City Council Agenda Packet 09-11-1989I -
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 11, 1989 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 28, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of conditional use permit - Lincoln Companies/R-Mart.
5. Consideration of adopting street right-of-way - 7th Street
extension.
6. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional
use a church in an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Applicant, A
Glorius Church.
7. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional
use a laundromat/dry cleaners in a PZM zone (performance zone
mixed). Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund.
8. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional.
use a car wash in the PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant,
Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund.
9. Consideration of conditional use request to allow laundromet/dry
cleaners in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt
and Anna Mae Hoglund.
10. Consideration of granting a permit to allow retaining wall
construction within street boulevard. Applicant, Paul Boisclair.
11. Consideration of contracting for City Assessor position for year
1990.
12. Consideration of accepting commuter parking lot deed from Wright
County with restrictive covenants.
13. Review of Liquor Store six-month financial report.
14. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement carpeting for
the Liquor Store.
15. Consideration of public information brochure/marketing plan.
16. Consideration of adopting resolutions authorizing the preparation of
assesament rolls and setting the public hearing date on Project
r 89-02 (Mississippi Drive improvement) and Project 89-03 (Oakwood
Industrial Park overlay improvement).
Council Agenda
� 9/11/89
`1_ Page 2
17. Consideration of final payment request for Project 89-02
(Mississippi Drive road improvements) and Project 89-03 (Oakwood
Industrial Park road improvements) - Buffalo Bituminous.
18. Consideration of quotes for landscaping at the new water tower site.
19. Consideration of purchase of lawn vacuum for Parks Department.
20. Adjourn.
Ir
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 28, 1989 - 7.00 p.m.
Members Present: Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
Shirley Anderson requested that the conditional use permit awarded to the
Garden Center should be amended to more accurately reflect the intent of
her original inotion. Condition Ill to be amended as follows: Applicant
shall install cedar fence achieving 908 opacity. The fence shall be
installed to screen the storage bins from the publicright-of-way, shall
be installed along the front and sides of the storage bins, and shall be
two inches higher than the highest point of the existing rock bins.
Motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to approve
the meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens coimnents/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthco::.ing.
4. Review preliminary transportation management plan.
Assistant AEhninistrator O'Neill reviewed the work conducted by the
Monticello Transportation Advisory Coimnittee and outlined the proposed
plan for providing public transportation for use by citizens of
Monticello. Under the plan, the City will establish a contract for
service with Hoglund Transportation. O'Neill also outlined bus
acquisition options for delivery of service which included a lease versus
purchase option. He also reviewed the service level issues and requested
that Council provide input on the preferred service level given the
budget considerations. Ren Maus noted that he was in favor of using a
leased bus to start, as the lease arrangement will give the City greater
flexibility and minLnize the risk associated with initiating the
transportation system. Dan Blonigen questioned the cost per mile to
operate the service and asked what the City's share is of this cost.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the estimated cost par mile
will be $2.36 to operate the system, with expected annual service miles
aimunting to 27,000, which establishes a total annual budget of $64 ,000.
Of this amount, the city taxpayer will be picking up approximately 258,
which equals $16,500. It was the consensus of Council that the final
draft of the management plan should include acquisition of a leased bus
that would operate a total of 2,500 hours in 1990, which equals 10 hours
a day, five days a week. It was noted that the hours of operation will
total 2,500 hours but may be adjusted on a weekly basis to reflect the
i service demand experienced.
Council Minutes - 8/28/89
S. Consideration of amending proposed 7th Street right-of-way. Lincoln
Companies/K-Mart.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that this item has been placed on
the agenda at the request of Lincoln Companies in association with the
proposed developed of an 87,000 sq. ft. K -Mart store to be erected
directly adjacent to the existing Monticello Mall. In developing the
site plan around the adopted right-of-way, Lincoln Companies has found
some difficulty in creating a parking lot configuration that meets their
needs. O'Neill went on to report that although it is possible to develop
a site plan for the K -Mart, including parking utilizing the adopted
right-of-way, Lincoln Companies has asked that the City consider
establishing an alternate route for 7th Street which would improve the
site plan and also provide for more flexibility in developing land for
retail use immediately west of the K -Mart. The alignment proposed by
Lincoln Companies would create a more usable, larger area west of the
K -Mart addition for development of retail establishments of a size that
could improve Monticello's position as a regional shopping area. O'Neill
outlined the pros and cons associated with each alternative and reviewed
the planner's report submitted by Dahlgren, Shardiow 6 Uban. In suimrery,
it appears that the alignment as proposed by Lincoln Companies is the
better alignment in terms of long-term planning and in terms of potential
for the highest and best use of the land between 7th Street and the
freeway. However, due to the fact that land for the road oust be
acquired and two hom:mca ..t be de:'Clished to ach-'eve this route, the
potential added cost of this route may exceed ;200,000. Chuck DuFresne,
representing Lincoln Companies, was present and noted that Monticello is
a significant commmercial hub. To grow as a commercial hub, the community
needs to attract larger retailers. Creating an alignment as proposed by
Lincoln Companies will allow the community to attract larger retailers in
this area. Fran Fair noted that the City should take a close look at
this issue and make a decision based on the best interests of the
community in the long term.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Fran Fair to table a decision on the alignment of the 7th Street
right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to direct
staff to negotiate option agreements with land owners affected by the
proposed realignment of the 7th Street right-of-way. Motion carried
unanimously.
6. Consideration of purchasing lawn vacuum for the Parke Department.
After discussion, motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren
Smith to table this item and request that the Public Works Director
obtain quotes from contractors that could provide leaf vacuum service.
Motion carried unanimously.
