Consideration of a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for Tax Increment District 1-2 (elderly housing project). (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The HRA will be completing the transfer of property in Block 51 to Broadway Square Limited Partnership on Wednesday, June 14, for the construction of the elderly housing project. The HRA has acquired four parcels of property over the past year in Block 51 and has recently modified the tax increment district budget allowing the project to proceed. The land acquisition has been financed by the HRA with temporary cash reserves and loans from the general fund, and it would now be appropriate for a bond sale to cover the net cost involved. When the tax increment district was modified in January of 1989, the budget included a bond issue proposed in the amount of $260,000, which is what Mr. Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., has recommended. If the projected tax increment revenues are on target, the HRA will still realize a cumulative surplus at the end of the bond issue. The anticipated tax increment revenue surplus is recommended when planning a bond sale to mitigate any adverse property tax law changes which may affect future tax increment revenues. In conjunction with the sale of bonds for the Mississippi Drive and Oakwood Industrial Park street improvements, bids will be returnable Monday, July 10, 1989, for consideration that evening at the Council meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the sale --this would reimburse the City and HRA for funds already expended as soon as possible. 2. Do not adopt a resolution --this does not appear to be a reasonable alternative if the City and the HRA wish to recover their cost incurred to date. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff's recommendation that the resolution authorizing the sale of bonds in conjunction with the improvement project bonds be adopted as presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution authorizing the sale of bonds and recommendation by Springated covering this issue. -4- CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES Issuer,. The City of Monticello Governing body: City Council Meeting: A meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota held on the 12th day of June, 1989, at 7:$0 p.m. at the Citv Hall in the City of �Ica:`ce':o, ,.annaSutu. Council Members present: Council Members absent: Documents: A copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello at said meeting. Certification: 1, Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator of the City of Monticello do hereby certify the following. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a resolution on file and of record in the offices of the City of Monticello, which resolution was adopted by the City Council, at the meeting referred to above. Said meeting was a meeting of the City Council, was open to the public, and was held at the time and place at which meetings of the City Council are regularly held. Member moved the adoption of the attached resolution. The motion for adoption of the attached resolution was seconded by Member . A vote being taken on the motion, the following voted In favor of the resolution: and the following voted against the resolution: n whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The attached resolution is in full force and effect and no action has been taken by the City Council of the City of Monticello which would in any way alter or amend the attached resolution. Witness my hand officially as the Administrator of the City of Monticello this _ day of , 1989. City Administrator C CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NUMBER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF $260,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1989A OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Countil (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Bond Puroose and Authorization Sale. a. Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 469 and 475, the City is authorized to issue bonds for the purposes of providing funds to finance certain public redevelopment costs of a project (the "Project") undertaken pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 469. b. It is hereby found, determined and declared that (1) the issuance of the Series 1989A Bonds is necessary and desireable to provide funds to finance certain public redevelopment costs of the Project in the City; and (ii) to provide for issuance costs thereof; and that the City should issue, and the City hereby authorizes and directs the Issuance and sale of, its General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1989A in the aggregate principal amount of $260,000 (the "Bonds"). " Sale. This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of the Official Notice of Sale for the Bonds attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of opening and considering sealed bids for, and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Notice of Bond Snle. The Council hereby authorizes the publication of notice of advertisement for sealed bids for the Bonds in the official newspaper of the City, and in Commercial West, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Each and all of the terms and provisions set forth In such notice are adopted and confirmed as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof. 4. Officinl Terms of Offering. The Official Terms of Offering of the Bonds In substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B shall constitute the terms and conditions for the sale of the Bonds, and the Council hereby authorizes the incorporation of such terms and conditions In the material to be distributed to prospective bidders for the Bonds. Informntlon and bidding forms may be obtained from the undersigned or from Springsted Incorporated. 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143; telephone 612.223-5000, financial consultants to the City. LJ Attest: Dated this 12th day of June, 1989. Administrator Mayor (00 EXHIBIT A OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE City of Monticello, Minnesota $260,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds Series 1989A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of 5260.000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1989A (hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "Issuer") will be received until 12:00 noon, Central Time, on the 10th day of July, 1989, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143, at which time any bids received will be opened and tabulated. Bids of not less than $255,320 and accrued interest on the Bonds will be considered. The bids will be considered and acted upon by the City Council (the "Council") at a meeting of the Council at 7:30 p.m., Central Time, of the same day. The Bonds will be issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 415 and 469, for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs within the City of Monticello. The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds in denominations of $5,000, or any integral multiples thereof as requested by the purchaser, will be dated August 1, 1989, and will mature serially on February 1 in the following years and amounts: YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 1992 $ 51000 2000 S 15,000 1993 51000 2001 20,000 1994 5,000 2002 20.000 1995 10,000 2003 20,000 1996 10,000 2004 25,000 1997 10.000 2005 25,000 1996 15,000 2006 30.000 1999 15,000 2007 30,000 Interest will be payable on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1990. The Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2000, will be subject to redemption and prepayment on February 1. 1999 and any interest payment date thereafter, at a price equal to per plus accrued interest. FOWA Exhibit B OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $260,000 CITY OF MONTICE.U.O, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBUGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1989A Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City on Monday, July 10, 1989, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143 after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 1989, as the date of Original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August I of each year, commencing February 1, 1990. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the fviSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of 55,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and Interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holders address as It appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1992 S 5.000 1996 510,000 2000 $15,000 2004 $25,000 1993 S 5,000 1997 $10,000 2001 $20.000 2005 $25,000 1994 S 5,000 1998 515,000 2002 $20,000 2006 $30,000 1995 $10,000 1999 $15,000 2003 $20.000 2007 $30.000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 1999, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on Or after February 1, 2000. Redemption may be In whole or in part and if in part. In inverse order of maturity and within a maturity by tot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments $hail be at a price of par and occruod interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. in addition the City will pledge tax increment Income from the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.2. The proceeds will be used for the acquisition of property and silo improvements. TAXABILITY OF INTEREST The Interest to be paid on the Bonds is Includable in gross income of the recipient for United States and State of Minnesota income tax purposes, and Is subject to Minnesota Corporate and bank oxciso taxes measured by not Income. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not less than $255,320 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. and shall be accompanied by a certified or cashiers check in the amount of 52,600, payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been received. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, in the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 51100 or 118 of 1 %. There is no limit on the interest rate spread if bid in ascending order; however, no rate for any maturity shall be more than 1% lower than any prior rate. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar Interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, -.(III) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds quality for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printod on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constituto cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the data of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to tho purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of, Holmes & Graven, Chanorod of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printod on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers. Including a no-titigation coniflcate. On the data of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in fodoral, or equivalent, funds which shall to rocoivod at the of icos of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Timo. Except as compliance with tho terms of payment for the Bonds shall have boon made Impossible by action of tho City, or its ogonts, tho purchaser shall be liabio to the City for any toss suffered by the City by reasons of tho purchasors non-complianco with said terms for payment. 29 OFFICIAL STATEMENT Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening. The purchaser will be provided with 25 copies of the Official Statement. Dated June 12. 1989 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Rick Wolfsteller Administrator 04 Council Agenda - 6/12/89 7. Consideration of relinquishing pledge agreement with HRA regarding excess TIF revenues. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Approximately a year ago, the HRA and City staff had been researching and reviewing our tax increment projects and the future of tax increment within Monticello and had come up with two areas that the HRA and staff felt should be explored further. Number one was how could the basic geographic boundary of our originally established tax increment districts be enlarged to provide tax increment opportunities to more land area within Monticello, and the second pertained to the HRA's use of excess tax increments generated by existing projects. In discussions with Pat Pelstring of Business Development Services, the first goal or objective of the HRA was established this January by modifying our original Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan for tax increment projects into one master plan. This combining of our existing seven districts and the creation of the eighth district for the future NSP maintenance building project now allows the HRA to use any excess increments generated by each individual project to be shared amongst the districts and for other purposes lawful for the HRA. A few of the present tax increment projects such as Fulfillment Systems and Raindance project (Maus Foods complex) are generating more tax increment revenues than originally anticipated. Although most of these projects required bond issues or other financing loans when initiated, in some cases, revenues are exceeding our debt service requirements annually. The way our pledge agreements in some of the bond issues have been established, the HRA has agreed to pledge for the debt service on three bond issues 105 percent of the next three payment dates for a year -and -a -half in advance nefore there is considered any surplus revenue. Although this is certainly added protection for each bond iosue, there is no legal requirement or necessity to have the HRA pledge more than two debt service payments in advance. In effect, on three of the current bond issues, an extra 50 percent is being required to be held in reserve before any funds are available for HRA uses on other projects. I have consulted with Mr. John Green, attorney for Holmes and Graven, our bond counsel, and also Mr. Jerry Shannon, our fiscal consultant at Springated, who both indicate that the HRA be required to pledge only the next two payment dates as a reserve. Speculation has it that when the City first got involved in tax increment financing projects in the early 801a, the three payment reserve requirement may have been initiated by the former Administrator as an added protection for the City Council to keep a handle on surpluses from being utilized by the HRA inappropriately. At this point, I don't believe the HRA has shown any attitude of being uncooperative with the City Council, and it seems to be an unduly restrictive pledge agreement. The advantage of pledging only the normally legal requirement for a debt service account would, in the future, possibly free up excess tax increment revenues for use by the HRA on other smaller projects without requiring the City to issue additional general obligation bonds.1-9--wTth -5- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 the previous bond issue for the elderly housing project, if the pledge agreement is replaced with a normal required agreement, and the reserves are sufficient, the City may be able to avoid issuing a future bond issue and its associated extra cost. Mr. John Green, bond attorney for Holmes and Graven, has prepared revised pledge agreements that can be adopted and executed between the HRA and the City which will meet all legal requirements and free up the excess revenues to be used by the HRA for other lawful purposes and future projects. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolutions modifying the pledge agreements for the three bond issues affecting projects 1985 (Raindance), 1987A (Construction 5), and 19878 (NAWCO). These bond issues would then correspond to normal requirements for bond issues requiring a reserve equal to the next year's annual payments. 2. Do not adopt the resolutions and require the additional pledging of reserves before a surplus is created. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As I indicated previously, the staff is not aware of why the original tax increment pledge agreements between the HRA and the City Council were ever required to have three debt service payments in reserve before a surplus was available for use by the HRA. It is only speculation that it was a means of providing additional assurance to the City that the debt obligations would be met before the HRA could expend surplus monies. Since the HRA is now accumulating some surpluses within certain tax increment districts, it seems unwise to require additional reserves to cover future debt payments and then have to issue new bonds to finance additional projects. There is a very good likelihood that in the future, sufficient reserves will be available to be used by the HRA on a tax increment project or other lawful purpose, thus avoiding additional tax levies or bond issuance cost. As a result, the staff certainly recommends that this pledge agreement be modified to correspond with requirements of normal bond issues. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of resolutions prepared by Holmes and Graven modifying the tax increment pledges and correspondence from Springsted recommending this alternative. -6- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 s. Consideration of request by abutting property owner to lease the balance of undeveloped Linn Street. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: One year ago, at the June 13, 1988, Council meeting, Mr. Jim Eisele received permission from the Council to lease the east 40 feet of Linn Street abutting his property located just west of the new fire hall between 5-1/land 6th Streets. As you may recall, Mr. Eisele was constructing a garage on the property that he had acquired that he plans to use for restoration of cars and requested to be allowed to use undeveloped Linn Street for establishing a new driveway to his property and for additional parking requirements for his business. A lease was established that would be reviewed periodically allowing Mr. Eisele to use this quarter of Linn Street for parking area and a small storage building. A lease was drafted by the City Attorney, and a nominal fee of $100 was charged covering the two-year period of the lease. Mr. Eisele has now acquired the adjacent property on the west side of Linn Street, which has a width of 43 feet between 5-1/2 and 6th Streets. This property consisted of an older rental dwelling which Mr. Eisele is now in the process of demolishing. Although Mr. Eisele does not have any irrmiediate plans for developing this newly acquired property, he is interested in leasing the balance of Linn Street for the purpose of being able to fence the entire area to keep unwanted vehicles from using Linn Street and to provide a better appearance for the neighborhood. In addition, he would like a commitment from the City to be able to utilize Linn Street as a driveway approach to his new property in the future. Although the City has no plans to develop a street at this time on this right-of-way, the City does have utilities such as the interceptor sewer line in the right-of-way. This would prevent any permanent structure from ever being developed within the right-of-way. Although I believe it's Mr. Eisele's intention to develop some type of commercial structure in the future on this new property, he is aware that the present zoning of the property west of Linn Street is R-3 (nwltiple family residential) and a similar use for a storage building or conmercial activity would not be allowed without rezoning the property, etc. In one respect, a temporary lease arrangement with Mr. Eisele allowing him to fence the area and maintain the property has advantages for the City, relieving us of the responsibility of maintaining the propenyl but I don't believe the Council should commit to this property utilizing Linn Street as parking area in the future without having any plans submitted by Mr. Eisele or resolving the fact that the property is not zoned commercial. I believe Mr. Eisele is under the assumption that in the future when he is ready to develop the property, he will be requesting a rezoning change to commercial. Although Mr. Eisele feels the property can be maintained and controlled better by having it fenced, the parcel he just purchased does have its own driveway access off of either 5-1/2 or 6th Street. I believe if the property is leased to Mr. einol�, he should be made aware that if he ever develops his property with a building, any parking requirements would not autornattcal ly be waived and allowed to be placed within the right-of-way. -7- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve an additional lease arrangement with Mr. Eisele for the balance of Linn Street between 5-1/2 and 6th Streets subject to the following conditions: a. Lease would be for a specific period of time. b. Mr. Eisele would be responsible for all repairs to any blacktop, curbing, or other improvements that were damaged if the City !,ad to maintain its sewer and/or water lines. C. No permanent structure would be allowed within the leased area. d. Establish a dollar amount of the lease annually, if any. 2. Do not enter into an additional lease for the balance of Linn Street at this time until Mr. Eisele presents a plan on how he plans to develop his newly acquired lot. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While the City staff does not feel that this undeveloped Linn Street will ever be improved or be necessary for other than utility purposes, we are somewhat reluctant in committing to Mr. Eisele the use of Linn Street as a driveway approach and possibly parking area for his future development without seeing what his plans are. In addition, there may be a problem with development of this new parcel as a commercial venture considering the property is zoned residential at the present time. With the FOIA continually looking for sites within Monticello that could be redeveloped for housing projects, this R-3 zoned area may be appropriate in the future for housing redevelopment. In other words, it may be premature to commit to a commercial usage, which granting a lease commitment to Mr. Eisele may indicate. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of lease agreement granted June 13, 1988. -8- LEASE THIS LEASE, made and entered into this day of , 1988, by and between City of Monticello (hereinafter referred to as Lessor) and James Eisele (hereinafter referred to as Lessee). Lessor leases and lets to Lessee the premises situated at Monticello, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows: That part of the East 40 feet of Linn Street abutting the North 1/2 of Lot 1, Block 12, City of Monticello. for a period of two (2) years commencing July 1, 1988, and ending on June 30, 1990, on the following terms and conditions: Lessee agrees to pay, without demand by Lessors, as and for rent, the sum of $100.00 in advance, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that in case said premises, without fault or neglect on the part of the Lessee, is destroyed or is so injured by the elements or any ocher cause as to be uneentable or unfit for occupancy, Lessee is not liable thereafter to pay rent to said Lessors; and the Lessee shall thereupon quit and surrender possession of said premises. This lease may be renewed for additional successive terms of one (1) year upon the mutual agreement of the parties hereto under such terms as may be agreed upon. QUIET ENJOYMENT. Lessors covenant that on paying the rent and performing the covenants herein contained, lessee shall peacefully and quietly have, hold and enjoy the demised premises for the agreed term. USE OF PREMISES. The demised premises shall not be used by Lessee for any purpose, though wholly legal, which is noxious or offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities. Lessee shall further not use the premises for any purpose other than parking and the placement of temporary non-reaidential structures thereon. No permanent structures shall be permitted on the laced premises. ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENT. Lessee's use of said property shall be subject to Lessor's right to enter upon said premises to maintain all sever, water, drainage and other utilities uses on, above or under said property and shall include the Lessor's right to enter upon said premises to repair, restore or replace said utility services, should said entry require the removal or disturbance of any blacktop, gravel, sod or other surface improvemento made by Leanne. INSURANCE AILD DAMAGE TO PREMISES. Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining insurance coverage on the premises, and Lessee shall be responsible for maintaining insurance on hie personal property. If the demised premises, or any part thereof, shall be partially damaged by fire or other casualty, the premises shall promptly be repaired by Lessor. Leasee shall not seek damages or contribution from Lessor for the damage incurred as u a result of Lessor's right of entry as set forth above except that Lessor shall be responsible for filing all holes or trenches and shall remove all debris resulting from said entry. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION. All insurance policies carried by either party pursuant to this lease shall contain clauses by which the insurer waives all subrogation rights which it may have against either party hereto, and against their respective insurers. The parties hereto, on behalf of themselves, and their respective insurers, waive such subrogation rights. In addition to the foregoing, the Lessee agrees to name Lessor as an additional insured on any insurance policies required hereunder. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold Lessor harmless from any damage suffered by any person arising out of Lessee's use or control of leased premises and shall defend Lessor against any claims against Lessor arising from Lessee's use or control over the leased premises. RIGHT OF ENTRY. Lessor and/or lessor's agents reserve the right to enter the demised premises at all reasonable hours during the term of this lease, for the purpose of inspecting the premises and all building improvements thereon, and whenever necessary to make repairs and alterations to the premises. TAXES. Lessor will be responsible for the real estate taxes during the terms of this lease. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee shall not assign this lease or sublet any concession or license to use the premises or any part thereof. Any assignment or subletting without written permission of Lessor shall be void and the lease shall, at Lessee's option, be terminated in compliance with the default provision herein. TERPIINATION. Lessee agrees to give lessor thirty (30) days written notice before the expiration of this lease of Lessee's intention to vacate at the end of this lease. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. At the expiration of this lease, Lessee shall quit and surrender the premises hereby demised In as good state and condition as they were at the commencement of this lease, reasonable wear and use and damage by elements excepted. DEFAULT. if any default is made in payment of rent, or any part thereof, at the times herein before specified, or if any default is made in performance of or compliance with any other term or condition hereof, the lease, at the option of the Lessor, may be terminated. APPLICABLE LAW. Lessee shall abide by all applicable statutes, administrative regulations and ordinances covering L --sae's use of the proporty. Eli HEIRS AND ASSIGNS. The covenants and conditions herein contained shall apply to and bind the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of the parties hereto, and all covenants are to be construed as conditions of this lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this lease this day of , 1988. City Administrator James Eisele STATE OF MINNESOTA ) se. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) On this day of , 1988, before me personally appeared Rick Wolfatel ler to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ee. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) On this day of , 1988, before me personally appeared James Eisele, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. Notary Public J U- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 Consideration of advertisement for bids for garbage collection services for the city of Monticello. W .S.1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Our contract with Corrow for twice per week garbage pickup expires July 31, 1989. Their service over the past many years has generally been good. Complaints from individual homeowners have been minimal; and until recently, there were only a few complaints from apartment owners. During our recent recycling meetings with apartment owners, it was discovered that Corrow was charging those apartments who rented dumpsters from them as much as $50 per month for a two -yard dumpster. Those apartment owners who rented these dumpsters had no idea that the City of Monticello was paying 100 percent of the cost of pickup of that garbage and its disposal and was ultimately even paying all of the surcharges at the landfill for that garbage. Ironically, we found that in the case of the apartments that own their own dumpsters, Corrow made no such special charges. To get a handle on what dumpsters or their rental costs, we inquired with the Geneva Manufacturing Company of Alexandria, Minnesota, which is where Corrow, buys their dumpsters. We found that a two cubic yard dumpater only costs $251 delivered to the City of Monticello. On a three-year lease purchase program, a two -yard dumpster could be as little as $9.94 per month, and the apartment would own the dumpster at the end of three years. There appeared to be a big discrepancy in what Corrow was charging for rent and what rental dumpsters actually cost. At a meeting with Corrow Sanitation, they indicated that they weren't being paid enough for the apartments, so they charged extra. It was their understanding that this was the way things had been done before they started here, and they were continuing the practice that had pre-existed. I discussed this question with Tom Hayes, the City Attorney. He advised us that it may be best to re -bid the contract rather than attempt to negotiate with Corrow. This would clear the air, and the new contract could be written in such a way that it was perfectly clear as to how the apartments and dumpsters would be handled. As an effort toward good faith, Rick and I met with representatives from Corrow Sanitation to see if a new contract could be negotiated. Some of the items of concern with the new contract were as follows: 1. Dunpster rental. 2. Once per week versus twice per week pickup. 3. Escalating disposal costs. 4. The new change from disposal by the cubic yard to disposal by the ton. 5. The existing contract specification for six cans per household per pickup. 6. The effects on transportation and landfilling costs of removing grass clippings from the wasto stream. 7. Incorporating into the contract,three separate leaf pickups per year. -9- Counci 1 Agenda - 6/12/89 8. The effects on the waste stream of recycling. 9. The requirement to haul only city residential garbage on specified days if the City was to pay all of the landfill costs or future surcharges. During discussions with Kurt Corrow, it became evident that Corrow Sanitation felt that a once per week or twice per week pickup was possible but that a crossover to eliminate Thursday pickups on recycling weeks was not manageable. Kurt indicated that through a negotiation process, the City might still receive a reasonable twice per week pickup rate; but if the project were to go to bids, more than likely the cost of twice per week pickup would be higher, as he had geared up specially for twice per week pickup. Kurt indicated a willingness to negotiate on all of the points and questioned only the recycling effects. If the City was to pay all of the landfill cost, we would receive direct benefit of the landfill abatement from recycling. Kurt did not wish to put a price or handle on what transportation savings there would be from recycling and indicated this would take some additional thought. After a day's thinking on Corrow's part, we received word from Marion Corrow that they did not wish to negotiate the existing contract and felt it would be better to re -bid the project. This is also the wish of the City staff, even though we made a good faith effort to attempt to negotiate a contract. We have put together a possible agreement to be used as a guideline for bidding specifications for garbage and refuse pickup. They are enclosed for your review. This specification includes twice per week pickup. we may wish to analyze again at this time the possibility of going to once per week pickup and/or limiting the number of cans that can be picked up at curb -side. We can review these at Monday evening's meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACCIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to arrive at a set of specifications based upon the agreement provided. We could provide an option in the bids for once per week or twice per week pickup. 2. The second alternative would he to significantly modify our garbage pickup program and possibly consider other options such as user charges. C. STAFF RFxOMMF.NDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we narrow down our requirements on Monday evening as outlined in alternative 11 and draft a set of specifications for bids returnable on June 26. For your information, at the current rate, we pay Corrow $75,427.20 annually for transportation of garbage, refuse, and leaves, and we also pay an additional $54,000 in landfill charges. This totals $129,427.20 per year, excluding any abatement from grass clippings or recycling in the future. If D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed refuse contract. -10- AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a governmental subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and hereinafter referred to as HAULER. WHEREAS, the CITY desires garbage and refuse pickup and hauling for all its residents from cans or dumpsters on a contract at a monthly rate for orderly and reliable pickup service and disposal of refuse, etc., thereof, without the responsibility of the CITY maintaining equipment for said purpose and a landfill for said disposal; and WHEREAS, the HAULER is organized to and desirous of, carrying out such CITY wants and desires, and has adequate equipment, assistance, and know-how to carry out said project; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promises of the CITY and HAULER: 1. PAYMENT A. That CITY shall pay HAULER the base sum of starting on the last pickup day of August, 1989, and each and every month thereafter, on the last collection day of each said month, for the term of this AGREEMENT, unless the AGREEMENT is terminated by either party as set forth in this AGREEMENT, avid sum shall be for the number of dwellings stipulated in the Appendix attached hereto. The monthly payment shall include all current surcharge or dumping fees incurred by the HAULER. S. The contract shall, upon proper documentation to the CITY, provide for an increase in the monthly payment to cover any V Refuse Agreement Page 2 i increase in surcharge fees or other special processing fees incurred by the HAULER over the current $9.00/cu, yd. landfill cost during the term of the AGREEMENT. C. Prior to each monthly payment, the HAULER shall provide to the CITY documentation of total cubic yards and tonage hauled during the previous month on a form supplied by the City. Documentation shall be based on daily records, including driver identification, truck number, disposal location, and tonage/yards dumped. D. Any additional residences picked up by the HAULER upon the request of the CITY will be added to monthly payment at per single family residence, with apartment units added at the rate of per unit. Additional residences and apartments will be added to the monthly payment at the end of the month and will be determined by the number of certificates of occupancy issued during the month. Mobile homes, duplexes, and triplexes shall also be counted as single family residences per dwelling unit. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT shall remain in force for a period of three (3) years beginning on the first day of. August, 1989, and ending on the 31st day of July, 1992, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be renewed at any time before its natural termination, by the written mutual consent of both parties and resolution by the CITY. 3. TERMINATIONS This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party with or without Ccause, upon a six -months' written notice to the other party. Refuse Agreement Page 3 1 4. INSURANCE That HAULER shall carry public liability insurance with a recognized insurance carrier and keep in force at all times during this AGREEMENT the following minimum of coverage: A. $100,000 per person. B. $300,000 per accident. C. $ 10,000 property damage. D. Worker's compensation coverage. 5. SCOPE OF WORK A. That HAULER shall not be required to pick up and dispose of any refuse or garbage that is not placed in a container or bagged by the resident and that HAULER shall not be required to use shovels in the loading thereof. Further, the service herein contemplated and provided for shall be furnished only to the residents within the present corporate limits of the CITY. B. That HAULER agrees to a twice weekly pickup of all garbage and refuse at curbside for each residence in said CITY, including branches if tut into dimensions of not longer than six (6) feet and tied securely in bundles weighing not in excess of 50 pounds and to dispose of same at a landfill or disposal facility. This service extends only to residential property and not to commercial or industrial enterprise, except for City property listed in Paragraph 5(D). If the hauler picks up any garbage on the City's pickup days not covered by this contract, he or she shall report and deduct the increased landfill or disposal facility fees appropriately. If the HAULER is providing twice weekly pickups, the days of service shall be Monday and ` Thursday. The HAULER can negotiate with any resident with regard Refuse Agreement Page 4 to the placement of the garbage and an increased number of pickups per week. HAULER shall accept at least six containers per household, per pickup. C. Garbage containers must not exceed 30 gallon capacity and should be equipped with handles for ease of handling. Plastic garbage bags are ideal for use of storing garbage. Paper bags are not permissible unless inside a proper container. sturdy cardboard disposable cartons may be used for non -garbage refuse. D. That HAULER shall be required to provide, maintain, and empty twice weekly garbage dumpsters at the following locations: Minimum 1-1/2 cubic yard 1. City Maintenance Building - W. Co. Rd. 39 - Year Round 2. 4th Street Park - Year Round 3. West Bridge Park - Year Round 4. Ellison Park - May 1 through November 1 5. Sewage Disposal Plant - Year Round Minimum 3 cubic yard 1. NSP Softball Fields - May 1 through October 1 HAULER shall provide a garbage dumpster container for Ellison and West Bridge Parks on the 4th of July each year that are at least 5 cubic yarda. The HAULER shall also provide weekly garbage pick-up at the following City facilities: 1. Museum/ information Center 2. City Hall 3. library 4. Fire Hall 5. Senior Citizen Center 6. Old Fire Hall and also empty the litter containers at various sidewalk locations in tho downtown area once weekly or more often, as needed. Refuse Agreement Page 5 The HAULER shall, in addition to the regular garbage/refuse, provide pickup of "screenings" twice weekly at the municipal Waste Water Treatment facility. The screenings shall be double bagged and placed in the dumpster. It is understood that the bags are not "leakproof." E. That the following legal holidays will be exempt from pickup if the HAULER is providing twice weekly service and one (1) pickup day falls on: New Year's Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day If HAULER is providing once -a -week pickup which falls on one of the above holidays, arrangements shall be made by the HAULER for pickup on another date that week. F. The HAULER shall notify the CITY of each occurrence when articles placed out for collection are not picked up due to their being beyond the scope of this agreement (e.g. mattresses, appliances, hot ash, etc.). HAULER shall, to the best of their ability, provide address, name of customer, and nature of article not accepted for pickup. HAULER may negotiate independently with customer for collection of any articles that fall beyond the scope of this agreement. Any extra fees so charged shall be reported monthly to the City listing resident, material, article, quantity, amount charged, and date. If the items are not typical household garbage, the HAULER must pay the disposal fee. Refuse Agreement Page 6 6. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. The HAULER shall not pick up grass clippings at curbside unless they are contaminated with garbage. The HAULER shall report to the CITY each time he or she picks up such a mixture, and the CITY will notify the resident such a practice will not continue. B. As part of this contract, the HAULER will pick up leaves at curbside only three (3) times per year and transport them to the City's compost facility. The date and time of the pickups shall be as mutually agreed to by the HAULER and CITY. The HAULER shall pick up and report mixtures of leaves and garbage as they occur. The CITY shall notify the resident such a practice will 1 not continue. C. The HAULER, in cooperation with the City's recycling program, f shall report to the C17Y any dumpsters which routinely contain significant amounts of recyclable items such as newspaper, glass containers, and cans. The location, date, type, and approximate amount of recyclable material shall be noted. 7. DUMPSTER RENTAL The HAULER shall provide covered rental dumpsteru, including maintenance*, for residential property at the following rates: I cu. yd. $ /month. 1-1/2 cu. yd. S /month. 2 cu. yd. $ /month. 3 cu. yd. $ /month. S/ d cu. yd. S /month. ` 5 cu. yd. 5 /month. *Contractor maintenance shall include trovers, wheels, routine cleaning, and paint to the degree as determined reasonable by the CITY OF MONTICELLO. Refuse Agreement Page 7 r The HAULER must, as part of this contract, pick up and dispose of residential garbage from -iultiple apartments. These owners can provide their own containers or may elect to rent containers. B. PERFORMANCE BOND HAULER shall furnish CITY, as a condition to his receiving consideration under this contract as set out in Article 1, a Performance Bond; said Bond shall remain in force during the term of this AGREEMENT and shall be placed with a Bonding Company acceptable to CITY. Said Bond shall be payable to the CITY OF MONTICELLO, and shall be in the amount of the annual value of the contract. 9. DISPOSAL It is the obligation of the HAULER to obtain proper disposal for the refuse, garbage, etc., and pickup matter and there is no responsibility of any kind upon the CITY to furnish said disposal facilities to HAULER. 10. ASSIGNMENT This AGREEMENT may not be assigned in whole or in part without the written consent of the CITY. 11. GENERAL This AGREEMENT contains the entire AGREEMENT between the HAULER and the CITY and may be amended only by the mutual consent of CITY and HAULER, in writing. 