Council Minutes - 8/28/89
7. Consideration of maintaining sidewalk and I-94 right of way.
Public Works Director Simola reported that the State Highway Department
has indicated that they will not be maintaining the sidewalks they are
installing as part of the rebuilding of the freeway overpass. Simola
went on to describe the options for managing the snow removal in these
areas. The best option at this time is to request that the State Highway
Department wing back the snow off the sidewalk with the City crew
cleaning up the snow that is left over after this process. John Simola
also noted that he is uncomfortable with the design of the sidewalk and
the transition area between the Highway 25 right-of-way and the Country
Kitchen parking lot. He noted that there will be a very steep slope
between the sidewalk and the Country Kitchen that could be a hazard to
pedestrians or bicyclists that might stray from the sidewalk.
After discussion, the general consensus was to direct John Siiola to
negotiate an amendment to the design plans which would reduce the hazard
associated with the steep incline between the Highway 25 sidewalk and the
Country Kitchen parking lot.
8. Consideration of bills for the month of August.
After discussion, motion made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to approve payment of bills for the month of August.
9. other }natters.
John Simola, along with Keisie McGuire, provided an update on action
taken in response to odors emitted from the City's waste treatment
plant. They informed the Council that there had been a few minor
mechanical problems at the plant, but that those were now corrected. It
appears that high amounts of sulfides were recently being detected in the
collection system and that the plant is not capable of controlling odors
from extensive hydrogen sulfide gases in the open tanks. Currently,
chemicals used to tie up sulfides are being injected into the collection
system downtown, and the City and PSG are planning to investigate the
source or change in the waste stream causing or contributing to the
odors.
Kelsie urged residents to call 295-2225 when odors are detected to report
same so they can investigate.
Staff assured Council best efforts were being inade to diagnose and
control odors.
Jett O'Neill
Assistant AcQninistrator
14
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
4. Consideration of conditional use permit - Lincoln Companies/K-Mart. AND
5. Consideration of adopting street right-of-way - 7th Street extension.
(J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council tabled this item at the previous meeting and directed staff to
investigate the potential cost of land acquisition and building
demolition associated with alternative #2. It was Council's intent to
review this additional information and make its decision regarding this
7th Street alignment accordingly. Since that time, staff has been able
to obtain an option on one of the properties and has received firm quotes
on the other two properties. This information is presented for your
review on the attached figures which show alternative #1 and
alternative 12.
In summary, the cost to acquire the land necessary for the second
alternative amounts to $313,000, of which it is estimated that the City
could recover $80,000 on the sale of excess land associated with the
purchase of the land necessary for the roadway. This results in a net
cost of $233,000 for land acquisition associated with alternative #2. In
addition, it is expected that building demolition will amount to $10,000
anti relocation costs amount to approximately $6,000, which when added to
land acquisition cost amounts to $249,000.
On Wednesday, September 6, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
reviewed these figures and discussed the potential use of tax increment
financing to pay for a portion or all of the costs associated with
alternative 12. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority discussed this
matter at length and duly noted the benefits to the commmmnity associated
with alternative #2. However, it was their view that the benefits
associated with alternative 12 did not outweigh the price tag. If tax
increment financing were used to pay off the $249,000 debt, including
capitalized interest, it would take approximately three to four years for
the payback to occur utilizing taxes generated by the K -Mart, which
amount to $105,000 annually. The HRA recognized that alternative #2 is
the better of the two routes and did indicate a willingness to utilize
tax increment financing to a limited degree to encourage this route. It
was the HRH's view that tax increment financing could be justified to
purchase the property owned by Marvin Kramer which lies west of Minnesota
Avenue. This purchase is necessary to provide the rtght-of-way area for
the future expansion of the 7th Street right-of-way. It makes sense to
purchase this land at this time rather than condemn the land at a later
date, as condemnation coats on top of the amount paid for the land will
likely exceed the present asking price submitted by Kramer. It was the
HRA'e view that tieing up this land at this time would be in the best
Interest of the community in terms of providing future area necessary for
7th Street from Minnesota to pointo beyond. Furthermore, the HRA is
confident that a large portion of the cost to purchase the Kramer land
can be recovered through the sale of the land. It is likely that the
City will be able to sell the remaining 70,000 sq ft of property for at
least $1 per square foot, which results in a not cost of $127,000 for the
proposed area for the right-of-way, which includes the cost of the
existing residential structure.
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
The HRA was not convinced that tax increment financing should be used to
finance the cost to purchase the Pratt property and Holthaus property.
At this time, the City does have an option on the Pratt property. The
option price is $61,000. The City does not have an option on the
Holthaus property; however, we have a firm offer from Tom Holthaus of
$56,000. It was the view of the HRA that Lincoln Properties, as primary
beneficiary of the alternative #2 alignment, should play the primary role
in financing the cost to purchase lands associated with alternative #2
alignment.
City staff submitted the position of the HRA to Mr. Dufresne. Dufresne
was unable to commit to participation in the financing of acquisition of
the Pratt and Holthaus properties. However, he did indicate that there
is a possibility that this could occur. Dufresne requested that he have
the weekend to analyze the situation and submit a proposal to the City
which could possibly include Lincoln Properties participating in the
financing of the purchase of the Pratt and Holthaus properties.
Supplemental information regarding Lincoln Properties' position on this
tatter will be provided to Council on Monday. At that time, we can
incorporate Lincoln Properties' response to the HRA's position and
Council can determine if it views alternative p2 as being a viable
alternative.
Staff also plans on submitting to Council a titre line which shows the
proposed schedule of events leading to the ultimate construction and
occupancy of the K -Mart addition.
Conditional use permit
Lincoln Properties has requested that the Planning Commission table its
decision regarding the conditional use permit, as site plan information
necessary for a proper site plan review has not been cotrpleted. A
tentative date for rescheduling of the Planning Commission review of this
trotter has been net for 7:00 p.m., September 18, 1989.
H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to reaffirm 7th Street alignment associated with
alternative 01. Please review the Planner's report and earlier
comments regarding the previously adopted alignment. If Council to
of a like inind with the HRA, then this alignment should be adopted if
Lincoln Properties does not wish to contribute toward the purchase of
the Pratt and Holthaus properties.
2. Motion to adopt 7th Street alignment associated with alternative 02.
Again, please refer to the Planner's report for information regarding
the relative benefits of the alternative t2 alignment.
Council may wish to adopt this alternative if Lincoln Properties
provides financial support for the purchase of the Pratt and Holthaus
y properties. It is not known at this time if financial support for
land acquisition will be forthcoming from Lincoln Properties.
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
Mr. DUFresne is considering this matter over the weekend and will be
providing a proposal to the City some time during the day on Monday.
In teras of the highest and best use of the land, it is clear that
alternative #2 is the best route, as it provides the greater
potential for Monticello becoming a regional shopping area.
Unfortunately, the value of that potential is difficult to
determine. Essentially, the HRA believes that the added potential is
worth spending a net amount of $120,000 for the purchase and
acquisition of the Kramer property. However, that potential is not
worth spending an additional net amount of approximately $110,000 for
the Pratt and Holthaus properties. It is up to Council to evaluate
the HRA's position on this matter, review Chuck DuFresne's proposal
to the City, and decide on this matter accordingly.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
From a City staff standpoint, if money was not an object, the staff is
certainly supportive of alternative #2 (the straighter route), as we feel
the long tern benefit to the City would be greater in providing areas
that can be developed with larger retail businesses, and thus Monticello
could become a regional type shopping area. Assuming that Lincoln
Properties reviews the benefits of acquiring the Holthaus and Pratt
properties east of Minnesota Street and indicates a willingness Monday
night to participate in the acquisition of this property, staff
recommnends that alternative #2 be adopted and that the Council consider
utilizing tax increment financing to underwrite the extra cost associated
with a continued alignment through the Kramer property west of Minnesota
Street in the future. Using the assumption that Lincoln Properties would
have to donate to the City the right-of-way necessary for alternative #1,
there certainly is an argument that their remaining property in addition
to the K -Mart parcel would benefit from alignment #2, and thus they
should participate in the cost of the acquisition of the land necessary
�0to
\
extend the route straight ahead. Mr. OuPresne did indicate that he
�\V�a
wasn't certain Lincoln Properties was willing to donate the land under
,1 \
alternative 11 without some sort of compensation, the staff did indicate
V ty,
b
to him that it was expected of the Planning Commission and the Council
r
upon the review of the conditional use permit that a street dedication
requirement would be
necessary because of the traffic their property
VV�
would generate in the future. It shoulA be noted that if the Council
feels strongly that regardless of the cost that the road alignment should
proceed under alternative #2 and that tax increment financing could be
the tool to underwrite the extra cost, the Council can establish a tax
increment financing district for this purpose without the HRA's
blessing. Typically, the HRA and the Council have tried to work together
in agreement on a project and uses of tax increment financingt but the
Council can override an HRA recommrendation and establish tax increment
districts for a valid public purpose.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Alternative #1 and alternative #2 site plans.
''V1'
Clk
a� t• C? c �• l r -'��, �� i t.�� �`, Cy,
� �•''1 � _ ' .,� �•+, �` �3 o asp �'.-� `L` ( ( ,•'••,t �� '•` r
. ��(�..y /' /Q 1 t`•-rr� �j: �. ^, v i 1� I wYCJ) •-~\\1!' ,'Ij
+j ; 1 � it / � ;, ,, ,,1.=-� ,( - � - ,� �---� �<��� ��.. `� „�.. �`''�• : , 4 f • �.CID
l,r+ter • I 1 •'' � -• q • ` 1. 4 • f �L' ' 4+ g Ii�l% 1 O
Oar � ..� �;. .•G�.• I
.00
r-E
— "'•'— y •� ♦ to •ar,...v .
1
' .•,..,,_e,,,,,.-=• •- _ ! � �r •� r'r r � j(c ' . '� M,►l
't5,,,,-.;_ �"' .+..... ` � �' � t t 1� ' �� �I � i` � ,a� � ..r�Z�j,.• ; J�p• •1 iiia � �,,w.•i i
—"'!—"`+r.-��-. � , - �, � •i+ t� � {� dry) �{� - t , '.� ' n 1=----yC ":�•�f-� M._ 4-�� %rt ' •. Y � «ra+irrr
�'� �,,,,- 't �.-.'... '.. ..,-`••c�.1. �-�.e� � ti`s..... �', r y � r _ � �"�_.. + r
"
_ . :� fl
� 0 y V
s�{; b
�.t1/rte-..c tr 1 1 0
IN
Lr G 00 C �i �,r • J C ZG u Do o `
;' �" i �.?'1j :C,.`•~v �'+f/=✓J_l_'0 /fir � •: K,��t/ R y
=�NWA11l.--..'fi�@
1T-•,�;��,,; t� 1 ` � �_�_. _-,.-.���•---!��• _,,moi � 1 ' , ��. � V'"` ` •--c ^ - �;,,,;�' e • f
N.
Ile
Elie — �. — �oo°• a � x , :,^
'� '•-,,,<�`��,�.�� Y'`'om ""�y-..� �-_-`,�- �r.:_.. � �..- - ,� .f _i ., � �, � �
�i + tit �"�^•:.�
t �
•1-
�•ttc t � ti
? ` i
8
MAL
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
6. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a
church in an I-2 (heavy Industrial) zone. Applicant, A Glorius Church.