12. WAIVER A waiver of one part of rights of either party is not a waiver of all the rights that may accrue to either party. I U Refuse Agreement Page 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the date of ATTEST: CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Rick Wolfsteller Hen Maus City Administrator Mayor CORROW SANITATION By: (CITY SEAL) red C Refuse Agreement Page 9 ALTERNATE NO. 1, ONCE PER WEER PICKUP Once per week, pick up "Monday." for the sum of per month, each additional single family residence at per month, and additional apartment units at per month each. ALTERNATE NO. 2, "HAULING ONLY" Deduct for CITY paying 100 percent for disposal costs at nearest landfill or disposal facility. HAULER may not use same trucks for other government bodies' industrial or commercial pickup on CITY OF MONTICELLO pickup days without emptying truck at disposal site first. Deduct from base sum per month $ j deduct from additional single family per month $ t and deduct from additional apartment units per month $ ALTERNATE NO. 3 - "RECYCLING CREDIT" To be considered as part of base price or Alternate 1 or 2. Recognizing that the City's recycling program will have a positive effect on the amount of refuse that needs to be picked up and transported to a disposal facility, the HAULER will credit the City Dollars per ton for each ton (excluding grass clippings and leaves) recycled and removed from the waste stream. Council Agenda - 6/12/89 to. Consideration of letter of interest to Wright County for supplying nitrogen for the proposed Wright County solid waste composting facility. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello received a letter from Chuck Davis, who is the project manager for the County's new composting facility, inquiring as to the City's interest in providing municipal waste water sludge as a nitrogen source to be used in composting garbage. If there is enough interest by cities in Wright County, the County will add a nitrogen source receiving facility to the composting plant to handle the sludge. The County will up front the construction cost and charge a tipping fee which could range from 1.1 cents to 4.5 cents per gallon. The benefits to the City would be that it would have a constant cyclical source for re -use of the waste water sludge we produce. For the County, it would provide better management of sludge application in Wright County and it would assist in the corrposting process. A current drawback for the County at this time is that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has indicated that the compost made with municipal solid waste sludge must be handled in the same fashion as waste water sludge itself, and the markets for this product would be limited to agricultural uses, landfill cover, and possible gravel pit reclamation, whereas compost made without municipal solid waste sludge would most likely be available for unrestricted distribution. Currently, the City is struggling, as it has for as many years as I can remember, with its land application of sludge program. We never have enough permitted sites that are available at the time we need to apply sludge. In addition, during the spring of the year when our need is the greatest, road restrictions go into placer and since all of our sites are located on township roads, we are faced with being able to haul little or no sludge. in addition, it is our understanding that the Township, at least the Board Chairperson, and their attorney have entertained the idea of passing an ordinance prohibiting land application of municipal waste water sludge in the Township of Monticello. This has not come to pass, but would cause us significant problems for a few months while we fought to have the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to overturn such an ordinance. Over the past winter, City staff and PSG, along with Wright County Soil Service, worked together to contact as many farmers in our area as possible extending from Otsego Township all the way to Maple Lake Township. We found several farmers interested with suitable sites as far as soil types and topography. But further testing upon these sites indicated the need to lime all of the fields prior to sludge application. We looked at the possibility of applying sludge to the Boyle property in the industrial park east of Fallon Avenue. This cite is ideally suited, ,cod Mr. Buyle was lntereeLed, as well as Lho farmer who rents the sae Council Agenda - 6/12/89 property. We again ran up against a similar situation in that the fields would have to be limed prior to the application of sludge. in addition, Mr. Boyle was concerned about his saleability of the property once municipal sludge was applied. He, therefore, offered the property to the City of Monticello for $10,000 per acre. This would appear to be very costly in that we would need in excess of 100 acres on an ongoing basis to supply our needs; and, therefore, we would be talking in excess of $1,000,000 for the cost of the property alone, let alone the cost of liming it as needed. Since this was one of the strong points of Professional Services Croup to assist us with decision making when faced with proposals such as the one from Wright County, I asked them to research our sludge program in conjunction with the proposal from Wright County. They have done so, and the report is enclosed for your review. As I understand it, Mr. John Micketts, the Regional Manager from PSG, will be available at Monday evening's meeting for questions and answers. As one can see by the enclosed report, our costs for land application of sludge are currently very reasonable and in the neighborhood of $22,000 per year. Having to lime additional farm land will bring our costs into the neighborhood of $39,000 per year. Going with Wright County's proposal and installing a gravity belt thickener at the waste water treatment plant could cost $50,000 per year with a tipping fee of 2.4 cents per gallon at the compost facility. Purchasing land outside the city limits could cost us $53,000 per year, and purchasing Boyle's property in the city limits could cost us $161,000 per year. Based upon these assumptions, it can be seen that although there is a difference of about $10,000 between our costs working with nearby farmers and bringing sludge to the compost facility, this difference could shrink pending any problems with the farmers, Township, or land application. We will discuss this in further depth at Monday evening's meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to continue working with the farmers as we have been, trying to expand our sites and lime property wherever possible. 2. The second alternative would be to send all of our sludge to the compost facility if we could have a guaranteed maximum tipping fee of 2.5 cents per gallon or less. 3. The third alternative would be to purchase land outside the city and rent it out for crops as needed to nearby farmers. 4. The fourth alternative would be to purchase land from James Boyle at a coat in excess of $1,000,000. 5. The fifth alternative could be a combination of alternatives 1 5 2, continue to utilize our existing program in working with the farmers, but have a backup oyotem and send a portion of our sludge to the compost facility so that we would be guaranteed a source during those periods of the year when our program is most vulnerable, spring and early fall. -12- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 CC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Currently, as Public Works Director, I favor alternative #5 and feel that we should let the County know that we are interested in providing sludge to their facility but in a limited amount at selected times during the year. We can discuss this in more detail at Monday evening's meeting. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter from Wright County; Copy of the report from Professional Services Group. a -13- X PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. G) 176 N. Snelling Avenue • 307 Liberty Bank Bldg. • St. Paul, MN 55104 • (612) 842.1252 Juno 3, 1989 Mr. John Simolo Diractor of Public Works City of Monticello 250 Cast Broadway Monticello, MN 55362-9245 SUBJECT: Wright County Co -Composting Facility Dear John: Per your request, I have looked at come of the options made available by the proposed Wright County Co -Composting Facility. The basic assumptions made wore that alternatives to the existing operation must be explored duo to the limited availability of land for disposal .of the City of Monticello's annual generation of wastewater sludges. The alternatives reviewed included the purchase of land for the dedicated use of sludge disposal, the use of a ca -composting facility as the only method for sludge disposal, and an upgrade of the current program costo for comparison. The attached shoots go into more detail on the analysis made. The essential conclusions are that the use of a thickening device for the co -composting option in essential. The co -composting option is the beat available alternative following the purchase of land within the City boundaries. This option could become even more cost competitive if the tipping foo* could be negotiated lower. This could be possible if the capitalization of the liquid nitrogen source equipment wore removed from the tipping foo calculation. There are a number of underlying assumptions made in this analysis. Some of those are: 1. the numbers used are approximate and only to provided relative orders of magnitude in making a comparison between options. 2. the specific numbers used for land and equipment wore estimates made based upon input from vendors, local information and personal experiences. They were O,Q)i basad upon an engineering study or design of appropriate systems which remains to occur. 3. the current treatment and disposal options would remain relatively the same duo to the investment made by the City. Alternative* would be to enhance and to improve the reliability. 4, current Minnesota regulations, the weather and the variability of farm land dictate that other alternatives for sludge disposal suet be pursuod. When land in approved and available, the weather will often not cooperate. When the weather to okay, the land is under cultivation and not available thus the problem of non-dodicatod land and the need for alternatives. C. There aro a number of other alternatives as well an many more assumptions which can and should be explored. Only one of which In the use of a dewatering device and the hauling of cake rather than liquid. This has not boon reviewed duo to the massive changes needed. Page 2 John Simola June 5, 1969 Please lot me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, John P. Mickatts Regional Maneger CC. J. Columbo, K. McGuire, R. Nicholas C 10 MONTICELLO, HN YYIP SOLIDS DISPOSAL ANALYSIS 05 -Jun -B9 The following are some wverage data values to Utilize in solids calculations: FLOW ISS IBODS PERIOD (e60) (1/day) (0/day) 1966 0.188 1,016 2,092 1987 0.477 875 11919 1986 0.187 777 1.1T6 Calculated values based upon average loadings are: -from 1988 data: --Solids to dispose that are from ISS - 1/day-601 - 610 1/day I.S. --Solids to dispose that are from T60D5 0 1/day-701 c 628 1/day T.S. --Solids to digestion = ---1,297 1/day T.S. --Estimated 801 V.S. and 501 reduction in V.S. Tawas 712 pounds/day to land apply/dispose. This is appro.imately 270,917 pounds/year using 1988 date. -From forecasted data: --Upgrading this to the current levels and providing a buffer for continued growth gives: Values increased by 25.001 gives 778,681 pounds/year to land. The nitrogen loading for anaerobically digested and injected sludge is calculated using 57.10 1 of nitrogen/ton of dry solids applied. This gives a total nitrogen loading of 8,992.0S 1/year. -*Estimated acreage that will be required for disposing of this material based upon a restriction of 10 1 of nitrogen/acre/year is 221.80 acres if this is unrestricted grassland. land Application Conditions: -Based upon current regulations: --Soils PH must be within specified reguellion guidelines. To ensure that occurs, an annual soils adjustment bill be required for 77.001 of land requirements. this translates into the following: -boil density 50 1/cu. fl. -pH adjustment 1.00 unit -Cal) availability 90.001 -adjuwted to 6 inch depth -Iles requirement 777 tons/year -lime cost 125.00 /ton -pN adjustment cost 19,777 /year --Crop' applied to the field limit the sludge application rate. This is based upon their spec if,c ni lrogen uptake rats. the ahove value used for minimum Involvement in farming as then the fields would be unavailable during a crop year, this would require more land so that the farairg could occur. this adjustment can be done and effectively change the cost values used. to Aont ice l It. PD! 05 -Jun -89 Charges for diapmal of sludge: future future Current future ./ Land ./ Laud Compobt Costs costs !11,200/a 1110,000/a personnel: pegular Labor 15,200 Excess Overtime 113.456 -----19,ffu6 111,513 $10,820 110,820 $10,870 Expenses: fuel 141{ 1;39 1539 1rj06 1182 Soil Tests 1590 $785 1785 $738 1700 Sludge Tests 1500 161£ 9b5 1615 1795 Lab Suppiiea 160 190 180 /7S $80 Sludge Cert. 130 HO 110 138 140 polymer 1600 $799 1798 9750 $1,092 Lime $0 19,337 $9,337 $9,337 to Liq. Haul Irng. 11,025 11,363 11,363 11,281 11,363 f.T.L. 1570 $758 1758 1713 1759 Insurance 1174 $232 1232 1218 1231 Kaintehame $10,000 113,300 113,300 112,500 14,489 $13,954 127,896 127,06 126,78D $10,161 Capital Imesteent: $0 10 114,937 $123,641 $17,325 lipping fees: t0 10 10 10 112,183 10.024 /gallon Totals: 122,610 139,409 153,553 1161,241 150,489 Estimated 1990 digested tons 169.342 Won = 1131.72 6316.24 SY,2.16 1298.15 NOTE: Current land for sludge application is not available when needed nor approved due to p41 and soil conditions. Amortised Capital Investments: land Acquisition In City Outbids Cc-Coapostirg CCI Thickener Totals: to 10 Ummortired Capital Investsentb: Laud Acquisition 1173,641 N year amort. 114,837 N year a:rt. $17,325 levee, mt. 114,837 1123,641 111,375 In City $10,000 /acre for 224.8 acres = 11.148,01.5 Outside 11,700 /acre for 724.9 acres = 1169,767 Co-Coapmting 1180,000 for Sludge receiving, storage and piping sydes 68T Thickener 1157,500 Installed assuming using axisling structures t equipeent to Monticello. MM 05 -Jun -B9 Asldrrook-SimOn+lart ley brevity Belt thickener manufacturer Item I Meter AAuehelt Capacity, Max 500 gpm or 70,000 ph Feed Rate. Design 100 gpm or 17,926 ph Feed Solids, Design O.SOZWAS Feed Rate. Design 750 o/hr ( 452 hra./year for sludge produced) Output Performance 7-102 implies 1,265 go, P 7.001 to 899 ph B 10.001 or 507,620 galloWyear of 8.002 sludge. ( 31,752 of hauling at a 2.72 sludge concentration) Capture 99.001 Polymer Dosage 4-6 9/ton = 1.50 Ib./hr. to 2.25 Ib./hr. Power 9 HP = 24.0 kyh/ton d.s. Space 10',15'.10' may 17, 1989 Office of PLANNING AND ZONING TOM SALKOWSKI, ADMINISTRATOR Ph one: 612.682-3900 4'riqhl County Courthouse - Ruffolo. Minnesota 55313 Monticello City Administrator Rick wolfstel ler Rt 4 Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 RE: municipal Delivery of Wastewater Treatment Plant sludges to the Proposed Wright County Co -Composting Facility Dear Mr. wolfstel ler: Wright County Commissioners are in the process of selecting a vendor -supplied facility to compost 165 tons per day (TPD) of municipal solid waste. This facility also has the ability to process up to approximately 16,000 gallons per day (GPD) of municipal wastewater treatment plant sludge with a total solids content less than 10 percent by weight. The vendors have supplied the county with capital investment costs which do and do not include the capital dollars for the municipal sludge receiving, storage, and piping system. If the county chooses to include the sludge receiving and processing equipment and associated structures, a tipping fee would be charged to receive municipal sludge on-site. The purpose Of this letter is to estimate local municipal interest in delivering municipal wastewater treatment plant sludges to the proposed compost facility. The compost facility will be located adjacent to the Yonak Sanitary Landfill with access provided by County Road 37, N.E. 65th Street, The following paragraphs provide background information so you can complete the enclosed questionnaire. Please return the completed questionnaire by June using = enclosed self-addressed envelope. The sludge tipping fee would be charged to recover the annual expenses of operating and maintaining the sludge receiving, storage, and conveyance system and include the following expenses: debt service on investment capital, administrative and direct labor, electrical energy, spare parts and maintenance, and laboratory testing. Presently, a municipal sludge tipping foe of $0.011 to $0.045 per gallon of a I udgo received is estimated. The tipping foe range is due to daily variations in the amount of solid waste blended with Sludge and processed into the finished compost product. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and local end-use mar-kots will influence the amount of sludge I. -q ­l fitynnn✓ru /A Ifi, -401-1 E Municipal Delivery Page 2 amended product created by the proposed compost facility. Presently, the county anticipates one-half or 82 TPD of the delivered solid waste will be blended with municipal sludge on a batch basis approximatley two weeks per month. The resulting municipal sludge tipping fee would be approximately $0.024 per gallon, which you can use for planning purposes. Finally, the proposed compost facility would have a constant cyclical demand for municipal sludge throughout the calendar year. We anticipate sludge could be received at the compost facility mid to late 1991. If you have any questions or comments concerning the proposed compost facility or the enclosed questionnaire, please feel free to telephone Chuck Davis at (612) 882-3900, ext. 106. Thank you for your cooperation and prompt return of the completed questionnaire. Sincerely, r Chuck Davis Environmental Health Officer CD/sa Enclosure /v Proposed Sludge Receiving Station fpr the Wright County Compost Facility Date: Name: Title: Mailing Address: Telephone Number:" I. Is your municipality interested in using the proposed compost facility for regular wastewater treatment sludge disposal? Yes No 2. If so, is your municipality able to deliver the sludge to the proposed compost facility? Yes No If froo'response is given, please stop and return questionnaire. 3. What is the total annual amount of sludge your municipality could deliver to the proposed facility? gallons per year 4. What is the average total solids content of the sludge as it would be delivered? percent, by weight 5. 13riefly describe the transport vehicle which would deliver the sludge. Please indicate the transport capacity in gallons, the discharge pump and piping network associated with the vehicle, and overall dimensions. r` 10 Briefly describe the preferred sludge delivery schedule to the compost facility. Presently, any delivery schedule is acceptable to Wright County. 10 Council Agenda - 6/12/89 11. Consideration of poli for providing water pressure reducing valve for city residents. (J.S A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello's new water storage facility is due to be completed in September. Although the tank may be filled initially for testing purposes, when the tank is finally hooked to our water supply, we will set the operation level to provide only a 5 lb. boost in pressure for the winter. After the spring thaw in 1990 and as the frost comes out of the ground, we will slowly increase the pressure in increments of 5 PSI until we reach a maximum expected boost of 25-27 PSI, most likely in late May or early June of next year. During the incremental increases, we will be monitoring the City's mains for leaks, as well as ohserving any prohlemq that may occur with individual water services. The City Engineer's research with metro communities indicates we will have few problems from the pressure increase. I still remain somewhat skeptical about the pressure increase and concerned about the possibility of problems arising. Therefore, we intend to move slowly with the pressure increases in the spring. If we are able to get to full pressure by filling the water tower to its maximum elevation, the overflow of 1105 should be considered maximum pressure boost. This would cause a static pressure boost of 27 PSI over the existing 1042 overflow elevation of our existing tower. Essentially, there would be a few areas in the city in which the pressure would be in the mid to high 50 PSI range. But the majority of the city would be above 60 PSI. For the mid to lower elevations such as Mississippi Drive, River Street, Front Street, Oak lane, Otter Creek, and Riverside Circle, we can expect to see pressures in the high 70 to low 80 PSI range at overflow condition. These higher pressures, coupled with plumbing systems found in older homes, could result in leaks. We, therefore, need to consider providing water pressure reducing valves for the older homes. It has been suggested by representatives of the Minnesota Rural Water Association that the City consider using 60 PSI as a maximum pressure for older homes. Their experience has shown problems generally occur above these pressures. The question of what determines an older home is a little bit more difficult. Generally speaking, one could consider an older home being 25 years old. We could, therefore, say that homes built prior to 1965 most likely have older plumbing systems. This does not, however, say that all homes built after 1965 have good plumbing. The quality of the workmanship in plumbing systems and homes newer than 1965 could be questionable, as they were not required to be installed by licensed or certified plumbers. Based upon the above information, it is suggested that the first two criteria be homes which would expect to receive pressures above 60 PSI and were built before 1965. The City Engineer should be able to provide 9 us with information regarding which areas could receive pressures above 65 PSI at overflow, and the Building Inspector should bu able to give us the information regarding homes built in those areas prior to 1965. Council Agenda - 6/12/89 It appears that the most readily available, trouble-free, well-built valves are from the watts Regulator Company. We would be utilizing the 3/4 -inch and 1 -inch valves depending upon the requirements of the home. The City should supply the valve, a pressure gauge for the home side of the valve, and spare parts or replacement valves as may be needed in the future. It is the staff's recommendation that the City not be involved in the installation of these valves but that it be the homeowner's responsibility to install and maintain the valve. we can supply installation and maintenance instructions. At the time the valves are installed, it is necessary to test the pressure relief valve located on the hot water heaters. In some instances, the valves may be old and in need of maintenance or replacement. These hot water heater relief valves must be operational, as the heating of water can cause a pressure build up in a closed system. We, therefore, should recommend that the pressure reducing valves be installed by someone knowledgeable about plumbing systems. Maintenance of the valve is relatively simple, and most residents should be able to perform the simple screen cleaning which is needed periodically. The cost of the valves themselves with a pressure gauge is expected to be in the neighborhood of $45 to $65. In some cases, we may have to provide special fittings to be used in conjunction with existing water meters. The installation cost of the valves will vary from house to house. There are probably many do-it-yourselfers who could install the valves. In the cases of professional installation, a typical installation should cost $100 or less but can vary. To encourage installation by professionals, the City could offer to pay $25 or $50 toward the installation when done professionally. The last question we have to deal with is in regard to the water services. It is possible that a leak could develop between the curb stop and the home, or that a leak could develop between the curb stop and the City main. Currently, by ordinance, the City resident is responsible all the way to the City main. Since the City did not install any of the service lines on private property, we should not be responsible in any way for problems with that portion of the piping. In many cases, however, we did install the service lines from the main to the curb stop, and some of these could have problems. The majority of the water services from the main to the curb stop in Monticello are relatively new, especially in areas of the 77-3 project. These newer services should cause no problem. The older services are the ones likely to leak. These are the few old galvanized services or older copper services that have worn thin or corroded with age. Any services in this condition would most likely need replacement in the future whether or not the pressure has been boosted. We could, as a policy, offer to pay for street restoration, which would include the upper class V bituminous and curb and gutter as needed for the replacement or repair of services should leaks develop. We could adopt this policy for a one-year period of time after the system reaches full pressure. The following is a oummsry of the proposed policy. -15- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 1. The City would offer to any resident whose maximum water pressure as determined by the City Engineer is expected to exceed 60 PSI and whose home was built prior to 1965 a water pressure reducing valve, a pressure gauge, a T -fitting, and meter connection fitting for the purpose of reducing the pressure in the home. 2. That the City would provide installation instructions and maintenance instructions for installing the valves, which would include the recommendation for checking the pressure relief protection on the hot water heater. 