(J .0. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Daniel Gassler, Pastor of A Glorius Church, requests that the City
consider amending the zoning ordinance to allow church and related
activities to be included as a conditional use in the I-2 (heavy
industrial) zone. The request steins from the desire to develop a church
on a triangular piece of land directly west of Electro industries and
directly south of the softball fields located on NSP land. To the south
and west of the site lies the freeway. To the north and east of the site
is the NSP Training Center. Before looking at this zoning amendment in
terms of the proposed site, Council should analyze the proposed iupact of
this amendment in tenors of its relationship to the municipal
cornpirehensive plan and geographical area involved. Also, Council should
determine if such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed and evaluate the demonstrated need for such use.
Planning Commission recommended denial of the zoning amendment based on
the finding that the at<nendmnent is not consistent with the decision
factors noted above, and that by allowing the arnendmnent an adverse iupact
would result.
Following is a review of the proposed zoning amendment in terms of the
decision factors that Council must address prior to amending the zoning
ordinance.
1. Relationship to municipal comcprehenaive plan.
The proposed amendinent is inconsistent with the coiprehensive plan.
In terns of the coirprehensive plan, the proposed church is in an area
designated for future industrial development. In addition, the
comprehensive plan recognizes the proposed church site as having
considerable industrial development potential. The couprehensive
plan notes that "I f the Interstate 94 interchange is constructed near
the NSP plant, industrial development potential will develop for the
land near the interchange. industrial development of the property is
dependent upon the construction of the interchange." Obviously, this
area has been designated for Industrial use, as it to in close
proximity to the NSP power plant, it has valuable freeway exposure.
and it is isolated from reoidential areae. Establishing church
activity as a conditional use in the I-2 zone will defeat the purpose
for maintaining this area and other I-2/1-1 areas for future
industrial use.
2. The geographical area involved.
one of the reasons why the comrprehenoive plan indicates that this
area should be devoloped as industrial land to because the area to
strategically located to accommrrodate industrial development. To the
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
north is the NSP Training Center, which is compatible with the
industrial use of the proposed church site. To the north and west
are the NSP/City softball fields, which can be converted to
industrial use when the need arises. To the south is the freeway,
which is also compatible with the site. To the east is an industrial
facility now operated by Electro Industries. And farther to the east
is a high density residential area which is compatible with the site
as a transition area between I-2 land uses and R-2 land use.
3. Allowing church activity in the I-2 zone will tend to depreciate area
in which it is proposed.
The proposal to add church activities to the list of conditional uses
in the I-2 zone creates a considerable potential for land use
conflict. Although in this situation the conflict will be minimized
by the fact that the owner of Electro Industries, Bill Seefeldt, has
an interest in the church, the proposed amendment will open the door
for development of churches in all industrial areas, including I-1
and I-2 lands. This amendment creates the opportunity to place
church facilities in areas normally associated with uses which,
because of the nature of the product or character of activity,
requires isolation from residential or commercial use. It is likely
that development of a church in one of the industrial areas in the
community could diminish the adjoining land value in terms of its
marketability as industrial land for the obvious reason that an
industrial user would not wish to locate in an area where his
business might negatively impact church related activities.
4. Character of surrounding area.
This decision factor relates to the previous factor in that operation
of church related activities are not consistent with the character of
an area normally associated with heavy industrial activities. It is
not difficult to imagine some of the problems that might develop with
churches being located in industrial areas.
5. Demonstrated need for such use.
At present, churches are allowed as a conditional use in the R-1,
R-2, and R-3 zones. There is a significant amount of territory
within the city of Monticello that could be developed as outlined in
the attached site plan. Therefore, it is difficult to demonstrate
that there In a need for adding this conditional use to the list of
conditional uses now allowed in the I-2 zone. Essentially, the
applicant is requesting that the City amend its zoning ordinance
because it is economically feasible to locate a church at this site.
This is not a valid reason for amending the zoning ordinance.
Council is asked to review the points above and establish a finding of
fact. If Council feels that this potential site might be suitable for a
church facility, then it is suggested that Council approve the amendment
which would allow churches to be developed in the I-2 zone, or Council
could consider extending the zoning boundaries of the R-3 zone to the
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
proposed site. This action would require a separate public hearing, and
it would also require that the manufacturing structure associated with
Electro Industries be rezoned to R-3, which would create a non -conforming
use. This alternative, however, is not acceptable to Mr. Seefeldt, as
the value of his industrial site will be diminished if his land is
rezoned to R-3 zoning. A separate rezoning of the proposed church site
is not a good alternative, as such action would constitute "spot" zoning.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to deny the request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow
churches to be developed in the I-2 zone.
Motion based on the finding that the proposed amendment is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan, the geographical and
character of the area involved, the amendment will tend to actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed, and the applicant has
failed to sufficiently demonstrate the need for such use.
Staff and Planning Commission are unable to identify a unique
characteristic associated with the proposed church facility in an I-2
zone which could be used as a condition that might eliminate
potential for development of churches in other I-2 zones. Therefore,
adopting this ordinance amenriment would pave the way for future
development of churches in other I-2 zones. Although at face value
the proposed amendment may not create a considerable land use
conflict for the specific area that it is intended to affect, the
implications of the amendment on a city wide basis are very
significant.
2. Approve amenduvent to the zoning ordinance which would allow a church
to be developed in the I-2 (heavy industrial) zone.
Approval of this amendment would pave the way for approval of a
conditional use permit which would allow a church to be developed in
this area. The positive reasons for recommending approval of this
zoning ordinance amendment in terms of city wide benefit are
difficult to establish.
It is apparent that the owner of Electro Industries hao a vested
interest in the church facility. And, therefore, the site specific
conflicts between the industrial area and the church facility will
not likely be significant. This particular amendment should only be
approved if there is some method by which the church could be located
in this area without setting a significant precedent for development
of church facilities in other industrial zones within the community.
At thio time, I eso at a loss to find a way to accomplish this.
C. STAFF RDOOM 9ENDATION:
Again, at face value, it appears that development of a church facility in
this area may rake sous sense, as the owner of the property has control
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
of the industrial land directly abutting the church grounds. On the
other hand, the proposed ordinance amendment would pave the way for
development of churches in areas unsuitable for such activity. As a
further note, even though the present owner of Electro Industries has
control of the situation, there is no guarantee that this arrangement
will last forever. It is very possible that Electro Industries may
change hands and that the relationship between the church and the
industrial use may no longer be close. It is likely that this could
happen in the next 25 years; and when it does, there will be land use
conflicts between the two facilities. For this reason and reasons stated
above, City staff and Planning Commission recommend denial of the
proposed amendment for reasons noted in the motion above under
alternative il.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
proposed site plan; Location map showing site and adjoining land uses;
Floor plan of the church; Excerpts from the eo;q:)rehensive plan; Excerpts
from the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; Handout submitted by A Glorius
Church.
0
An ordinance amendment to allow as a conditf.,...1. ---
a church in an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone.
A conditional use request to allow a church in an I-2 (heavy
industrial) zone.
A CLCRIUS CHURCH
�m
?5' t575�/2 2l5,6Z5
(10- x 57S)/t • 30,167.S
185,'137.5 z 4.257
5G FT ACRES
—�
Nov -+k
• 645
KITCN I I ' ,owl'
' 3 R
I i I
I �.IURS DUGS' '
Imo. 3t'1 CNAIRS j I
i I I i I� CRl I
I L—A'
vOR15 I I
I I ,
I i I lo.deo cm �i '
o4z
rUOLIL rCFUIIiiU Rrr'LIL:%I I'Jn
e:n Cr mc! -:_Z::.0
TYPE OF HEARING:
C1(fCON01TIONAL USE - fee 5125.00 . expenses.
C1RE20NIHG - fee 5250.00 + all necessary consulting expenses.
YAR1P.f(CE - fee 550.00 for setbacks or 5125.00 for others - expenses.
�QiHER - fe°M—QQ
Applicant(s): A GLORIOUS CHURCH — _ _-
Applicant(s) address: P. 0. BOX 119 - MONTICELLO
Appllcant(s) phone(s): Haoe: 263-7812 Orflce:' 295-2499
Aedress of property: 2200 BLOCK OF WEST RIVER STREET
legal de,.Cription of property: Lot : illoc'a Suhely ltiec.
Other THE PART OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE. NW 1/4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 121 RANGE,
— (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AUG 5, 1989)
r_ec act:
Currently :oncd: I2 Proposed zoning:
Names of property o-ner; vlthin 350''feet: FI See attachel
N.S.P.
BILL 8 MERRILYN SEEFELDT
I'lease e: -lain the rea;cn for the PublIC Hearing re;ue:t: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
ALLOW—U" CONDITIONAL USE FOR PURPOSE OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH
',ize of plat to be subdlvlded: 4.3 acres APPROX.
7,.uue of firm preparing ;ubdlrlslon plat _I LOR LAND SURVEYORS-1•IONTICELLOO,, MN
I, ..• �.••.� ••���e 8-8-89 _Sl ln:d DANIEL J. GASSLER -/` a-,- L�6e 1/
-- — t
(far city uee only)
Datu appl icatlon roc.LYed: ��/Q� PccaEpc IWnu:
(late of Public hearing at the Planning C—L.Jy%
%ciaion of Plannlnq Ca Luzon-�-•--- :f-
II a vac Gant .aa there an App•a17 Y••; CDN—Js If .o, attach a copy of th• Appca L.
Mata of Cau�cl.l eonaideratloni i2/
..
Ilec it ion of the CouncI
,I Se. at tac,ud
tJnmv:�t 1
I Sc. at"CIA"i
Iaatu 'If pubticatlon' $A�ff/�/�/p (attach• copy of inn Pablic ua_ari.,gnoclCcl
Uelr ..f •Lail ing, (attach• copy of t'h.-fftdavat of e.a illn;)
1PI
A GLORIOUS CHURCH
Monticello, Minnesuta
A. The organization of A GLORIOUS CHURCH
1. Name "A GLORIOUS CHURCH" originates in scripture (Gphesians 5:27)
2. Purpose and objective - to propagate the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ
and to assist people in realizing spiritual, mental, and physical well-
being, so they can fulfill God's plan for them, their family, community,
and the world.
3. Incorporated in State of Minnesota April 21, 1987
4. Granted Tax exempt status by Federal Internal Revenue Service and State of
Minnesota
5. Management of organization affairs, property, and business is vested in a
board of directors consisting of seven members, including Daniel Gossler
as president.
6. Began operating in Monticello, Minnesota June 7, 1987
7. Business references: Monticello Public Schools, Mosford, Barthel and Co.,
Comfort Inn, Monticello Office Products
B. Personal Background
1. Founder and pastor of A GLORIOUS CHURCH
2. Lifelong Twin Cities area resident until 1987
3. Formerly With 3M Company - 10 years as mechanical designer
4. Received training and served in lendership cnpacity at Living Word Christinn
Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
5. Licensed an miulstnr through Living Word Christinu Center, Minneapolis, MN
6. Ordained as minister through the. Assor.iat:inn of Fnli.h Churches and Ministries
7. Presently restding in Monticello schuol district., with Wife Lindo and three
children
8. home - Cedar Crest Acres, Big lake, Minnesota
Office - 305 Cedar Street, Monticello, Minnesota
Church - Monticello Senior High School
A GLORIOUS CHURCH
Monticello, Minnesota
PROPOSED FACILITY
A. Location of proposed site
1. Easy access - city street - sewer and water - close to downtown (2.5 miles)
2. Adequate acreage (approximately 4.3)
3. Nigh and level with freeway visibility
4. Near large residential area (see zoning map)
5. Property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Seefeldt hnve specific intentions concerning
use of land.