3. That the City would provide spare parts or replacement valves, either rebuilt or new, to all residents who have installed one of our valves in their home. That we will continue to provide these valves and parts as long as they are needed but will provide no replacement or maintenance lat-r. 4. That the City of Monticello recommends that the valve be installed by a professional plumber; and if the homeowner does so, the City of Monticello would pay $25 toward the installation cost. 5. That the City of Monticello does not warranty that these valves on occasion may not fail and that it to the homeowner's responsibility to maintain these valves. The City recommends that outdated, questionable plumbing systems be replaced to ensure no leaks. 6. That the existing ordinance remain in force in regard to the homeowner being responsible for maintenance and repair of the entire water service from the street main to the home and that, however, for a period of one year after the water system reaches maximum pressure, the City will provide or pay for at its option street restoration necessary for water service repair or replacement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACPIONS: 1. The first alternative is to adopt the policy as summarized above and to have the City Engineer determine, along with the Building Inspector, which homes would exceed 60 PSI at overflow conditions and are older than 25 years of age. 2. The second alternative could be to modify the above policy in any way that Council sees fit. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public works Director, and water Superintendent, that the Council adopt the policy as j outlined in alternative 11 and begin working immediately to irtplement this policy as soon as possible and order the appropriate valves and parts. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the instructions for installing watts water pressure reducing F -230A 23 Questions and Answers about V 41 Save Rl ,►Tii-f ►� �1`l Conserve Both "Automatically" This booklet was prepared by WATTS REGULATOR COMPANV Now th Andover, Massachusetts The following information will familiarize you with water pressure reducing valves, also typically referred to as regulators. It will emphasize that they're not only water pressure controls but are actually "primary conservation controls" which automatically crmserve wain anti energy when used in high pressure areae. INTRODUCTION The supply of water and energy is one of our most critical national problems. II we cannot increase our supply. then d is imperative to reduce our consumption. Fortunately it's been proven that we can conserve dramatically and in a manner which will not seriously affect the lifestyles we have become used to. Water and energy eomem tion are so intimately inter• twined that they are practically synonymous. Any reduc. "on in the usage of water will automatically result in a reduction of the use of energy. What this means, therefore, is that our whole philosophy on the use of water is Chang. ing and we are finally recognizing that we have been "water rich" over the years and it is now time to get back to reality by adjusting to our actual needs and to practice good conservation principles. The purpose of this brochure is to acquaint you with a simple way to conserve water and energy. The hub of the program rs the use of water pressure reducing valves, an auto matic control which�s installed at the water meter in homes and other buildings to reduce the city main pressure to a lower, more functional pressure (for most purposes 50 lbs, water pressure is adequate.) Regulators are simple, inexpensive products, costing less than $50 installed, and having a payback period of anywhere from 0 months to 12 months. As you will see on the following pages, they can save between 30,000 and 40,000 gallons o1 water per year in the average home alone. If these savings were ap Plied to 1,000,000 typical homes throughout the country, consider the tremendous impact this would have on our national conservation goals. Thus, water and energy con_ servation, through the use of water pressure reducing valves (regulators) is not only in the national interest but provides a significant benefit to the homeowner. the local water purveyor and energy utility as well. As you can sea below, the higher the water pressure, the greater the amount of water that is wasted. (See question 5 for detailed explanation.) Faucet with 10 minutes running time Water Flow Supply Praswremf�w No. of Gallons 50Ps1 f30 65KI Mi 36 80n1 40 100ni 45 056 6) 1 What is a Water Pressure Regulator? STOP Also called water pressure reducing valves, they are compact, inexpensive regulators that perform two functions; (1) they automatically reduce HIGH PRESSURE LOWER the high incoming water pressure from the city T — r mains to provide a lower, more functional pres• u sure for distribution in the home; (2) they 0 'regulate"' by maintaining a set pressure in the • home usually 50 lbs. thereby insuring that thehome piping and appliances operate under aIsafe, SGO more moderate, but satisfactory pressure. "/I 2 What is water pressure? When a fixture in a home is opened and water flows from it, it is because the water is "pushed." ,PUSH" This "push" is pressure. The speed at which water flows from the opened outlet depends on the amount of "push" or pressure which exists at that time in the system. In short, the higher the pressure, the stronger the "push" behind the water. $ What is wrong with high water pressure? High water pressure, which is generally consi dared anything above 65 lbs., has some advan• tage, such as in firefighting systems. However, in the home plumbing system, it can be damag• ing because water, with a stronq "push" behind it, can erode or wear away many materials and cause leaking water heaters, hanging water pipes, dripping faucets, dishwasher and clothes washer noise and breakdown, and leaking water pipes. Therefore, water flowing at a rate nt ex cess of that necessary to satisfy normal hxturn or appliance demands becomes damaging, w.tctr ful and reduces the life expectancy of etµnpment in the system, But, probahfy most mill. to to the average homeowner Is that it can ,kld to the cost of water, energy and wasto water hills vS_7Ii j4/ i' V 1' ✓ it Leaking water heater f' Dnpp,ng faucets 4, �4.4,4 p� 1 r r / Banging water pipet a i N7 Dishwasher breakdown o (D 4 Does high water pressure cause "water hammer"? Yes, and water hammer is very simply the noise generated by the shocks of high speer) water (lowing in a pipe when o fixture is suddenly closed. The sudden stoppage causes a "bounce. back" of the water and is called water hammer, causing banging pipes, noisy systems and damage to appliances. It might be compared to driving your car at slow speed into a wall where the effect is negligible. However, if you drove the car at a much higher speed, the impact would be greater and, consequently, so would the bounce - back or shock. Another description of the water hammer effect of high water pressure can be easily demonstrated. First, walk around a sharp corner and then run around the same corner. We can equate walking around the corner to a lower, more functional, controlled water pressure. However, when you run around the corner, the momentum forces your body to swing in a wider, uncontrolled arc This grin• ciple is based on the fact that moving objects, and this includes water, tend to move in a straight line. They resist changes in direction. Therefore, in a home where the piping has many changes in direction, water hammer shock can be limited by reducing the water pressure. What is the difference in water flow from a fixture when the pressure is at 100 lbs. vs. a pressure of 50 lbs.? Redut.inq the pressure from 100 lbs. to 50 tbs. will result in a saving of appruxunaurly 1,3 because 1/3 less water flows at this lower fires sure Remember, there is more "push" behind the water at 100 lbs, than at 50Ihs, and most of this water is wasted. Now the lluslrauun whew alnost twiCe as much water flows at 150 lbs, than 50 lbs., most of whn.h i9 wasted. A nioder ate savings would result if your supply piessuie was lis Ilrs. However, even at this lower pies sure, savings with a iequfator would he ?ll Fest motions exert greater forces. � CJ 1 tz�. Faucet with 10 minutes tunning lane Water Flow Supply Pressure i No of Caallons 50vs1 1, l 30 65 pns 3680m 40 100nI 45 150►sf 56 0 s Are there any studies to support this savings figure? Yes. In 1971 the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission conducted a test program in 2,400 dwelling units that has attracted widespread interest from more than 40 states and various foreign countries. One of the devices used in their conservation study was a water pressure :^gulator. It is interesting to note that their report concluded that in test locations using regulators, there was a water consumption re duction of 30% in October and November and 37% in December. % Where are Water Pressure Regulators most commonly used? Water pressure requlators are commonly in stalled at the meter in residential, commercial and industrial buildings. This location is desir able because it then controls the water pressure flowing to all appliances and outlets within the building and provides an inexpensive means of supplying lower, more funclionaf water pressure to outlets and appliances. Why do we now call Regulators "Primary Conservation Controls"? Most people have eonsidenrl regulators as Ines sure Controls I)eciUse, as fh'si plied in the fore qo ml, they are used to protect appliances ind pipinq from the effects of hulh water pr(Isufe However, because of water and envigy thurtaiv- and cost problems, requlaters have her tmie mceeasingly Inane important lur:ause they auto mdtlt'ally provide the advarlulf! of t unselvuul Water and enertiv. Water Pressure Regulator Water Mater ` To All Fixtures X t:�— oc� 4 High City water More conservatirh prossu a Pressure to fixtures and appliances ti / RCGULATOR—,WATEll NEATER *.NW ' SHOWER LAVLA i KITCHEN i �• t tt 9 How do Regulators save water? 101 As mentioned before, 113 less water flows at 50 tis. than at 100 ths. Therefore, when you reduce the city main pressure to a more moder- ate pressure of 50 tbs.. you can took forward to conserving up to 113, or more, of tile water Previously consumed and this will he reflected on your water bills. 10 How much does a typical family of four use? A typical family of four uses an average of 255 gallons of water each day for interior plumbing. This is broken down by: dishwashing 15 gal tons; cook ingldrinking 12 gallons; utility sink 5 gallons; laundry 35 gallons; bathing 80 gal Ions; bathroom sink $ gallons; toilet 100 gallons. When you multiply tills by a year, typical family usage totals 93,000 gallons of water. Your family particularly if it includes teenagers, would undoubtedly use more than the above averages, 11 How do Regulators affect the wastewater system? When we can save 1/3 of the water previously consumed, this also represents a similar saving of water which will not be going into ilia sewer system where it has to be treated. Water does not evaporate after we use it and it has to be pined to the wastewater system. Many sewer bill taxes or surcharges aro based on the amount of water you use, with the assumption that this water is going into th0 wastryvater system. This is hilled to you as a sewer surch,ulle and, in many Cases, the sewer tax can he twice tite water cost, Therefore, when pressure reryulatnrs save 1{3 of the metered water, they also contri Bute to sivisul up to 1'3 of the wastewater load And this is extremely important bemuse it benefits both ilia user, by a hrwet sewer hill, and 1110 community, as this is w,ger they do not Itave to twat K, 1/3 less water used —�� i1aIP! K 12 How do Water Pressure Regulators save on energy? - - t 14a The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 30of the water used in households is ro. mown heated and, in order to heat this water, it takes , l energy. Logically, therefore, if a pressure regu- lator can reduce consumption by 1/3, we automatically cut down on the amount of hot water we're using in lavatories and showers and, 1 therefore, it follows that we automatically f �fxr Jr� reduce the amount of energy required to heat that load. Thus, it can be easily seen that water conservation has a direct relationship to energy conservation. An average shower, for example, Be 1 costs approximately 14 cents in energy and a .nnpy cmf shave with the faucet running cost 8 cents in energy. / J 13 How do these savings benefit the water and energy utilities? How water is used A high rise office building in Chicago was de• signed using water conservation products which SOURCE PUMP resulted in savings of more than 3,000.000 gal- - r STATION Ions of water per year. This is significant in that the municipal water utility did not have to pump that extra gallonage, the water puri- urrfication ficationplant didn't have to treat it, the build ing itself saved on pumping of 3,000,000 gal•BLDG. Ions, and there must have been significant savings in energy by conserving hot water. Also, there were further savings by the fact that 3,000,000 gallons of water, or the normal SEWER portion thereof, did not have to be distributed to the wastewater system and consequently the water treatment plant did not have to retreat this water. The heating of water tjkm energy and it should also be remembered that "pump WASTE mg" water from one place to another also re WATER quires o considerable amount of energy. TREATMENT to ) 14 flow do Regulators save on maintenance? We have previously described the effects of high water pressure on piping and appliances. By having these appliances work under a lower pressure, their life expectancy will be much longer and will also cut down on service calls caused by problems with dish washers and clothes washers, leaky water heaters, leaking water pipes and the potential water damage which could be resulting. 15 Do codes require Water Pressure Reducing Valves? Yes. They die required by the Federal Housing Administration, the regional plumbing codes such as IAPMO, Southern Building Code, and BOCA, and numerous city and state codes. The requirement is that whenever the city main water pressure exceeds 80 lbs., a regulator must be installed. However, because of the recently acknowledged advantages of regulators eonser valinnwise, regulators could be economically installed even where supply pressures are in the vicinity of 60 His. because of the water and energy saving benefits they can provide. A A ' leaking water pipes o- Washing machine breakdown � M / f �l Water Pressure 16 Ilow long will a Regulator last? Rpulator Regulators have been described as 'life of mortgage" products, because historically a mal funcunninq pressure regulator is not replaced R but simply cleaned or repaired via an inexpert — sive servile kit, DesignWKe, it is similar to the Stating area knchen faucet in that dirt or foreign matter Ilii easily accessible the seatrnq area can rause problems and actually it is no more ddficult to reyaatr a requlator than it is to fig the kitchen faucet. r As rally tleaned or serviced as a kitchen k 1 faucet Ito-gulators are designed to he maintained with that minimum of care 12 K 17 IV If 1 install a Pressure Regulator, what savings can I expect? An average savings would be floor SSO to SiSO per year, probably much hirlher. A. Based on the fact that 1,13 less water flo,vs at 50 lbs. than 100 ills., you can expect in Save tip to 113 of the water prewausly consumed. As a typical taimly of tour uses 90.000 gallons per year, that would mean a savings of approximately 30,000 gallons of water, The higher the pressure, the higher the savings. Lower pressures restdt In ICES savings, (your water Co. can prowdv the rate.) B. Remember also, however, that 113 of the water used in homes is heated, so 1.3 of tho 30,000 gallons of water saved divu6kl by 2 to reflect it coal water mixing factor t:oulrt mean a savings in heating up to 5,01710 gallons of hot water per year. It you fillo , 1 u•nt lu heat a gallon of %114"r, 11,,....r.r..,. would he S50 00 C You can also figure err a savrn(O in your sewer surcharge hill, since most of till, 30,000 gallons of water saved will "of I - going into the wastewater system, lhout lore, VOL) will not he assessed on that (Contact your local authority fill ant assessillent char(I„s.) 0 You would also hdve to hgulu the s.lvnuh rjr,nerated fry not having tit have alilttiafrl'i", rel)ane(I nr rel)latrd more hequently TI',i; is ,t nebulous hgu(e but. eased ten your twiv, rxpenence over the past years, you vuuld look for a teduclont in tiro Imqut•ncy of nranrbvrante dnd vrrtaurly for an enpr(t❖ril live hamance fly these appliances Should we consider using other water Itnd energy conservation device;:? t;tvt.unty, the tv.iwr pir<<.me n•aul,110r V.- t.r.kaul ahoot today Ili tbehutr (If .ir-ooSett.11'lI nro•p nn, 11111 yon ,.honer ,der, ( int : ;, , , . . I,,uloff tit t'n ey. lucrfiv-1i isrlrt., m:p(i>.i t V, of r Ileit Ill.) cququnent anti hi Iter de.l pilau' I bu', by the user tfut.evrr, if min,* of N„ d, u.i rv, i:un npa tied 140W,041 (ur „un' I, I 104 1.10! ,.illi' Ili i tuft, hilt" l pul+t •int .luuel; 111 rurr Ji ,nt l t:'a:: i et ,ever: ;r _atuui, tit a+t:.t;,•n .it , fit "0 lire if nr none,b'In ImI 01,:1, INVEST HERE --� and SAVE Ir UP TO WATER USED WATER HEATED WATER BILLS ENERGY BILLS 3070 WASTE WATER BILLS OR MORE MAINTENANCE & REPAIR BILLS 1 I Water S11ved is (� 111(-11;1r, g Earned ;. It M 19 Do flow -restricting devices actually save water? Yes, and they can effectively be installed on showerheads, fixtures and tankiess heaters in boilers. Many showerheads, for example, sup- ply water at a rate of 6 gpm. Applying a 3 gpm flow restrictor will cut the flow in half providing savings in water and energy. It should be re- membered however that their capacity is based on a "fixed" supply pressure like 50 lbs. and operating under a higher pressure will permit greater flow. That's why we say a water regula- tor is the "hub" of a program because it main- tains a constant pressure throughout the home, thereby even improving the performance of flow restricting devices. 20 What are some tips the user can employ to save water and energy? 1. Put a stopper in your sink or use a dishpan when you wash dishes. Washing with run• ning water uses 30 gallons per meal. 2. Kecp a bottle of drinking water in the refriq. orator • running the water from the faucet until cold will waste a gallon. 3. Wait until you have a full nine pound wash before you run your washing machine. The, average machine uses 50 gallons per load. 4. Turn the hot water off while you shave, and turn the cold water off while you brush your teeth. Shaving with a running faucet uses about 20 flattens. S. Take showers instead of baths. The usual bath requires 36 (pitons, the usual shower, only 25. Ten gallons is enough for a shower it you turn it oil while you lather, G. Qun't use the toilet bowl to dispose of Cigar etto ashes, facial tissues, and other materials, A normal Ruth rcpuires 5 8 gallons, 7. Use dishwasher only when completely full, 8. Fix dripping faucets promptly. Nearly two gallons can be wasted per day of dtippinr). 