6. Church in position to purchase immediately.
B. Proposal for building
1. Metal building - approximately 10,000 square feet - clear span
( 2. More cost effective than traditional church building
3. Would be suitable for possible commercinl or industrial purpose
4. Conforming to all city requirements for parking, landscaping, etc.
5. Main auditorium senting approximately 330 people
C. Miscellaneous Information
1. Expansion possibility - option to purchnse remaining 6 acre pnrcel, adjoin-
ing 4.3 acres.
2. Sign easement for Mr. and Mrs. Seefeldt's business
Z
-----------------------` \ I
2 I
�•e�. � I BALL 1 \ �
FIELD / • \I IN
A GLORIOUS CHURCIA 0
(PROPOSED SITE
�Liea►in,e eeu
i
lJV
ox
0
• GCMI.IEI��c.L
♦ �. � � Gl.UR1�U� C1iU¢CN
C TF1 :M1,.
oe I
Council Agenda 9/11/89
7. Ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a laundromat/dry
cleaners in a PZM zone (performance zone mixed). Applicant, Curt and Anna
Mae Hoglund. AND
e. Ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a car wash in the PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone. AND
9. Conditional use request to allow laundromat/dry cleaners in a PZM zone
(performance zone mixed). Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund.
Location: Lots 3 S 4, MacArlund Plaza. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND RACRGROUND:
The ordinance amendments along with the conditional use permit request
associated with this agenda item stein from the development concept which
calls for creation of a residence/laundromat/dry cleaner/car wash facility
in a PZM zone located at MacArland Plaza, Lots 3 s 4. The Planning
Commission has reviewed this case and recommnended that Council adopt the
proposed amendments and award the requested conditional use permit based
on the finding that the amendments and conditional use permit are
consistent with the municipal comprehensive plan and will not adversely
affect the geographic area or character of surrounding area. The
amnendmnents will not depreciate the area in which it is proposed and the
need has been sufficiently demonstrated.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The applicant proposes the development of a two story structure matching
the existing Riverroad Plaza. Each level will contain 3,200 sq. ft. of
usable space. One quarter of the lower level will be used for a dry
cleaning processing and service center which features drive through
service. The remainder of the lower level will house a laundromat
facility. The upper floor will be used exclusively as an apartment for
the owner/operator, with a long term goal of developing the upper floor as
office space or for use as a three unit apartment.
The applicant intends on developing a car wash facility at somne tfre in
the future. Although he requests an amendment to the ordinance today, the
conditional use permit application pertaining to the car wasn will not be
forthcoming until somo point in the future.
To the north of the site to apartment parking associated with Plaza
Apartments. To the east is the Riverroad Plaza. To the west is Curt's
Auto Sales. Approximately 250 ft. to the north, beyond the apartment
parking and on the other side of the townhome parking, are townhome
residences. Directly north and oast of the development lies the Plaza
Apartment coinplex.
PARRING 6 TRAFFIC FLOW
The present site plan shows 17 parking spaces, 15 in front (business use)
and 2 in the rear (private use). This level of parking complies with
requirements associated with the immnediate use of the structure. Full
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
development of the upper floor as office space will require 15 additional
parking spaces which will likely be located in the rear of the property.
The applicant has been informed that no expansion of the use of the upper
floor will be allowed until the proper parking area has been established.
Although a plan has not been prepared which shows how the site will
accommodate 15 more spaces, the applicant is comfortable that the spaces
can be created in conformance with City ordinance.
As you can see in the attached site plan, a drive-through window and
concurrent circular traffic flow is planned. Major access to the site for
covone-rcial purposes is located on the frontage road. A secondary access
is available via the rear of MacArland Plaza which connects to
Highway 39. This secondary access will likely become the primary access
for apartment or office use of the upper floor.
It should be noted that the Planning Connission accepts the circular
traffic pattern so long as the upper floor is used for offices or for use
as the owner's residence. if the upper floor is developed into three
multi -family apartments, then the couunercial traffic must he limited to
the front of the building with the residential uses (parking, lawn, etc.)
focused in the rear.
ZONING AMENDMENTS
Laundromat/dry cleaning as a conditional use in the PZM zone
According to the zoning ordinance, laundromat activities are allowed in
the B-1 commercial zone which, therefore, makes it a permitted use in the
PzM zone, as all uses in the B-2 and B-1 zones are considered allowable
uses in the PZM zone. Therefore, no zoning ordinance amendment is
required along with permission to operate the laundromat portion of the
development.
In contrast with the laundromat activities, dry cleaning is not allowed as
a permitted use in the B-1, B-2, or B-3 zones and is allowed only as a
permitted use in the B-4 zone or industrial zone. There are no conditions
associated with the operation of a dry cleaning establishment in the B-4
zone. Therefore, there are no preset conditions that we can use in
conjunction with the conditional use permit in the PZM zone. According to
John Uban, dry cleaning establishments have been encouraged to develop in
business areas and discouraged from mixing with residential uses, as the
chemicals and fumes associated with dry cleaning operations can have a
negative itapact on the adjoining residential land uses. This is one
reason why dry cleaning to allowed only in the B-4 zone. Of course, if
the zoning ordinance is amended to allow a dry cleaning eatablishrmrnt to
operate at the proposed site, then the opportunity exists for dry cleaning
establishments to be located in any other PZM zone in the couonunity.
Pleas refer to the zoning imp for information on where those areas are.
As you will see on the map, there are PZM zones that are adjacent to
residential areas, and as ouch, locating dry cleaning establishments in
`(f1 these areas might be detrimental to the property values of the adjoining
residential neighborhoods.
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
As a result of the testimony submitted by the operator, along with
ccarents submitted by Gary Anderson, the Planning Commission was convinced
that the environmental concerns associated with dry cleaning
establishments are no longer valid, as technology now exists that allows
the dry cleaning operation to be self-contained. Under the current
proposal, no noise or fumes will be released by this operation.
Therefore, it might make sense to allow this activity to occur in a
semi -residential zone. Please carefully review the intent of the
performance zone and think about the proposed use in terms of the goals
set forth for that zone.
In teras of the dry cleaning portion of the business, it may be that the
PZM zone is intended for limited or neighborhood retail development,
whereas the dry cleaning activity is more of a regional or highway
business activity. Therefore, this portion of the business may not be
appropriate in this zone for that reason. By the same token, however,
this particular PZM area directly abuts a major thoroughfare and,
therefore, this use might be appropriate in this area for this type of
activity from a coimnercial standpoint.
Car wash activity as a conditional use in the PZM zone
As noted earlier, the car wash portion of the project is planned for
sometime in the future and will not be part of the initial development.
The applicants wish, however, is to gain the zoning amencLnent prior to
development of the structure.
Car wash activity is allowable only as a conditional use in the B-3
(highway commercial district). The conditions associated with car wash
activity can be found in the attached copies of the zoning ordinance. The
issues pertaining to allowing a car wash to locate in the PZM zone are
similar to those issues associated with the development of a dry cleaning
store in the PZM zone. Again, the intent of the PZM zone to to establish
a transition between residential and neighborhood or limited commercial
development. Car wash activity is typically related to highway coimnercial
development found in heavily trafficked business areas. It may be that in
this situation with a PZM zone directly abutting a major thoroughfare, it
may make sense to create a conditional use permit for car washes in a PZM
zone and then design the conditions in a manner that will restrict car
wash development to limited areas within the PZM zone. For instance, one
condition might require that car washes be allowed as a conditional use in
the PZM zone when the facility directly abuts a major thoroughfare or
abuts the frontage road to a major thoroughfare. Another condition could
include a requirement that car washes in the PZM zone must not create a
noise level greater than the noise created by convenience store activity.
ZONING AMENDMENT DDCISION FACTORS
According to chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance, the City Council shall
consider possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment or conditional
use. It's judgement shall be based upon but not limited to the following
factors:
10
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
1. Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan.
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
Council is asked to consider those five factors as the site plan is
discussed on Monday.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Following are three decisions or sets of alternatives which Council is
asked to rule on.
Decision 11
1. Motion to emend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by allowing dry
cleaning processing as a conditional use in the PZM zone subject to
the following conditions:
a. Dry cleaning operation must meet all OSHA safety standards.
b. Dry cleaning operation shall be self—contained in terms of noise
and fumes with no venting to outside of building.
C. Dry cleaning facility shall have direct access to major
thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road.
d. Screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping must be
1n compliance with chapter 3, section 21G] , of the zoning
ordinance.
e. Voice amplifiers used in conjunction with drive through process
shall not be audible to adjoining residential areas.
2. Motion to deny amendment to the zoning ordinance which would allow
dry cleaning processing as a conditional use in the PZM zone.
Decision J2
1. Motion to amend the zoning ordinance by allowing car wash activity as
a conditional use in the PZM zone subject to the following
conditions:
a. All conditions noted in the B-3 district regulations pertaining
to car washes. (See attached copy of B-3 regulations)
b. Car wash facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare
via driveway or frontage road,
C. Intermittent sounds produced by car wash operation such as the
sound of a vacuum or warning signal shall not be audible to
users of adjoining PZM or residential properties.
2. Motion to deny amendment to the zoning ordinance which would allow
car wash activity an a conditional use 1n the PZM zone.
a]
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
Decision $3
1. Motion to grant conditional use permit which would allow development
of laundromat/dry cleaner at Lots 3 and 4, MacArlund Plaza, subject
to the following conditions:
a. All conditions noted by ordinance.
b. Residential use of structure shall be limited to owner or
manager under proposed parking and driveway configuration.
C. Intensification of use of structure via development of upstairs
apartments or office shall require appropriate expansion of
parking. Use of upstairs as multi -family dwelling will require
reorientation of circular drive through traffic pattern.
d. Conditions associated with the use of this structure shall be
recorded on the property deed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendments and conditional use permit as
outlined above. Please note that all conditions noted under Decision 93
have been reviewed and approved by the applicant except for "condition c",
which requires that the conditions be recorded with the deed. This is a
condition added by staff since the Planning Commission review and is
intended to protect subsequent buyers of the property by informing the
potential buyer of additional parking requirements associated with
development of the upper floor.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the site/sketch plan; Map showing project location and adjoining
properties and land uses; Selected excerpts from the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
�V
12
CHAPTER 10
L
"PZ -RESIDENTIAL'• 6 "PZ -MIXED" ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION;
10-1:
Purpose
10-2:
General Description
10-3:
PZ -R, Permitted Uses
10-4:
PZ -R, Permitted Accessory Uses
10-5:
PZ -R, Conditional Uses
10-5:
PZ -M, Permitted Uses
10-7:
PZ -M, Permitted Accessory Uses
10-8:
PZ -M, Conditional Uses
10-9:
Procedure
10-10:
Compliance
10-1:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the "PZ", Performance Zoning
OiNtricts are to allow for development flexibility
and special design control within sensitive areas
of the City due to environmental or physical limitations.
The Performance Zoning Districts also attempt 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
proportion in the following ways:
(A) By encouraging a more creative approach in
commercial and housing developments, that
will result in quality living environments
through innovative design and aesthetic controls;
(B) By permitting a combination of housing typos
and styles, including single family, two family,
and multiple family dwellings, with the exception
of mobilo homes;
(C) By allowing flexibility in design by permitting
cluster developments and a variety of architectural
styles and treatments;
(Dl By allowing flexibility in setback and height
restrictions.
(E) By providing an efficient use of land resulting in
more Cost efficient installation of utilities,
straats, and other facilities;
(P) By encouraging the preservation of common
open space, recreational facilities, natural
features, such as woodland, watland, and floodplain;
an R -i District.