9. Running toilpts can wrte four rfsilons per hour. Keep them In ryaod repair. 10, THINK before you turn on the tap. Iu: e',,Ly If,:l t'lls t fi Restricting flow saves water . N Saves $ <il G g,p.m. Q 3 g p m Based on 50 If". supply pressure. $ S $ $ IS $ $ $ s MONEY SAYING TIPS USE DISHPAN REFRIGERATE ORINKINO W/ USE FULL CAPACITY oil 01'HtCLOTHFG WASHERS I� MAKE SURE WATER THAT GOES DOWN THE OR HAS LEEN USEO, KEEP PLUMBING SME IN 0000 REPAIR, LEAKY FAUCETS AND TOILEtS ARE COSTLY G 21 What does a Water Pressure Regulator cost? 22 J 4 23 is There are, of course, different stylar of regulator and various installation charges thoughout the country, but a ballpark estimate world be approx- imately $75.00 to $100.00, which would include installation by a qualified plumbing contractor. To determine how much you, as an individual, would be saving, it would be necessary to con- sider the factor in question 17, in comparing with your current water and energy bills. See page 20 for examples. How do 1 know if I have high water pressure? A rule of thumb is: If you hear hanging pipes in your home or observe water splashing in your sink, you probably have excessive pressure. However, for a precise reading, your local plumbing contractor or utility can test your pressure with a guage. How can I get a Water Pressure Regulator installed? The easiest way would be to call your local plumbing contractor who can provide you with an estimate and also advise of the various type regulators available and the one burst suited for your home. Although regulators are fairly simple to install and could be, a do it yourself project, there are some laws which provide that only d licensed plumbonlcontractur he pernut ted to work on the home, putahie water system for health and safety purposes IT'S EITHER THIS -4 1 f � - i Water tptathes s~ OF BanarnapiPat -tw f � EASY! Save alt around Will Call your plumber f I HOW TO FIGURE YOUR 't''OTENTIAI SA VINGS f Refer to your annual vrater and energy bilis fits your tpecdre sates and usar)e) 1. WATER BILLS Cubic Feet of Water x Rate, Total Bdi EXAMPLE: 15.000 Cubic Feet x S .60 P/C Cu. Ft. (Apo or. 112.000 Gallons) NOTE ICu Ft. 7.1/2 Gallons SAVINGS with Regulator . 113 or 5,000 Cu. Ft. li S.60 PIC Cu. Ft. 2. SEWER ASSESSMENT Cubic Feet of Water x Rate Total Bill EXAMPLE: 15,000Cub:c Feet x S .80 PiC Cu. Ft. SAVINGS with Regulator. 113 or 6,00D Cu. Ft. YS .80 P/C Cu Ft 3. ENERGY COST IApow-ana(ely 1/3 of total mater used » hratrd I (ralluos Water Heated x S 01 P;GaI 2 EXAMPLE: 37 000 Gal 2 18,500 x S 01 SAVINGS with Regulator, Approx. 1/3ori2,000 Gal, with additional adjustment factor of 112 6,000 gat 4. MAINTENANCE Ar teal Mamtrnalur, Hdf EXAMPLE (hie Multi Off".'uro" Ivlatad to v r all () S15 20 APPROX. ANNUAL SAVHf ANNUAL BILL WIT" REGULATOR $ 90.00 $120.00 5195.00 $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 60.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 Total Potential Savings • $145.00 2 XXIWATrSWATER REDUCING VALVES Sensitive spring and large NapMagm area prande la accurate Pressure control and 1 ..de rangq of adlust. 1 meet. � High ienq"" reustiog 6--agm I., bot or cold • wrier. i Renewable Stainless Steel salt — " "-_–- \ grants had, tante integral stainless r tanstldrll0n, steel struner screen du holder removable tar easily removed for replxemenl at dist without cleaning dismantling the valve—no special tools re4wied. CAPACITY Table shows gallons pr minute based an various reduced pressure fall all. FALL OFF total DIMENSIONS Sue PRESSURE 16" %" I" ILL" IW. 2" SKI 5 6 7 S 12 70 10 PSI 10 12 20 25 22 00 16 psi 12 71 20 40 52 /4 20 K1 17 21 40 50 94 100 EXAMPLE Ne llaw ss@ssure tetonl a be maintsmed n SO lbs Using a %" valve, a 15 to h1 off 145 Hs reduced flow prouinal lives a capac" of 21 GPM while a 20111 ON eft 140 lot reduced flow pressure) prowdna capacity of 27 GPM. NOTE Cessation shown aro baud on a different@ of 50 Ws or mer@ betwnn aha mniol pressure and the rqulater lock up pr@uwe When tMs /ilfirance it lass than 60 lbs. deduct 20% Gem opecrty thews FOR RES/DENT/AL ANP No. U5 Alt to 211 STANDARD CAPACITY WATER REDUCING VALVES with integral.strainer The latest Watts U5 Series is a popular priced regulator line for residential, commercial, and industrial applications. They are standardly furnished with union inlet connections with threaded tail piece in sizes 55" through 2". The U5 Series incorporates basic design and construction features, time tested and proven, and has the highest capacity of any valve in their price class. This proven construction assures durability of years of continuous operation. When maintenance is required, the valves are specially designed for quick and easy cleaning and replacement of worts without dismantling or removing from the= Maximum Temperature 160°F. INITIAL PRESSURE — Up to 300 lbs. ADJUSTABLE REDUCED PRES. RANGE — Valves set at 50 lbs. delivery pressure unless otherwise specified. Adjustable from 25 to 75 lbs. Lower and higher pressure ranges can also be accommodated: Suffix LP, low pressure range 10.35 lbs. Suffix HP, high pressure range 75.100 lbs. OTHER MODELS No. U5B — With built-in thermal expansion by. pass check valve feature as illustrated, No. SC -U5 —• Sealed cage construction. NOTE: Specify suffix 7.3 for stainless steel cage and adjusting screws. Should be used for dl rural water works installations or outside end pit applications. Size th ala", 1". DIMENSIONS for Ain) Irl Ml.rl In I,x1114brer wall flu 1.S 4 C Nos. U6, 1.16/, U5LP. USILP total DIMENSIONS Sue Coanntian A a C Wolflike V2" Union 53/411 p/o" 5" 4111& 3141' Union 6s9" 144" yah" - 5 tbs. I" Union 6091, 2" 6" 6 Ds. - •1 4a" Union 1" 246' 6114" 93A lbs. •IIll" Union /th" 2" 6314" ivis lbs. • 2" union II" 244" /'- 23 lbs •/loedardly supplied a US/,US/LP. ,— - for Ain) Irl Ml.rl In I,x1114brer wall flu 1.S 4 C COMMERCIAL APPL/CATIONS. . . U5B and 223SB Series C (U. S. PAT. No. 3,115, 154) BY-PASS MODEL WATER PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES for thermal expansion INITIAL THERMAL EXPANSION BY-PASS 1FEATURE f- THERMAL �•••••EXPANOED PRESSURE P.CDUCED PRESSURE INLET SEAT AND DISC The 'Thermal Expansion by-pass model is n Watts "patented •" design of water pressure reducing valve which not only controls high water service Encs• sure, but also contains an integral by-pass c�eck valva which eliminates thefrequency of relief valve dripping caused by thermal expansion. Under normal operation, the check valve is held closed by street main pressure. However, when thermal expansion pressure increasesust 1 Ib. higher than the supply pressure, (unlike other designs which require a 20.25 lbs. increase) the by-pass opens, passing the exranded water back into the supply main. 'Thus II1P. expanding water is dissi hated and the, heater relief valve is not nffectc(�. NOTE: Effectiveness of the by-pass feature is limited to systems where the supply pressure is less than the pressure setting of the. pressure valve. Therefore, its use can be broadened by using a relief valve with higher pressure setting (providing the working pressure of the tank pemhits). flow - ever, the by-pass model in no way replaces a relief valve which is a necessary precaution to protect against other causes of excessive pressure.. Where lho by-pass model cannot he used because of excessively high supply pressure, another solution is the use of a "secondary" relief valve Which is merely on inexpensive pressure only relief valve instaliA in any convenient location on the downstream side of the system, so as to allow the drippago to be piped to a convenient drain or where (tripping isnot oI ectionnble.. �It is usually set opproxinmlely 20 IbNower Than .' the heater relief valva 'IThus thermal expansion pressure con only increase to the setting of the secondary vale saving the "primary" heater P S 'I' relief vnlvo from frequent unnecessary operation, No. URP '/2" to 1" LOW PRESSURE WATER REDUCING VALVES with diaphragm protector facing feature The U51.P Series is similar to the No. U5 but specially designed for low pressure service for residential and commercial applications. They are particularly suited for automatic dishwashers, booster heaters• and similar installations in addi- tion to feed water pressure control for larger hot water heating systems. They are assembled with a special heaaprotective diaphragm facing ideal for high temperature dish- washer installations and suitable for long-lasting performance on hot water service. Other con- struction features are identical to the U5 Series. Sizes 1h" through 2". Maximum Temperature. 200°F. INITIAL PltGssURE — Up to 200 lbs. RI-MUCED PRESSURE RANGE — 10 to 35 lbs. OTHER MODELS No. U5111.1' — Also available with built-in thermal expansion by-pass feature as illustrated to the. left. INSTALLATION No. U50LP INSTALLATION Recommanded installation when regulator It used to control flow through the booster heater to dishwasher. No. 40XL T R P RELIEF VALVE DISHWASHER 180°RINSf.WA1E.R 1 BOOSTER 140°INCOMING WAICA wAl IS No, USOLP WITH BUILT-IN THERMAL1 1 EXPANSION BYPASS Go. 4r6titio".0 trrlomr:rt+on, ccnn for ES S. 223 3 n, INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTALLING Watts Water Pressure Reducing Valves Fi�o No. U5/U5B t ,w No. R2 .� s Far e INSTALL THE VALVE IN THE LINE WITH THE SUPPLY CONNECTED TO VALVE INLET ,MARKED' IN" ON CASTING) OR WITH THE ARROW ON IHC VALYL eFUUY PUINIING IN THE DIRECTION OF FLOW. These regulators can be installed horizontally in either an upright or inverted position, as shown or ver• tically and is a matter of choice of accessibility for servicing the regulator. For example, in an upright position (Figure A) the strainer area. on valves so equipped, can more easily be cleaned out by remov- ing the bottom plug and any collected sediment will fall downwards. Accessibility for servicing the Ftp. A regulator section, however, may be less convenient. When the valve is installed in an inverted position (Figure B), the "regulator section" is more readily exposed for simplified servicing of the disc and seat, while the strainer can almost as easily be flushed out by turning the water supply on slightly. NOTE: Regulator must always be installed in an accessible location to facilitate servicing, m°ur� mnw For household use install the reducing Volvo, when possible so that the sill cock line is after Or downstream of the reducing valve as shown in diagram below. Before installing the reducing valve flush Out the line to remove (pose dirt and scalo which might damage valve disc and seat. On volvos having strainers Q the screen should be removed and cleaned at least once every 6'x months, more often if water condi- tions are bad. Fip. e TO READJUST reduced pressures. loosen check nut and turn adjusting screw clockwise to raise reduced pressure and Counter Clockwis0 (0 lower reduced pressure. tttt When a retlucing valve is used it makes a closed system; therefore. pressure relief protection must 1 be provided on the downstream Side of the regulator to protect equipment. MAIN LINE SERVICE COLO WATER SUPPLY 10 SILL LOCK FROM SIALLI MAIN _t� ACOULING VALVE METER INSTALL HORIZONTALLY OR VERTICALLY LOW PRESSURE SERVICE Recommended inlet1141ion When repuletor is used to control flow through the booctw hurer to dishwasher. WATTS REDUCING TAP RELIEF VALVE VALVE DISHWASHER 180• RINSE WATER BOOSTER xnwets141riornig � 1 WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY • 615 Chestnut Stroi North Andover, MA 01645 • (617) 6861811 1 11 INCREASED WATER PRESSURES During our workshop, concern was expressed regarding the increased pressure that will occur in the City's water system due to the higher elevation of the proposed tank as compared to the existing water tower. The proposed overflow elevation of the new tank is set at elevation 1105 M.S.L., which will adequately serve the Industrial Park area, Meadow Oak Avenue, the Middle School, and future construction south of the freeway. The increased water pressure will have be about 56 psi versus today's average static pressure of 30 psi. This increased pressure would provide the desired fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute in the downtown business area and over 0,000 gallons per minute in the industrial area. The maximum increase in pressure would be approximately 27 psi. We would speculate some areas in the City would approach 75 to 80 psi where they are now experiencing 50 to 55 psi pressures. Concern was expressed regarding old lead service lines, galvanized water lines and inside house plumbing consisting of galvanized piping. What will happen to this old piping? Any service lines or plumbing done after the mid -50s would be of copper and should experience no problem with the increased water pressure. In order to alleviate some of these concerns, we consulted with a number of the older communities in the metropolitan area with these results. Citv of St. Louis Park A very old section of the City raised water level 30 feet in elevated tank. Experienced no problems. City of St. Paul Area east of fairgrounds, new elevated tank constructed two years ago. This area of the City was built up 1n the early 1900s. Watermain is old sand cast iron with lead joints. Raised water pressure 30 psi. No watermain problems experienced. No house plumbing problems experienced. This area has lead and copper service lines. 8- 0 The Kenwood area (very old part of the City). Sand cast iron watermain with lead joints. Raised pressure 20 psi to 30 psi. No problems reported. New elevated tank raised water pressure 30 psi. Area affected 1/2 of the City, population 22,000. Mix of housing from 60 to 70 year olds to the present (plumbing within the older homes galvanized and in some cases lead pipe service lines). Watermain primarily cast iron with lead joints. No known problems experienced. Lead joint pipe in service, no health problems associated with this. Lead service pipe, no problems experienced. Telephone conversation with Dick Clark of the Board of Health regarding whether certain pipes have to be replaced. Will we have to replace lead joint pipe? The answer is no. Will we have to replace lead service pipe? The answer is no. We also contacted the American Cast iron Pipe Corporation, with home offices in Birmingham, Alabama, as to their experience with increased pressures on the old cast iron pipe with lead joints. They indicated that to their knowledge they have not been notified of any problem with the lead joints, which in some cases have increased pressures by 60 psi. We also contacted the Ductile iron Pipe Research foundation, which replaced the cast iron pipe foundation, with regional offices in Chicago. They also have no record of any problem with old cast iron pipe or lead joints being a problem when the water pressure was increased. -9- I It would be our recommendation that all known water service lines of lead or galvanized iron material be replaced from the curb stop to the water meter. This would pertain to homes built prior to 1950 and would be in the old part of the City prior to annexation in 1974. During the 1978 street project, all known water services of any material other than copper were replaced with copper water service pipe from the main to the curb stop. We would also recommend that these homes be fitted with a Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) to safeguard against the higher pressure that will be encountered in these older homes. 31.2 G 44 ' �ROPOSED•,7.81AT.ER`MAIN!•• j ATO STANDPIPE ALTERNATE SITES r� }. r G\•\ Yee 6 1 �!/R N A T SERVQI .R� t'TES _ ` ..�..._ ,1 ►,,fir, �._ - ,�� f' - 1; �� 1 _ : _. ORIGINAL° ��' `► 1) ! �� SITE //�l ► J', '. Wl- pi \+ xC �,) i "MONTE �- ' Zudl Eo 'BY THE CITY , I lu\ c... ` � I- _ ` ..�..._ ,1 ►,,fir, �._ - ,�� f' - 1; �� 1 _ : _. ORIGINAL° ��' `► 1) ! �� SITE //�l ► J', '. Wl- pi \+ xC �,) i "MONTE �- ' Zudl Eo 'BY THE CITY , Estimated Construction Cost, Tank - 1236,000 Estimated Construction Cost, Watermain to Reservoir - 96.500 Total Construction Cost - 332,500 Contingency (10%) - 33,250 indirect Cost (27%) - 98.750 TOTAL PROJECT COST - $464,500 Land Cost, 5 Acres - 50.000 TOTAL COST WiTH LAND ......................... - $514,500 Painting Cost 87.000 TOTAL PRESENT VALUE .......................... - $601,500 SITE NO. 2 - KEN SCHULTZ PROPERTY This site, consisting of 3 possible locations, is to the north and east of the Monte Club. The base elevation of the tank could be at elevation 1040 for one location and 1055 (similar to the Monte Club site) for Locations 28 and 2C. LOCATION 2A Type: Steel Standpipe Size: 53 Ft. Diameter, 75 Ft. High Base Elevation: 1040 M.S.I. Normal Low Water Level: 1074 M.S.L. High Water Level: 1105 M.S.L. Top of Tank: 1115 M.S.L. Operating Volume: 500,000 Gallons Total Volume: 1,000,000 Gallons Estimated Construction Cost, Tank - $290,000 Estimated Cost of Watermain to Reservoir - 60.000 Total Construction Cost - 380,000 Contingency (10%) - 38,000 Indirect Cost (27%) - 112.900 TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . - $530,900 Land Cost, 5 Acres - 50.000 TOTAL COST WITH LAND .............. - $580,900 Painting Cost 87.000 TOTAL PRESENT VALUE ............... - $667,900 LOCATION 28 Type: Steel Standpipe Size: 53 Ft. Diameter, 60 Ft. High Base Elevation: 1055 M.S.L. Normal Low Water Level: 1074 M.S.L. High Water Level: 1105 M.S.L. •3- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 12. Consideration of repaving senior citizen parking in conjunction with the resurfacing of the Holker parking lot. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Senior Citizen Center parking area located to the south of the existing building has been deteriorating over the past several years and is in such condition that patching is needed on a regular basis. At this time, it would be best to cut out the softer, loose areas and overlay the parking area with approximately 2 inches of new bituminous surface. It is my understanding that the City owns very little of the area that we park upon, approximately 8 feet. We are currently using approximately 20 feet for parking, and at least an additional 12 feet, or one-half of a driving lane, for access. This area was utilized even before us when Moon Motors was in the building. I approached Mr. Holker with the idea of doing a joint project whereby he would overlay the remaining portion of his parking lot also, as it is in need of repairs. Mr. Holker was agreeable, so I obtained a quote from Buffalo Bituminous for patching and then a 2 -inch bituminous overlay. The quote was extremely reasonable at $2.60 per square yard for paving 1,946 square yards. This works out to around $22 per ton. With all of the preparation and handwork necessary, this is a very reasonable cost. On Thursday morning, I met with Mr. Holker at the site and we reviewed the cost. Mr. Holker had some concerns about adequate parking in the lot and wondered if the City would return to its old parking policies and let him have head -in parking along Cedar Street. I informed Mr. Holker that that regulation has been changed for almost 14 years, and that as Public Works Director, I would not favor going back to it. We then talked about the area or portion that the City would cover. I told Mr. Holker that I felt that we should cover the 20 -foot parking space plus at least 12 feet of driving lane. Mr. Holker pointed over to the back of his building and indicated that the seniors had parked over there for some time until some signs were put up, and maybe we should consider overlaying that portion as well. I told Mr. Holker I felt that we would have no problem in doing that if the no parking signs would come down and we would again be able to have the seniors park over there. I gave Mr. Holker a copy of the quote, and tie was to get back to us prior to Monday evening's meeting. More than likely, since most of the project is on private property, he would do the project and we would reimburse him for our share. As proposed, the total cost of the project would be $5,059.60. our share, as I estimated above, would be 533.3 square yards for a total of $1,386.67, which is about 27.4 percent of the project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to authorize overlay of approximately 32 feet of parking area on the south end of the seniors building at a coat of $1,386.67 in conjunction with the project dono through Mr. Ken Holker. -i7- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 2. Should Mr. Holker decide not to do his portion of the lot, we may wish to pursue completing our section only. I did not receive a quote from Buffalo Bituminous for doing this but would expect it would be somewhat higher than the $2.60 per square yard cost given. 3. The third alternative would be to cut out those loose areas and have the public works crew patch as necessary. 4. The fourth alternative would be to do nothing. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the Council authorize participation in Mr. Holker's project as outlined in alternative 81 at an estimated cost of $1,386.67. Should Mr. Holker decide not to pursue his portion of the project, it is recommended that we choose alternative 12. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposal from Buffalo Bituminous. -18- I ✓_ J IJ 11 — — l- < IJ 1= 1, 1 _ _ 1- U 1_I 1= r f'- C V: i T L. 1.1 1 tJ n 1_I S P i • 1 r - fhapulittl BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC. BLACKTOP CONTRACTORS P.O. Box 126 Buffato, Minnesota 55313 Plant 682.1271 Res. 682.1371 Minneapolis 3395438 i raonpsAt SVDIun[D TD —or oAr[ 1 - -7 6I.Lt' josAt (iLLri/rp Cln, STAT[ AAD IV CODE !00 LOCATION �oFy A9 11 1.,% i- e�qr Sl..st DAT[ or rLAn+ oe -OD E wo h—by Luomn .T>aueue«,+ ane cLt-m tc' to•: n t--Q.NQ DI, C C �_ (J p f�r_js4k ; l J 3 3J1.�y�t[N�� C'a S I • Cp�cl int ;1topDetI IERE• BY TO FURNISH MATERIAL AND LAIIOR-COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE, WITH ABOVE SPE.LIFICATIONS Foo TH sum or: 'I'hIiMS: PAl'A11iN'f UPON COMPLETION OF 0.'OR DOLLARS (f i AI.I.MATI;RMI.ISI,IIAItANTEE•.D]'ODEASSPECIFII{n.A((pLWORK'1' BF.C%OMPOLFrrnplNFA0.'UIIKAIAP:LIKF.�tANNf.R F%THA CUSI'SIG'11.I�H1 �FXFCUT�FDIONLSY UPO NY Q R 1"I'EN O` DFRS\AND G ILL Ur.CO� F AN EXTRA CHARGE OVER A D AROVE THE F,SI'IMATF.. ALL ^GRFF,MF.N�& COSTING ENT 4PON S"HIKES, ACCIDENTS OR RE�,AYS BEYOND OUR CONTROL. 0%'NEH'I'() CAHHY FIRE. TORAAnO AND OTIIF.R VFCF�SSAK INSURANCE.OUR UORKFRS ARE FULLY COVERED BY INSURANCE. AUTHORIZED NOTE: THIS PROPOSAL MAI' BE SIGNATURE WITHDRAWN BY US IF NOT ACCEPTED WiTmN—Z-0—,\YS. AictrpUnre of llCopooat l'IIE ABOVE PRICES SI'E(:IFICA'fIUNS ANI) CONDITIONS ARE SATISF'AC'TORY AND ARF. HEREBY ACCKP'fEU. YOU ARE AUTII0Rl%I?D'I'O Db TIIE WORK .AS SPECIFIED. PAYSIENT WILL BF; MAIZE AS OUTLINED ABOVE. DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.: SII: NATU HF: N O T I C E tM PERSONS OR CnMPANICS FURNISHING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR Till: IMPROVFNIENT OF REAL PROPER'T'Y MAY 1�FORCF. A LIEN UPON TI IE IMPROVED LAND IF TIIEY ARE NOT PAID FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, EVEN IF SUCH PARTIES IIAVE NO DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RI•.I.ATIONSHIP 0.'ITH TIIE, OWNER: (DMINNESOTA LAW PERMITS TIH: OWNER TO WITIIOLD FROM ITIS CONTRACTOR 50 MUCH 01" TIIE CONI'RAC7' PIIICE NAY BE NECESSARY TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF AI.I.OTIIF.R LIEN f,1AIMA-NTS, PAY DIRECTLY SUCH LIENS AND I-- )COUCT TIIE COST TIIEREOF FROM THE CONTRACT PRICE 1OR U'I'f11UI.D AMUUNTS FRO>1 ITIS CUN'1'ItAC I'C)R UN9IL THE EXPIRATION OF 900AYS FROM THE COMPLETION OF JUCII I%IPROVF,MENT UNLEss ipe CONTRACTOR 1'L'RNISII• ES TO THE OWNER WAIVERS OF CLAIMS FOR MECHANICS' LIENS SICNCD BY PERSONS WHO FURNISIIISD ANY LABOR j OR MATERIAL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WHO PROVIDF1) THE OWNER WITH TIMELY NOTICE.. BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC. WE HAVE IIECEIVEU COPY OF THIS NOTICE 00a Council Agenda - 6/12/89 13. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses. {R.W.} B am A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the past, you have renewed the licenses listed below in a single motion. I believe that the motion has been a contingent motion such that licenses are approved depending upon successful completion of the application, filing of the bond, approval at the State level, etc. The licenses submitted for your consideration are as follows: Intoxicating Liquor, on -sale (Fee $3,300) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. g Fox 11\\\ 2. Silver .d 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. Stuart Hoglund - comfort Inn d;,��+� Intoxicating Liquor , On -sale, Sunday {Fee $200 -set byStatuts} ,,3 Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. VFW Club 5. American Legion Club L (,I—r, a.1 17 . J Non -Intoxicating Malt, on -sale (Fee $250) 1. Rod and Gun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Non -Intoxicating Malt, Off -sale {Fee $75.00} Renewals 1. Monticello .iquor 2. Riverroad plaza 3. Maus Foods 4. River Terrace 5. Tom Thumb 6. Holiday 7. Plaza Car Wash B am Council Agenda - 6/12/89 Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, on -sale (Fee $450) Renewal 1. Dino's Deli Set-up License (Fee $250) 1. Country Club 2. Rod 6 Gun Club Licenses (Fee - set by Statute) 1. V.F.W. - $500 (membership ) 2. American Legion - $650 (mems rship ) Bingo, Temporary (Fee $20) 1. St. Henry's Pall Festival - September 16 6 17 Gambling, Temporary ($20 per device) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival - $60 - September 16 6 17 A single motion approving these licenses should read similar to, "I move that the following licenses be approved effective July 1, 1989." There is no supporting data for this item. C -20- 6 Council Agenda - 6/12/89 14. Consideration of approving gambling licenses - VFW and Legion Club. (R. W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Both the American Legion Post #260 and the VFW Club have submitted gambling license renewal applications to the State Gambling Control Board. The renewal applications will be effective in both cases August 1, 1989, and will be automatically granted unless the City Council serves notice to the Gambling Control Board that it does not approve issuance of these licenses. Enclosed with the agenda you will find a summary report listing the gross revenues, prizes awarded, and charitable contributions made by both organizations for the past year's operation. if the Council has no opposition to these licenses being issued, no action is needed by the Council other than acknowledgement of the license applications. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of applications; Summary of revenue and expenses. -21- Charitable Gambling Control Board Rm N-475 Griggs -Midway Bldg. 1 F 1821 University Ave. For Board Use Only Peal Amt: e ,�J SI. Paul, MN 55104-3383 I Check No. (612) 642-0555 Date: _ GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION - LICENSE NUMBER. A-11351-111 I EFF. DATE. 11111111 I AMOUNT OF FEE. 3111,11 - 1. Applicant -Legal Name of Organization 2. Street Adore" VFW 1151 8151 101110ELLS = •: 611 Eider $t lot 112 3. City, Slate. Zip " ' - - i.'. _ 4. County - _ - _ 5. Business Phone - ` Iaatl(elle. 111 $5362 y'-+ ,'' _ - _ - - Wright (612 129S-5192 . • 6. Name of Chief Executive Officer - 7. Business Phone • It11 1-Sh-Ca k r Xi A t F r fJ I/ F T G f LI ( 612 ,-u5-3>•a2 a ys a ,•' .8. Name of Treasurer or Person Who Accounts for Revenues B. Busmess Phone _Iac1a-Icao4 6EORGE Nn17un„a (612 r2s5-1►w�7�-.,7�J3 10- Name of Gambling Manager 11. Bond Number 12. Business Phone 2dvard Laatl $3611)11 (612 1155-2525 13 Name of Establishment Where Gambling Will Take Place 14 County 15. No. Of Active Members VFW Pelt 8131 lonll(ella Wright 211 16 Lessor Name 17. Monthly Rant J 1 18 It Bingo will be conducted with this hcenso, blamed specify days and times of Bingo Days Times Days Times I Days Times 19 Has license ever been ❑ Revoked Oat• Suspeneed Da10 ❑ Denied Dale 20 Have internal controls bean submitted previously? fk] Yes ❑ NO (11'No: attach Copy) 21 Has current leafs been filed with the board? Ll Yes U NO (If -NO.' attach Copy) 22 Has Current 091ch boon filed with the board? y Yes G No (If -No,- attach copy) GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION ny signature below, local low enforcement officers or agents of the Board Are hereby authorized to enter upon the Pte, at any time, gambling Is being Conducted, to obWN* the gambling dna to enforce the law lot any unauthorized game or practice BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION By my signature below, the Board is hereby authorized to inspect Ins bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary l0 fulfill requirements of current gambling ruins and law OATH I hereby doctor* that I1 have read this application and all information surtmlted to the Board. 2 Al:Information submitted is Inde, accurate And conplole. 3 All other required in forme hon has been fully d,scicsed, 4I am the Chief ereCutwe officer Of the organization 5 1 ateume fullMapOnsibihly forefair and lawful operalwn of ell activities to be conducted, B 1 willlamilur4e myself with the laws of the Slate Of Minnesota respecting gambling and wide of the board and agree, 11 licensed. to sbWe by thou taws and rules Including amendments thereto 23 Official Legal Name of Organization Lignature (Chief Executive Officer) DateI Tole V. F. w. Po 5 T No • Y 73 If --- l].nt.rut.�:b�'=��Q S—Ij-R'1r'�r.�►fr aa,� ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OFpNOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of line aDMIC IIWn By acknbwlseging MCPpI, 1 admit having been flamed with notice that this appllcatldn w if OI reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Boa d and it Approved by the Board, wet become effeClNe 30 days from the date of receipt (noted below), unless • resolution of the local governing body M Palestine which specifically di"NOwf such activity and a copy of that resolution M reCewad by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within 30 day, of the below noted date 24 C.tylCounly Name (Local Governing Body) Township II PM is IOCaIod within a townohlp. plea" Complete itefes 24 � M en j F(. . and 25 gflatuM of Person Receiving Application 25 Signature of Person Receiving App icalion Date Recewad ([hie Onto begins 30 oy pend) Title Name W Person Delivering ApphCalton to Local Governing Body Township Name CG 00022-01(51!7) = White Copy -Board Canary-Appicanl Pink -Local Ooverh� Vir",�,, Charitable Gambling Control Board Rm N-475 Griggs -Midway Bleg. 1821 University Ave. Qt St. Paul, MN 55104.3383 , (612) 642.0555 - GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIOi LICENSE NUMBER: 8 -11622 -III I EFF. DATE 111111186 1. Applicant-Logal Name Of Orgenrahon 2. Sheer ACdrOss 41111CA4 1[6188 Post 264 861T1C1lig 304 Ila Streit 3. City, State. Zip 4. a. Canty bnticell/•-411 SS362 S='z. _11-e'` - - - Yrlg6t S. Name of Chief Executive Otf1cor i ..' Steve tV86irs S. Name of Treasurer or Person Who A countts for Revenues' 8 ifa—" 9t F6er11^6aietmea ✓ ThRiti"f'iX x 10 Name of Gambbrrg'Managor{ `�( "iBtf 1. ond NumpOr _ } " i661fid 13. Name of EstaWrshmo' ' era Ci mGltrng Will Take Place 14, County I Astrican Iflien Post 2611 uri}nt 16 Lessor Name :) 2 l i•- l %) For Board Use Only Paid Amt: Check NO. Date: AMOUNT OF FEE. 658,11 E 5, Business Phone 1� i �' 1612 12}5-2571 7. Business Phone s 16I2 1295.1sli! 9, Business Phone . 1612 12}5:56711 j 1 J 12. Business Phone " 1612 12}S-5151 15 No. of Active Members 366 17, Monthly Rent: 11 18. tt Bingo will be conductod filth true !+cane, please Specify days and times of Burgo Days Times Days Tlm_es S Days Times 1. 19 Has license over boon ❑ Revoked Def 1 Q Sumpan//dam DAIa ❑ Denied Date 20 Have internal Commis been submitted previously? - Sivas 0 NO ill -NO attach Copy) 21 Has Current lea" been bled with the board? ❑ Yes ❑ No (If 'No.- atucn Copy) 22 Has Curfnni sketch bean filed with the board? G V as ❑ No (it -No; attach Copy) GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION iy signature below. local law enlorComent officers or agents of the Board are hereby oulhorIZad Io enter upon the site, at any I.ma, gambling I$ Owing Conducted, to Observe the gambling and t0 enforce the law for any unaut 0luad game pr practice BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION By my signature below, the Board is hereby outhoezad t0 inspect the bank raCordm of the Genual Gambling Bank Account whenever necetury to iuihii rs qutramems Of current gambling rules and taw ` OATH I hereby declare that 1I have fond this application and all Information submitted to lite Board, 2 All mtprmatign Submitted a true. accurate and Comptela, 3 Ati Oihet raqu,red +ntamalibn has wen luny dlscbaed, 4 1 am In* Chief ereCuhve Ofical of the Organization, 1 5 1 aatume full responsibility tot the fall and lawful operation of an activities 10 W Conducted. B 1 willfanti,arlre myself with ins law$ Of the State of Mlmtesma respecting gambling end rules Of agrees.e board and agrees. It Ik Mead, to abode by theme lawn and ,utas, including amommoms thereto - 23 Official Legal Name of Organization I Signature (Chief EreCulivo Of9ceil Dns I Talo " `414��1�"?} L O Co m mfg f� r J ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY I heraiby ick lowfedgs receipt of a Copy of this am"tion Sy acknowledging recerpl, i admit having Oman "mod with nonce that thla &OWICAlmor, *IK be reviewod by the Chamobie Gambling Control Board and if approved by the Board, will become effective 30 days from the data Of raGeipt (mloo be10wl. unle.s • ree0lUIiOn of Ina local govermng poly Is passed which spec•flcalfy disallows such activity and a copy of Chet resolution is rocervi d by ina_Charaab•a Gambl,ng Control Scale w+01m 30 days of fro waw noted data - r 2t_CdylCOunh, Name (Loc}1 Oove,mng Body) Tewnoh,p It sate u iocated vritNn a fewro". puass computems ne24 ✓j2 hl/ iC • / I 0- i one 25 ' 04,61 We of Per Race ring Application j 25 S,gnature of Person Receiving Appticotion l �filr Gt� o-lc.Uk.•'. l i If Dab Receww ghli dale beginaft day period) Tine iT 1 r•Isi ..1 , n of Person Da6ver,ng Applrcallon to Local Governing Body Township Name �*+' CO.000224115417) whits Copy —1SOard Canary—Appacam Pmt—L.00a1 Ga�ve� Body AMERICAN LEGION POST 260 OamingReport JANUARY -APRIL, 1989 GROSS SALES: $965,286.00 PRIZES PAID: $822,553.00 GROSS PROFIT $142,733.00 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT: $142,733.00 EXPENSES: PREPAID GAMINOTAX $12,797.00 10% TAX $154.00 IRS TAX $19,133.00 TOTAL LAWFUL PURPOSE EXPENSE ••• $32.084.00 TOTAL GROSS LESS LAWFUL EXPENSE: $ 110,649.00 EXPENSES: WAGES $38,930.00 ACCOUNTING $10,949.00 RENT $2,400.00 EQUIPMENT $1,687.00 BOND, LICENSES, ETC. $3,699.00 ADVERTISING $115.00 UTILITIES $344.00 INVENTORY USED $16,210.00 TOTAL EXPENSE $74,334.00 TOTAL X EXPENSE OF PROFIT (NOT TO EXCEED 45%) 52.08% NET PROFIT $36,315.00 LAWFUL PURPOSE CONTRIBUTIONS Mortgage Payments $19,325.00 Scholarships $3,600.00 Youth Sports $2,338.00 School Patrol, Boy's State, etc. $2,230.00 High School Events $600.00 Medical Research $2,600.00 Misc. Sponsorships $342.00 990T taxes $5,377.00 TOTALS S36,412.00 PROFIT AFTER EXPENSE & CONTRIBUTIONS ($97.00) NEGATIVE FIGURE REFLECTS PROFIT CARRY-OVER FROM PREV!OUS MONTHS pTA X35 a?� �a 31,lryE 9 r er, PR r z NFT—.'` tAY PAIV V nFPf, of fyF"N"— !J rED,cRAL F PclticuAS65 6F Pctcc TA135 # a'•l, 7 a b,00 omerllSJ4rio,✓ JoAtA LJT1L iT iCS P,,t CJ1njG ANO 41jA1,j /t,u, A1Ct' or CA—tJi ial Eir-iPm£Ni—,(� 3sG•Oo %abvERT+SINU (,� 1,G70.ov l AYNlNN7 Ca13ulcDlN(- - N/CQDO. O0 REI�L CSTc WATE rAXES �p ,560,00 J Pui3CCLi- PLuM13614 LAwf/1L ('uRPoSF Goi1riqu3,jrro,✓5 ....,�' 3 �� G4I.00 fo7AL L')ePcN5ES — ,� l�C� 357. 3S Z3AGfrNGL t'a 5 T �a 0rY fA NT ADDITIONAL BREAKDOWN OF CONTRIBUTIONS VFW Monticello High School graduation party $ 1,550 Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Home 5,634 Monticello -Big Lake Hospital Auxiliary 2,000 Senior Citizen Center 1,325 High School scholarships 1,000 Monticello Youth liorkev 3,395 Monticello Food Shelf 130 Pinewood playground 5,000 Wrestling Club, Baseball team sponsorship, Youth softball, Volleyball 2,965 V.A. Medical Center 2,394 Miss Teen Pageant 600 High School athletics 560 VFW National Home b Korean Memorial 300 Assistance to need families 906 Misc. charities 3,013 Misc. other purposes 1,575 W71 -M Council Agenda - 6/12/89 15. Consideration of requirements for testing of sanitary sewer and water services from the property lines of the home. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: When a new home or apartment building is built in the city of Monticello, Gary Anderson performs a plumbing inspection which includes pressure testing of the sanitary sewer and water piping. The inspection of the yard piping for that portion of the sewer and water services from the building to the property line, and in some cases onward to the street, is inspected by the water and Sewer Collection Superintendent or his representative. In the past, this has been a visual inspection of the connection at the property line and observation of the location of the lines. The Superintendent then makes a location drawing of the sewer services between the house and/or apartment and the property line. This drawing is kept on file for future reference. Since our personnel cannot possibly be on site during the many hours it often takes to install sewer and water services, we cannot guarantee that inadequacies in the construction or that leaks may not develop. There have been several service related problems in the past which may have been avoided through the addition of a pressure testing requirement. The procedure would be similar to that used by the Building Inspector in Lhat routine observations would Lake place during the construction of the services; and at the completion, the Superintendent or his representative would be at the site to observe the final pressure testing of the lines. This would require that the final connection of the property line for the sanitary sewer either be a cleanout or be delayed until after the air testing. The individuals to benefit most from the testing will be future owners of the property. Pressure testing of the water service lines should add no additional cost to the homeowner whatsoever. Pressure testing of the sanitary sewer line could add slightly to the cost due to the addition of a cleanout (which the City installed, by the way, on all of the services on the East County Road 39 project) or by the small delay the contractor would encounter to make the final connection at the property line after the air test is performed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative would be to include in our service line inspection policy the requirement of pressure testing of sanitary sewer and water services during installation effective July 1, 1989, after a notice is published in the Monticello Times and official notice is sent to every service line contractor who currently holds a certificate of insurance with the City of Monticello. 2. The second alternative would be to continue as we are and not require any pressure test inspections for leaks. -22- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director, water and Sewer Collection Superintendent, and Building Inspector that the City Council amend our inspection policy as outlined in alternative 41. Since we have no licensing policy for those contractors installing services and such inspections would benefit the property owner in the future by reducing the possibility of having to repair a water leak or sewer services due to root intrusion at loose joints and would also reduce the possibility of lost unmetered water for the City of Monticello and the intrusion of ground water into the sewer services, it seems logical that one can support this alternative. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of list from the Water Superintendent of most recent service problems that may have been averted by the testing requirement. -23- I . 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 32 Fairway Dr. 4/12/87 Bad flair Hatch ex. Fairway Dr. Bad flair Hatch ex. Marvin Elwood Bad joint Rotilinek River Road Apt. 10/2/88 Bad joint S 6 L West Cello Apt. 5/13/89 Bad flair S 6 L Heikes townhouses Bad flairs Heikes Heikes townhouses Bad flairs Heikes Heikes townhouses Bad flairs Heikes Heikes townhouses Bad flairs Heikes Council Agenda - 6/12/89 16. Consideration of ordinance amendment which would allow limited expansion of a non -conforming use (residences) in the B-4 district. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: R.D. Quick requests that City Council consider this amendment which would directly affect his property at 113 Fast Fourth Street, Monticello. Based on a 3 to 1 vote, Planning Commission recommends that Council approve the proposed amendment which reads as follows: IJ1 Alterations may be made to a building containing or related to a lawful non -conforming residential unit when said alteration will improve the livability thereof, provided the alteration will not increase the number of dwelling units. In the B-4 zone, alterations or expansion may be made to a building containing or related to a lawtui non -conforming residential unit when said alteration or expansion will improve the livability thereof, provided the alteration or expansion will not increase the number of dwelling units and provided that such alteration or expansion shall not constitute more than 50 percent of estimated market value. Said value shall be determined by City or County Assessor. All setbacks associated with residential structure expansion must meet R-1 yard requirements. Planning Commission recommendation is based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the character and geography of the affected area. According to the attached site plan, Mr. Quick desires to construct a 500 -foot addition to hie existing structure which would replace a 72 sq ft porch. In addition, Mr. Uuick wishes to remove a small one -car garage and an old shed on his property and replace it with a two -car garage. Mr. Quick is unable to complete his proposed alterations and expansions to hie existing residential use because under the ordinance as it now exists, alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful non -conforming residential unit when the alteration will improve the livability thereof, provided that the alteration does not increase the number of dwelling units or size or volume of the building. It was determined that approaching Mr. Quick's problem via the City ordinance amendment process versus the variance process is more appropriate, as Mr. Quick's request, if in the form of a variance, could not be legally granted, as there are no grounds for a variance. In addition, granting a variance without sufficient grounds sets a precedent which then must apply to every other residential structure located in the B-4 district. The ordinance amendment process was initiated, as it provides a direct method of establishing City policy with regards to expansion of a non -conforming residential use. -24- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 SITE PLAN REVIEW Although this ordinance amendment would affect a wide area, the following is a brief review of the site plan presented by Mr. Quick and its impact on adjoining properties. As noted earlier, quick's net expansion to his existing residential structure amounts to 428 sq ft. In addition, he plans on replacing a small 1 -car garage with a 1-1/2 or 2 -car garage. He also will be replacing an old shed in the rear of the property. The value of the existing structures will be increased by approximately 50 percent with the proposed expansion. The Quick residence is located at Lot 3, Block 33. This entire block is zoned commercial. To the west of the Quick residence is the Bridge Water Telephone Company parking lot. Quick's improvements would affect Bridge Water if the telephone company planned on expansion of their conforming use. Cost to expand will increase. To the north, east, and south are non -conforming residential structures. Please see the attached map for more location information. CHAPTER 22, REVIEW REQUIREMENTS As always, when an amendment to the Zoning ordinance is proposed, the City Council shall consider possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. It's judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1) relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan; 2) the geographic area involved; 3) whether such use will tend to actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed; 4) character of the surrounding area; and 5) the demonstrated need for such use. Following is a staff review of decision factors above. Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan speaks both directly and indirectly to this proposed amendment. Comprehensive Plan policies that apply to this situation do not appear to be consistent. Council is asked to review these policies and determine the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies that seem to support the proposed amendment are as follows: General housing policy p4 states that residential uses should be permitted to mix with commercial or industrial uses unless it can be demonstrated that the residential and non-residential uses will be in conflict. Community development policy tl states that the comprehensive Plan is considered to be a flexible guide to decision making rather than an inflexible blueprint for development. The Plan will be continually reviewed and amended as necessary in the light of changing conditions and needs consistent with the aspirations of the citizens. Any proposed amendment of the Plan, however, must be equal to or an improvement over prior plans. Comprehensive Plan policies that do not support the proposed amendment are as follows: -25- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 Community development policy g7 states that all land uses should be located so as to relate properly to surrounding land uses in the general land use pattern of the urban area. In general, similar type land uses should be grouped to serve as functional units. Commercial policy ;9 states that boundaries of commercial districts shall be well defined so as to prevent intrusion into residential areas. Residential areas must be properly screened from the associated ill-effects of adjacent and nearby commercial area. The Council must determine whether or not allowing a residential non -conforming use to expand will have a detrimental effect on the B-4 district. The proposed amendment should be adopted if it can be demonstrated that the residential and non-residential uses will not be in conflict. The geographic area involved and character of area At this time, the character of the B-4 area is typified by a mixture of residential and business use (see attached map). The vast majority of the residential structures are being used for residential uses and are, therefore, non -conforming. Within the downtown B-4 district, there are 33 residential structures of which 5 are being used for commercial purposes and 3 of those 5 are being used for both commercial and residential uses. It is likely that over time, with the increased population growth in the area and the concurrent increased demand for commercial services, the residential structures and uses will diminish over time. The proposed amendment may have an impact on future redevelopment activities. It is likely that sometime in the future, the City and/or HRA, working with private developers, will participate in redevelopment activities which will require purchase and demolition of residential structures to make way for expansion of commercial activity in the business core of the community. This amendment may result in further Investment in potential redevelopment areas which will result in higher redevelopment costs. The extent to which the increased redevelopment cost will hamper development of conforming uses is very difficult to estimate. Council may wish to take the position that allowing limited expansion to residential uses in the B-4 district will not significantly or measurably hamper development of conforming uses. Please note, however, that, in this case, further development of the non -conforming Quick property will reduce the ability of Bridge Water Telephone to expand at its present location. This will be one of the negative effects of the proposed amendment. Business expansion and development along Highway 25 has been consistently strong. In reality, the "mainstreet" of Monticello has shifted or is shared with Broadway. It is staff's view that the business trend will continue that has brought about the near complete development of the ` Highway 25 corridor to a depth of two city blocks. -26- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 In the past few years, one residential structure was removed to provide room for the Bridge Water parking lot. Another structure (Clifford Olson) will likely be removed soon. Once the Olson property is removed, it is likely that the property to the east of Olson's will be considered for removal, as this potential commercial space will be needed in combination with the Olson property in order to provide sufficient space for a commercial development. The demonstrated need for such use The applicant has demonstrated his individual nead for theamendment. Mr. Quick has made a significant investment in his existing property and wishes to improve it further. without the proposed amendment, The applicant's need cannot be satisfied at the present location. At the same time, however, Council must review this situation in terms of the overall community need. Is there a need to allow expansion of residential uses in the B-4 district? A case could be made that there is not a need to expand residential uses in the B-4 district simply because there are many other residential areas in the city that are zoned properly for residential development. Individuals living in the B-4 districts do have the option of enlarging their living space by developing homes in properly zoned areas of the community. This option, of course, requires a considerable individual investment and, therefore, may not be palatable for many individuals living in the B-4 zone. The absence of a demonstrated community need for such use could be noted as a factor contributing toward denial of this proposed amendment. At the same time, Council is not bound to deny the amendment because community need has not been demonstrated. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Section 1-1 IJ) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow expansion of residential structures in the B-4 district provided that the value of expansion does not constitute more than 50 percent of market value of existing structure, and provided all setbacks associated with residential structure expansion must meet R-1 yard requirements. Motion based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the character and geography of the area. The amendment will not depreciate the value of adjoining lands. 2. Motion to recommend denial of proposed amendment. Motion based on finding that the proposed amendment to not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is not in keeping with the character of the B-4 zone, and the applicant has failed to sufficiently demonstrate the need for the amendment. -27- C Council Agenda - 6/12/89 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The text of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to treatment of non -conforming uses provides the City with the planning tools that can be used to encourage "correction" of existing non -conforming land uses. The proposed amendment will impact the ability of the City to eliminate or amortize the non -conforming residential use over a period of time. By adopting the amendment, the Council will be extending the time period of non -conforming use. In the case of residential structures in a B-4 zone, Council may not have a problem with extending the life of non -conforming residential use because the conflicts between uses are not severe, and the benefits of strict adherence to the current ordinance are not immediately or clearly evident. A strong recommendation is difficult to develop in this case. Both sides of the argument have a good case. The easy decision is to allow the amendment to occur and hope that the negative effects are minimal. It may just so happen that Mr. Quick will be the only homeowner out of 33 that will ever expand his home. On the other hand, it is staff's view that the property within two blocks of Highway 25 between Maus Foods and Broadway will continue to increase in value as commercial property. It is likely that within a reasonable period, the entire area may witness commercial development as prescribed on the zoning map. This amendment may inhibit this process. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Inventory of non -conforming residential structures in the B-4 district; Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan; Proposed text of amendment to Section 3-1 (J) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; Quick site plans -- A -existing, B -proposed. -28- COMMUt;1TY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A "policy" is an official course of action adopted either legislatively or administratively and followed by local government in striving to attain the desired community goals. The following policy statements are suggested for the City of Monticello. 1. The Comprehensive Plan is considered to be a flexible guide to decision making rather than an inflexible blueprint for development. The Plan will be continually reviewed and amended as necessary in the light of changing conditions and needs consistent with the aspirations of the citizens. Any proposed amendment of the Plan, however, must be equal to or an improvement over prior plans. 2. Broad citizen interest and participation in the planning process will be encouraged. 3. The principle of representative government will be maintained in the local neighborhood sentiment but will not be the sole factor considered in evaluating development proposals. Sound planning principles based upon factual evidence will be the primary consideration. 4. The function of' the Planning Commission shall be to: maintain the City Plan; make recommendations on development proposals (private and public) ; serve to provide the general public with information necessary to intelligent decision making; consider aesthetic as well as dollar costs and values; and serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. 5. Urban development guides and controls shall be efficiently and properly administered by City staff and/or consultants. 6. Any proposed change in zoning, subdivision practice, or other development, but which is not consistent with the City Plan, shall not be considered until there has been an amendment to that Plan, said amendment to be reviewed and noted by the Planning Commission. 7. All land uses should be located no as to relate properly to surrounding land uses and the general land use pattern of the urban area. In general, similar type land uses should be grouped to serve as functional units. 8. The guiding factor in land use control should be the consideration of density. Such standards are to be incorporated in the zoning regulations and govern dwelling units permitted per acre; traffic generation elements, and the like. The control of density is the key factor in planning for utilities, straots, and other facilities which have a relationship between capacity and demand. -40- J GENERAL HOUSING POLICIES In Monticello, urban planning should be designed to promote high standards for residential development and help to assure the best possible living environment. 1. The Planning commission, in coordination with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will be advocates for 'reform of land use controls, increased housing funding, governmental and IN legislative changes, and in general, act to increase public awareness of housing problems and solutions. The Commission will evaluate the City's regulatory codes and ordinances to insure that these regulations provide maximum opportunity to develop a range of housing types at various income levels and permit utilization of innovative site development and construction techniques. 2. Attempts will be made to develop and implement affirmative programs for open housing. Open housing is housing that is availableto all persons without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or ethnic background. 3. New housing areas shall be provided utilities as they expand toward the perimeter of the City. 4. Residential uses should be permitted to mix with commercial or industrial uses unless it can be demonstrated that the residential and non-residential uses will be in conflict. 5. Developments shall be designed to respect the natural features of the site to the maximum extent feasible. 6. Development proposals will be evaluated with respect to their potential effect upon adjacent and nearby developments and their effect upon the public welfare of the City and adjacent communities. 7. Developments must be developed according to well conceived plans that tend to unify and relate to each other; developments that are a hodge-podge and ill-conceived will be disapproved. R. within the OAA, a density of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit will be promoted in the areas of utility service contiguous to the present city and in those areas where central utility service construction is contemplated within five years. 9. Although anticipated densities in areas capable of utility service 'within five years may be designed at 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, building permits shall not be issued for a density of more than one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres with on-site newer systems based upon percolation teats. -44- COMMERCIAL POLICIES 1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing functions should occur both in the central business district and the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94. 2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to . properly control such enterprises at the local community level; commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible, and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive. 3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable areas for highway oriented commercial develooment requiring large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses should be encouraged to develop in new locations along Interstate 94 at Highway 25. 4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an adequate market study (market radius, customer potential, suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern. 5. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a better control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason, *strip" and 'spot' commercial development should not be permitted. 6. Highway or iented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime 19 commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable an a 'viable commercial area'. 7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the intograted business center developed according to a specific site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to 19 be served. 8. All major commercial areas shall be pre-zoned based upon the Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be re-zoned to ccrAorcial use unless theyare shown to be properly located in accordance with the policiaa and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as E� to prevent intrusion into residential areas; residential areas must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of adjacent and nearby commercial area. -40- V4 V ZONING Figure b indicates the anticipated principal land uses of the City. The legal mechanism that controls or manages the development process is zoning,9 police power to which is the use of the government's regulate land use in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. A zoning Ordinance consists of both a zoning text and a zoning map. (Figure 11) The text describes the different districts and types of uses allowed in each district. The map delineates the various geographic districts within the community. A Zoning Ordinance divides the jurisdictional area into different districts such as residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural districts. These major districts are often divided into sub districts for the purpose of segregating special uses within the major categories. For example, apartment units will be segregated from single family homes in the residential districts. Within an industrial district, heavy industry will be segregated from light industry. Within the commercial district, regional shopping centers will be segregated from neighborhood convenience shopping uses. It should be noted, however, that the quality of a zoning ordinance is not necessarily determined by the number of districts it contains. The number of districts is determined in part by the type of Comprehensive Plan and in part by the degree of urbanization that has taken place within the community. Some zoning ordinances contain many districts in"order to reflect the conditions which existed at the time the ordinance was adopted. This is especially true within older communities. ' Zoning ordinances are not retroactive and therefore, land uses existing at the time the ordinance was adopted and which do not conform to the ordinance are allowed to continue in a non -conforming basis. For example, a commercial use within a single family neighborhood which later was zoned for single family residential uses would be allowed to continue as a non -conforming use. r3on-conforming uses are not usually permitted to expand by adding onto the building or otherwise upgrading the operation. In fact, most jurisdictions prohibit the reconstruction of a non -conforming use if it is more than fifty percent (508) destroyed by fire, lightning, or natural causes. Some communities have adopted provisions in their zoning ordinances which attempt to eliminate or amortize the non -conforming use over a period of time. The time period varies and is dependent upon such factors as the amount of investment in the use, the losses to the property owner due to the elimination, and the cost of relocation. The time period is usually shorter for uses which may cause a nuisance, such as junk yards, or unsafe and dilapidated billboards. Zoning is just one of the several devices used in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the zoning ordinance should be ` based upon and prepared in conjunction with the Canprehansive Plan. 7 The procedures for adminiatering the zoning ordinance differ substantially between communities. unfortunately, many communities -72- !1l ! t do not follow the proper procedures which often results in their decisions having been overturned by a court of law when challenged by prospective developers. For example, in those instances when public hearings are required, it is important not only to hold the public hearing but to follow the proper legal requirements for public notice in a legal newspaper. A common mistake in the application of the Zoning Code involves the double standard. For example, different procedures may be used depending upon whether the applicant is a long-time resident of the community or a developer. It should be emphasized that the law does not recognize differences between applicants and that the same procedures must be used regardless of the background and stature of the applicant. The following are some questions which should be raised when proposals for zoning amendments, variances, and conditional use permits are brought before the Planning Commission. ZONING AMENDMENT 1. Has there been a change in the development policies of the community? 2. Has there been a change in the conditions in the community such as rapid population or development change? 3. was there a mistake made in the development of the original zoning ordinance which needs to be corrected? 4. Is the zoning ordinance up to date? S. Does the proposed amendment conform to the intent of the Comprehensive Development Plan? 6. Is the proposed use compatible with adjacent land uses? 7. Is the proposed amendment and land use likely to lead to a monopoly situation so as to amount to a spot zoning? 8. What is the affect of the proposed rezoning on such public utilities as sanitary sewers, water, roads, schools? 9. will the proposed development place an undue financial burden on the local community? ZONING VARIANCE 1. Does the zoning ordinance and its standards and regulations load to a practical difficulty or undue hardship on the part of the property owner in the use of his property? w 4L., li 3 -F. y —XJ pf, 13 kp Aaoij 3 V LA r% Frca LFA 123'. j� '18 �ka4 ly, C�LII'C r1u) A I s o Rey ap I_ cel Cc•ms"ber1 se ea, aLe.ly / Move Ex�st�hq �j andC �O a0' Re plicc 01cl Si+c.( 611 n^ 1 l(W) �4 OF�IoN I IaQ511�awd I I R -Id 1 Sfor• yS�� soN I�oo�� P2�ec.+ric ' to-t wit • 0k, t;30e$ 1 cpt,'oN a. SaNn� �IMlhil:uj I �� II , .c I , i Add a� A I s o Rey ap I_ cel Cc•ms"ber1 se ea, aLe.ly / Move Ex�st�hq �j andC �O a0' Re plicc 01cl Si+c.( 611 n^ 1 l(W) 6B I I I 16g I •0 Iy6B I I I Ifig I •0 � ` � � 1 I �, �P If B Ififi II! S\I a0 1 I, eo •o eo N o , n •o (CO. HWY. 75 ) 12; I a �' Z•I• O- n"fifi e�a�r- aes• s•f• :I'll. asa•• e wto a•I•o } aI •• •fi e' �F � I I lop i' Ip ,p aq I a F ` to e a d I 1 •o I s ---- I.II ja'wLa ' .... •. .. LAND USE GUIDE •, ;� —-- ��w to FIGURE 18 D W a � 7 Y !�MEICF,Y r n IIOIOLIITIIW l'-1 ANDUSUI" J 5, - Z \ dl .-]M1LT1•LS Ulo[MTIN. � •0•LIC Q IYe91I •I I �]COC11IIJ. 3 �� 01, .0 E S A L F, � R•s ��.��IKr.s �� Y�tt.w n. •. rM.n � Rwt •.d I, /L7 � /C :6�Or/ S4/P! � � /oI/1 !�-�o! 33- f, t0. S e,..d roe ���....r•._ i �,rP�.� CHAPTER 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS Current Ordinance reads: [J] Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non -conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or size or volume of the building. Proposed Ordinance to read: [J] Alterations may be made to a building containing or related to a lawful non -conforming residential unit when said alteration will improve the livability thereof provided the alteration will not increase the number of dwelling units. In the B-4 zone, alterations or expansion may be made to a building containing or related to a lawful non -conforming residential unit when said alteration or expansion will improve the livability thereof [ provided the alteration or expansion will not increase the number of dwelling units and provided that ouch alteration or expansion shall not constitute more than 50 percent of estimated market value. Said value shall be determined by City or County Assessor. All setbacks associated with residential structure expansion must moat R-1 yard requirements. 1b Council Agenda - 6/12/89 »• Consideration of advertising for bids for annual seal coating project. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This year's seal coating project is slated for the southwestern portion of the core city and includes all streets between Elm and Pine and Fourth and Seventh. This area includes approximately 54,154 square yards of street surface and at an estimated cost of 52.6 cents per square yard. This would bring us to the budgeted amount of $28,500. If the bids come in more reasonable, we would consider doing some cul-de-sacs and short streets in the western portion of the community which are due this year or next year. The specifications to be used are the same as in previous years, utilizing the granite chip seal coat rock with an asphalt emulsion base. Due to their length, they are not included in the agenda but may be reviewed at City Hall. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to authorize advertisement for bids for approximately 54,154 square yards of seal coating as outlined above. 2. The second alternative would be not to authorize the seal coating project or modify the type of seal coat used. C. STAFF RECOMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Street Superintendent that the City Council authorize advertisement for bids as outlined in alternative jl to be reviewed at the June 26 meeting. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the map indicating the streets to be seal coated. -29- mat I T 1484 swoti f--'". --'',_ -- (_) Council Agenda - 6/12/89 18. Consideration of a establishment of land use zone for Evergreens Subdivision Outlots A and B. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for further study. After further study, Planning Commission now recommends that Council zone outlets A and B of "The Evergreens" from agricultural to PZM zoning. It was the view of the Planning Commission that PZM zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the character and geography of the adjoining R-1 property. Please note that the owner of the property is satisfied with PZM zoning in lieu of B-3 zoning as previously requested. n. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to rezone entire area encompassed by Outlets A and B from agricultural usage to B-3 (highway business). This alternative is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, as B-3 activity is better suited in compact commercial areas. Approval of this alternative would require that the Comprehensive Plan be changed to allow strip or spot commercial development along Highway 25. Under B-3 zoning, the City has no ability to control site development in order to mitigate negative impact on nearby R-1 zoning. 2. Motion to rezone Outlots A and B from agricultural usage to PZM usage. This alternative will allow development flexibility and special design control within the sensitive area between an R-1 development and Highway 25. The performance zoning district attempts to create a reasonable balance between the interest of the property owner in freely developing his property, and at the same time protect the interest of surrounding properties. The purpose of the PZM use zoning district is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses and low intensity business land uses, as well as the inter -mixing of such land use. Uses allowed in the PZM zoning district include all uses within the R-3 or high density residential district subject to the standards contained in the R-3 district regulations. Also allowed in the PZM zone are retail activities found in the B-2 (limited business) district. The purpose of the B-2 (limited business) district is to provide for low intensity, retail, or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas that are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. Many of the uses allowed in the B-3 zone are 7 also allowed in the PZM zone. However, PZM zoning requires a `1 conditional use permit which can be employed to minimize impact of commercial land uses nearby R-1 land use. -30- Council Agenda - 6/12/89 C. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends rezoning of Outlots A and B to PZM zoning for the following reasons: 1. Potential negative impacts of commercial development can be mitigated by the PZM conditional use process. 2. Multi -family development could occur under PZM regulations. Such development must follow regulations contained in the R-3 district requirements. This provides the developer with some flexibility in developing the property for commercial or residential use. 3. The purpose of the PZM zoning is to allow development of retail businesses that have a limited market area. Allowing development of such businesses to occur in this area will not significantly detract from the Comprehensive Plan goal of centralizing regional and highway business activity. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Site location maps Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan. Please see your Zoning Ordinance for detail regarding PZM zone. -31- ARSA..t:M`':, a-r�;faj .���.-�/' ; C -tom''". i ,�•' / COAMERC:AL POLIC_=S 1. Com.-.ercial development in general and successful retailing functions should occur both in the central business district and the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94. 2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to properly control such enterprises at the local community level; commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible, and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive. 3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable areas for highway oriented commercial development requiring large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses should be encouraged to develop in new locations along Interstate 94 at Hignway 25. 4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an adequate market study (market radius, customer potential, suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration for the neighoorhood, land use, and circulation pattern. 'J. 5. Canercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact CT commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is benefited by reduc_nq exposure to residential areas and having ra better eont:ol over parking and traf!ic needs. Fbr this reason, 'strip" and "spot" commercial development should not be permitted. 6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable as a 'viable commercial area". 7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the integrated business center developed according to a specific site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to be served. 9. All major commercial areas shall be pre -zoned based upon the Compcehansive Plan. No areas shall be re-rcned to commercial use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance vita the policies and etandardo of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as to prevent intrusion into residential areas; residential areas must be properly screened from the asaociated ill effects of ad)acent and nearby commercial area. -48- 10. To make major public expenditures according to a capital improvenents program and budget which establishes priority schedules for five or six years in advance based on projections /( of need and estimated revenues. 11. To encourage suitable housing in good living environments for people of all ages, intones, and racial and ethnic groups throughout Monticello. 12. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony with the natural environment and where adequate services and facilities are available. 13. To eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible. 14. To concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact and well-planned areas by discouraging "spot' and "strip" business development. 15. To encourage the development of a strong industrial employment base so that persons can live and work in Monticello. 16. To develop high quality industrial areas which are free from nuisance characteristics such as noise, smoke, odors, vibrations, glare, dust, and other objectionable features. 17. To purchase recreation sites for long-range needs at an early date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urbani development or land costs render acquisition hopeless. �• 18. lb develop public utilities and servicas that are well planned and coat -effective for present and future needs at the lowest possible operating and maintenance costs. 19. ib evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to develop various land use strategies to prevent congestion on the public streets. 20. To protect residential areas by channeling major traffic volumes onto a relatively few major streets. 0 _79- o =,•�. .rJ.?A, f t -,✓ _ rte 1 Int _b. •�•• •C./�, �. $1t,V•• ar a 26 Quest ed propo \ . ` • '� : �;,�'•�`•.:., v � } � �= `ry �'1,•• - 'A � ",!\.:y' i' Y / r � t•"� 1. •�: :�. a;. •.;, ��� .,••,.... ...'. _RIVER.,J-•—. i..�'�. sir 1 _ �` '��� ..:'`fir l•., .,•. • '.`.— ,_ } tv c � �.� . ��,4�til1111ll�i•- �au\� h`A1 •'i.�"�y '�'i��.�•-- '• \ �•f {�• ��• `\ ` \\\!\\\,fit{``,� { : � %:•;. �'.. lrim .� `�,•.: - _ '�; •� �•,,,' t •; ' -✓' is +' `\ !°• �.':•`.` •�� 60,00 Go .• r• t• r �• 4 Y�` .i• l r1` �' A d use tom's7""y}JIO J C Council Agenda - 6/12/89 19. Consideration of replacing air dryer at the waste water treatment plant. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Pure Air air dryer at the waste water treatment plant was installed in 1984 and cleans up the exhausted air compressor air by removing contaminants such as oil and moisture from the air prior to that air being used for diaphragm pump operation and controls at the waste water treatment plant. The air compressors and the Pure Air cleaner are located in the basement of the digester building. The environment in the area of the digester building is somewhat hostile to these components, as it contains minute quantities of sulfur and methane gases. Less than two years ago, the heat exchanger on the Pure Air failed, and we spent hundreds of dollars repairing it at that time. The interior of the heat exchanger plugged up from contaminants in the air. At that time, a filtering system was installed just before the air cleaner, and we thought this was performing adequately. Recently, the Pure Air failed, and we again find ourselves in a similar situation in that the heat exchanger is plugged to the point where it cannot be repaired. Estimates of repair to the Pure Air system are approximately $1,995. This would include a better pre -filter and the addition of outside air into the compressor. It is the recommendation of Compressor Air Services, however, that the City consider going to a different air filtering system for the compressed air. The newer, larger models have larger heat exchangers and are not prone to plugging with contaminants in the air and should give a longer life than the existing equipment. The cost of the new Pure Air system with installation is $3,700. Professional Services Group has recommended that the unit be replaced, and I concur with that recommendation. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to replace the Pure Air cleaner with larger, more dependable unit at a cost of $3,700. 2. The second alternative is to repair the existing air cleaner at a cost of approximately $2,000. C. STAFF RECOMENDATION: It is the recommendation of PSG and the Public Works Director that the City authorize the replacement of the Pure Air system as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of quote from Compressor Air Services. -32- COMPRESSOR SERVICES TEL No.612-881-6731 Jun 8.89 14:39 No .004 P.02 June 8, 1888 City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 Attention: Mr. John Simola Reference: Compressor Air Dryer Our Proposal #5574 Dear Mr. Simola: Pursuant to our recent visit with Mr. Kelsey McGuire, of PSG, we are proposing the following refrigerated air dryer for Your consideration. One (1) Model PSIL-170 refrigerated air dryer that will handle 170 CRM at 100 PSIG to a 36 degree F. pressure dew point. Standard Equipment: HermeLically sealed Compressor Air -Cooled condenser Precision Control valves Manual block valves Tube -in shell hest exchangers Dual separators Full instrumentation Net Price: $3,368.00 F.O.B. Michigan City, Indiana. Delivery is stock to 4 weeks. Terms of payment are Net 30 days. We would also like to offer for your consideration, the following moisture separator. Ono (1) Weight -Austin, Model ST -2 moisture separator and trap combination. Net Price: f 250.00 Z(DMPRESSO-InO SERVICES LTD, COMPRESSOR SERVICES TEL t4o.612-881-6731 Jun 8.89 14:39 No.004 P.03 We trust this to all the information you should need. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, CO RESSOR SE�VIC , LTD. Step en S. Welch SSW:cra Z(DMPRESSOR SERVICES LTD, Sullair_ Refrigerated Air.Dryer PS I DRY Alli 10 35 TO 390F A14D 50°F PRESSUtiln DEW POINTS, 110 TO 3600 SCHA FEAIURES 1141F1CC•VALVE COM ROL SYS-1EM C1�1a111}1111 J)"llciplp Of 111!' f FII r5 Sint, rrr• this MICilur Alpd 0 OTnI MdrlCeS If- Cnmpres3od u^ Innlpplaluf0 to - 351r to 3q°F or 50 • prus6tlre dAOV ryJ''II5 M IIIA L:U'111feSSe3 alf IS " U IDled. I'll W. AIn3LIn's of 1•. alar aApnr r' cu1„fa,nSe {nlo ftqul l Thp d9S'gn 10;1. IUrf)S If 1.••,1 pA55 All SY51,•r`I, diffil mU15 lifA non-cycl.ng tolugm Ant, yyt,lnrn, lull hlsirunxlnun',un and plu..l•,i, r on conlrn' valves Compressorpopr•rrlanle hOrfnntl ,�, C oily rm17,d And send homtrac I(pns'.: File USWJ Condenser A:r ft•Ido l or hntd:+�•!d11f ;f ruUjh PSII 121YJ l Aviva r. Ins Ale •AalOt•CLxtlfrd A9 afarldwo, w-vo. jFid 19 �p'ronRl •'� ' Precision control valves S f ,o•kd 11 nap vRho loft lHu, ration rr•n11C1 Sl :;n•n 0' o_A•'•'wy Slnh'Q I04 (I,w ca1t,ar 1a11- pnrawns (d- pn'rl S1 *111'. pro.a' duljl •�/t{/I1A'ryr I(ny ronypt. ;c�• cldda ingl ar'd l`•rt•hpA1 no L-girvi •t o v;;lca ChRfpO, I1'Jl col 1n'•I n1An' I) A: "°F I IA wwuln it,) ul1 {11' ll•+'' Ir))PASS vn'vp 1.111 -ll n, 2�rl-1 pal+ h' Ion, sill ton n.w'r wx or N. 1., Ipwl,Q3hn,1 ,dl,„ 1:0 r q-15 1^ t rLaF. O.Oven4rtl In'I p', -s ,. n;A'hnu a,p col Ill. IAA 13.11 C, rad l 1.'11`, Monual block vnlvob AI .A 1N q Pn An' cltr•;u'I 1 "ll"• 61 tM ISU'dil" 1 Tubn•In•ahnll hent oxchen{qIole C•:1� •• Cnn.p_,nnnls c:+•+ bc• ren,u-v� v. Itow, 1 ci • I .ludi !.;' u',,• nl l�^'S 1,r i 1 hrA .9 O �Q f luta!•,. Arn rl•I'-Ionded A,,.to q,t hrtal 1Jnxlgn ratings Intel a,1 N,nlpn•atu•e te•1.hG'tgers In ill(,:,u,.pass sfst, or 10J"f', DJ,•i or., plesswo 100 p5'g. ha:n 1'.PJ lung b.Antlnf. Relnqmunl RmblOnt h••npelafure 100-F. nl,,•I•num lo•a+t Iluat U, chen©erb hn:o iomo:nb'Q p!osswe IW 1r..ig For haghor p.n5- U lubp buildfuS Through DSII 1000 On* SU•US. 1r(7110:1 manv'artwo, CnpBc- m13d0'.3 up in PSII 2U;kl Ills. evapita• ... IMS va')• v.l!h ulx•W"I'l9 COnd 1 Uns tuts In.lturo rofl•eipnnded tube§ wlpth •(.,• Cooling PSII i00 lh•Dugh PSII 1200 n'A 1 1 G. v:e'11nd to the tubo Olept '• aq, flir rnnlod as b;dnd:lfd PSII ISUJ Dual Separators A q-lti to SOpO•atn, IhrOU(lll I',r.,ll 3001 are ,1dKKI.>,jlpd AS 11dh I1,11) rAmove3 faquut-. lint the Lr 1 btandald, n^iH•97'.3 i6 opt -Ono, perms hvul r,..l IAa,(I&1 I r,0 Scrnnd - Enclosures NL"A 1 Ir, rtA» dn'd. y G(rP 1r 1,or to Ilnp rnn bo rop'ac(•d Ili ,l. NL•b'A 4, i mid 12 Alto olN on. nn o;,b.,n:+1 Pr- Puroto h Ito ler And Irop'.;• pockege %Vdll t•iwitir and trupb Ihn In remo:o Iubnaw.1 And v,dtcl anfn5015 d"t 1:• U rn,nplel0 Pd(t3t(lo ra,jol,irU flood pill r11'A7e to 1.11 Old/nn( I U pp.") only sit-in a•1d air -owl con'1of 04r,. • Full InSlrumen.-.- - - bxlw!i-1;•l I,C1;.;n In colo 8101`10. 1+,111 dcA"n I nes gntl�l•,S to, Fillet nn ptns,,uro, d"--;0'.fCN {tom t•1l` 1!11{1,. Water co,inuo.,•1'. ArA ' a f prr:.utP reftlpnrl+m 1,trchnn pfeS• #141 file 1 cn v.atC•r 1"rr]Ind mode's a�.aA, lofnpn'unl hrt11 pfossure (Ind J, CSA Approval Drycls Ih•Oug'1 PSII - In'(•1 n'! IOlnr'0: ntur0 H 111 Wr!gQetOnt `•� W RIA cert I (Id t - the Cnnnd,on 11 Srhalgto Pr O•lure and lawrup,tge•R,11 Stand ,,I W;cocia+Icon (GSrli C:e'UhLir 611, t411n 11fOS'1UN, Will". Ain AtOndllyd, lion O' Wife, f.IlPS IF ptinr1 vil 5 Ih1 fit ".5 R'inNS lnslu•+I I hec4 of Waffenty Onr Vol -11. All 08115 11110 n•(n �a,N It 1'— 11,111 ('01INK111 I,Ibvf 0-o. not nr+p'-, to un t5 F.V. megnotle etnrlor Pa,: -cls Con" dAnlnu'J bt nLCVIFnt nut u3n n1 o'er{ , 1w itv f,o•n "hur1nol" Uornns, nrq!Ito ,-I• f orbit-wa W,11+ 1fvoill 11ati'1 rnf+lnll -• Optiol+s 11,11', fl N�INnIP'=tlfi.n„ (,1 Y,Ilf+,r, 1111f, :'I'111,eI A•to 1111It, 1111'1 If AS' of IOtn1�dS ' ••fgh,f.lt,lre 1f,11+(111 n,-gw4ric1 Au Ant (•rc•••.Lpe FA4Che9 .191I•Utr,ll fun -III,, rel mall flndt <Ir;+in( oilenrl (t'ACII ;nl Inn coal•. and 9,v11('hr,•• file COIIr 111.11„•••d donor, 5.du•r. x411 PI o'n,!Ad In 11 fro 11 pallet 1, Illy,(+ I.- o"It.'1••i Lill off cnbinehy 0110.1,11 r•'lpon u„nppta'u Q t n Iw ur.� halJn 3;, F, vol 1,+:r lvvo (31,M% -,east' acro s to hlgll Ir l,a I -snow R,ute I Ill tlr 11. .,rw,iprrivx a • te•I llnrtdl,IrP la•1t. to va i;0 for, qnf dr+l n n'rnl FS'''n,1 COMPRESSOR, SERVICES Sullair X511 SPECIFICAl1ONS TEL No.612-881-6731 Jun 8.89 14:39 No .004 P.05 Refrigerated Dryer . Model 8CFM Weight Length Width Height Air In/Out 35°39" 60" PSII.100 tt0 150 5401bs. 45" 25" _ 42' /Vi"FPT PSII.170 170 200 5771bs. 45" 25' 42' ith"FPT PSII.240 240 280 645 tbs. 45' 25' 42" 1%"FPT PSII.280 280 350 674 lbs. 45' 25' 42' 1V2"FPT PSII.350 350 450 782 tbs. 53' 28" 42" 2" FPT PSII.450 450 620 797 tbs. 53" 28' 42' 2' FPT PSII.520 620 650 831 tbs. 53' 28' 42' 2' FPT PSII.650 650 800 831 tbs. 53" 28' 42" 3" FPT PSII.800 800 1000 1286 tbs. 63' 38" 57' 3" FPT PSII.1000 1000 1200 1426 tbs. M. W. 57' 3' FPT PSII.1200 1200 1400 1503 tbs. 63" 38' 57' 3" FPT PSII.1600 1600 2000 1810 tbs. 63" 38' 57' 4' FP1 PSII.2000 2000 2400 2400 tbs. 72" 56' 66' S"' FLO PSII.2500 2500 3000 4157 tbs. 95' W%61 76' 6" FLO PSII.3000 3000 3600 4200 lbs. 95' 56Vr" 78' 6' FLO Consult factory for larger sizes. 00-f -00 EIZ•l y •�4: l } F1 0 Intel An 10-4temua 14 SULLAIn CORPORA1IOH Subsidiary of Sundstrand CotMallon 3700 Last MlcMoun Roulovord Michigan CITYy, IN 46300.6990 Plwno:219819di451 Allox:4946922 I A%: 219-074.1273 At, qAM Nr Intel [WON gteN ®-- Pd%wim USA PA071Y97Wft"Pe L/� {` M KAC.Us too 0 cww -vw b L PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION 69-13313 Curage addition 09-2339 Nouse and garage aiding 89-1340 Deck 09-1341 Window. and Patio door 89-1342 He-* and Qarage 89-1343 0.nk eddlt ton 89-1344 Deck 09-1345House and garage 09-1346 St"'.9. building 89-1347 Be.=*nt walkout 89-1348 Deck 89-134 9 No"a and garage 89-1350 Attached 9 rage 89-i351 Helie. end gar4Qe 09-135 2 Nouea :d 1. PLAN RnIP.W 89-1342 Nous4 and ga uga 89-1343 Rank addition 89-1345 Hou.. and gara0a 89-1349 It'-* and greys 89-1351 Rau.* and garage TOTAL REVENUE 04,743.01 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT .✓ Month of MAY 19-Bg TYPE NAME/1DCATION VALUATION -FEE` 1 PERMIT 6URCNARGE PLUMBiNO 'SURCHARGE AD Michael Niacor/519 M. River St. 53,100.00 $31.00 $1.55 AD Sr" Thteto, 1020 Meadow Oak Dr. 2,900.00 29.00 1.45 AD Mark Noberg/2027 OekView Lane 1,500100 15.00 .50 AD Conrad John n/501M. Rlvar St. 2,500.00 25.00 1.25 OP Bili Build4ral27bt Msadov Lane 62,/00.00 423.27 37.20 526.06 AC Pl rat National Rank/407 plop St. 207,000.00 1,014.00 103.50 21.00 .50 AD David H.trort/1112 Sandy Lan. 1.000.00 15.00 .50 BP Charlae Walters/702 Acorn Circle 93,100.00 547.60 46 55 27.00 .50 AD John Fatenachek/Kjeilberg E. Tri. Park 150 1,500.00 15.00 .50 AD Jon Alllmor/122 Marvin Elwood Rd. 3.000.00 30.00 1.50 AD Loola Dack*trom/307 Minnesota St. 1,500.00 15.00 .50 SP Value Plum Home/307 Marvin 9I cod Rd. 50,600.00 375.48 25.30 13.00 .50 RC Doug Stoke•/301 Rlverviov Dr. 7,000.00 90.00 3.50 SP BIN Cut lders/1700 Mad ov Lane 59,600.00 411.93 29.80 24.00 .50 AD Daniel Prie/600 Poet 4th St,_. 00 10.00 .50 TOTALS .497,200.00 r3,047.28 5248.10 9111.00 .7.50 SP OLH nulldera/2761 Meadow Lana 542.33 AC ,irat Nat loml Dank/407 Pine St. 659.10 BP CTart.. Walter*/702 Acorn Circle 54.16 Sr V.lue Plum HDe.e/307 Marvin Elwood Rd. 37,99 OJ 111,11Du1 d../1100 Meadow Lane f1 8034.93 TOTAL REVENUE 04,743.01 CITY OF 610IMCCLW Monthly OulldinU Departaont Report Montt of Me, I9�2 / CY PMUI1TS Am USER Laet This Sae. Month Laot Year -This Y.er PFJIM IT6 186U ED Month April Month May Last Year TO Date TO Date RES I DEIIT I AL 11-ber 10 13 16 41 3E Valuation $630 .300.00 $290 ,2.00.00 5 183,900.00 5 1,115,300.00 5 1,138,300.00 fo ao 4,596.89 2,199.11 2,165.43 10,706.12 8,488.1.1 Surcharge 318.65 1 44 .10 90.45 555.40 566.1- COMWERCIAL tluwb.r 5 1 2 7 Va lead.. 22,000.00 207,000.00 21,100.00 303,100.00 1,3G9,400.00 F..e 236.00 1,673.10 221.90 1,668.90 6;459.SC Surcharge• 10.50 103.50 221.90 151.80 684.2C LMOUSTnIAL numbs Valuation Peen Surcharges PL.UMO INN t+uwb.r 7 5 2 1216 P..o 266.00 111.00 48.00 465.00 507.00 Surcharge■ 6.00 2.50 1.00 6.00 8.00 OTHERS Nuwb.r 1 1 4 ve l UaLlon .00 .00 .00 Fees 10.00 10.00 40.00 Surcharge .50 .50 2.00 TOTAL IMO. PERMITS 23 20 20 61 67 TOTAL VALUATION 160,300.00 497,200.00 205,000.00 1,423,500.00 2,507,700.00 TOTAL, rEES 5,108.89 3,993.21 2,435.33 13,106.02 17,494.61 TOTAL SUBimcES 335.65 250:10 102.00 715.50 1,260.35 CURRENT MONTII I, t.4 - Nuwb.r to Data PFAMIT IIATUMR th.h.r Ptimir WINC71ARl:Y. C.lu.tlon into year I.,IaL year Bingle rosily 4 S 1,934.11 S 132.85 S 265,700.00 106 Oupiox 0 1 Multi-Eawlly 1 1 CowwsYclal 0 2 Induetrlel 0 1 Re. Canpu 1 90.00 3.50 7,000.00 2 4 SIgn60 0 I,ubli0 Suiidinge 0 1 ALTI.IIATION OR REPAIR Orellinge 5 130.00 0.35 13,000.00 22 26 Col -i.l 1 1,672.10 103.50 2117,000.00 11 Induettial 0 0 rLUM511h1 All Type. S 111.00 2.50 16 12 ACCKSSORV MUCTUII ES Sriming Pool■ 0 0 Docks 3 45.00 1.50 4,100.00 3 2 TWVORARY PSRMIT 0 0 OSMOLITIOR 1 10.00 .SO .00 4 0 TOTALS 20 3,113.21 250.60 417,200.00 67 61