[G] By contributing to the tax base of the community
without making undue demands on the community
services;
[H] By providing the means for greater flexibility
in environmental design than is provided
under the strict application of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance,
while at the same time, preserving general
welfare of the City of Monticello and its
inhabitants.
10-2:
GENERAL, DESCRIPTION: it has been determined that
within certain unique areas of the community the
precise designation of acceptable land use and the
geographic definition of such activities cannot be
accomplished without detailed analysis of land use,
construction costs, and improvement feasibility and
costs, market conditions, and financing. In such
cases, in order to alloy property owners the opportunity
to pursue the highest and beet use of their land
•
within the constraints of environmental and physical
limitations, the "PZ" Performance Zoning Districts
have been created. To further define the intent
of performance zoning tvo separate districts have
'
been created as follows:
(A] "PZ -RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose
- of the "PZ-Rosidential Zoning Diorrict" is
to provide a harmonious mixture of different
residential land uses in a mannor which beat
utilizes the development potential of the
'
land and natural onvirmnsaent, existing adjacent
and future adjacent land uaoa.
[Ei] "PZ -MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose
of the "PZ -Mixed Use Zoning District" is to
provide a land use transition between high
density raaidential land uses and low�ri S,yensi y.
business land uses as well as the intarmixing_
of each such land use.
10-3:
PERFORMANCE ZONE -RES DENTI AL
N
PERMITTED US Only the fo ing uses are perm d
uses wit a PZ -R Distri
[A Those uses 1' ad as permitted us within
the "R-1" ning District. St ards #hall
be as c tainad therein.
[ B) Th o uses that xi.t pr r to the adoption
l
this Chapter.
[C A permitted use shall be, regulated by the
terms and conditions of this Ordinance as
they pertain to
7
an R -i District.
(c) When areas are to be preserved by the
developer the City may require that such
areas be fenced during construction to
assure that equipment will not damage
preservation areas.
10-6: PERFORMANCE ZONE - MIXED ("PZ -M") PERMITTED USES: Only the
following uses are permitted uses within a PZ -M District:
"PZ -MIXED ZONING DISTRICT"
[A) Those uses listed as permitted uses within
the 11R-3" Zoning District subject to the standards
contained therein.
[B) Club or Lodge without the serving of food
or beverages.
(C) Those uses that exist prior to the adoption
of this Chapter.
[D) A permitted use shall be regulated and controlled
by the terms, conditions, and provisions of
this Ordinance as they pertain to an R-3 District.
10-7: PZ -M: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: Only the following
uses are permitted accessory uses within a FZ-„ ....,.r---.
[.A) Those uses listed as permitted accessory uses
in the "R-3" Zoning District.
[B) A permitted accesory use shall be regulated
and controlled by the terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Ordinance as they pertain
to an R-3 District.
10-8: PZ -M: CONDITIONAL USES: Only the following uses
ara conditional uses in a PZ -M District.
[A) Those uses listed as conditional uses in the
"R-3" Zoning District and as regulated therein
except as modified in this Chapter.
[B) Hospitals, medical offices and clinica, dental
offices and clinics, professional offices
and eommoreial (leaned) offices (limited to
appraisers, architects, attorneys, certified
public accountants, clergyman, dentists, engineers,
manufacturers representatives, physicians,
real estate agents, and other similar uses
which have no storage of merchandise, and
aro service oriented with no retail sale of
goods on the promises), and funeral homes
and mortuaries provided that:
011
I . When abutting "R -i", "R-2", "R-3" or PZ -R
District, a buffer area with screening
and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (GI -shall be erected.
(C)
Nursing Homes and similar group housing, but
not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar
institutions, provided that:
1. Side yards are double the minimum requirements
established for this District and are
screened in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (GI of this ordinance.
2. One (1) off-street loading space in compliance
with Chapter 3, Secion 6 of this Ordinance
is installed.
(D)
Parking Facilities for adjacent commercial
or multiple dwelling establishments provided
that:
1. Screening of abutting residential uses
and landscaping is provided in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G1 of this
ordinance.
(E)
Retail commercial activities as listed in
-
Chapter 12, Section 2, of this Ordinance,
provided that:
1. Merchardise is cold at retail only. `
2. The procedures outlined hereinafter are
complied with in full.
.� [F]
Buildings combining residential and non-residential
uses allowed in this district provided that:
x
1. Residential and non-residential uses shall
not be contained on the same floor.
2. The procedures outlined hereinafter are
complied with in full.
[G)
Senior citizen housing provided that:
1. Not Moro than ton (10) percent of the
occupants may be persona sixty (60) years
of age or under (spouse of a person over
sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, ate.).
(
2. Except for caretaker units, occupancy
shall be limited to man and wife, blood
relatives, or a single ran or single woman.
011
3. To continue to qualify for the senior
citizen housing classification the owner
or agent shall annually file with the
City Administrator or the Building Inspector
a certified copy of a monthly resume of
occupants of such a multiple dwelling,
listing the number of tenants by age and
clearly identifying and setting forth
the relationship of occupants sixty (60)
years of age or under to qualified tenants,
or to the building.
4. one (1) off-street loading space in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 6 of this Ordinance
is installed.
S. Elevator service is provided to each floor
level.
6. Usable open apace as defined in Chapter 2,
Section 2 of this Ordinance, at a minimum,
is equal to twenty (20) percent of the
gross lot area.
7. The site of the main entrance of the principal
use is served or is located within four
hundred (40U) teat of regular LX&nnit
service.
S. The site of the main entrance of the principal
use is within four hundred (400) feet
of commercial shopping development or ,
adequate provision for access to ouch
facilities is provided.
(H) Private clubs and lodges serving food and
beverages provided that:
1. Such use shall be restricted to members
and their guests.
2. Adequate dining room, kitchen, and bar
space must be provided according to standards
imposed on similar unrestricted customer
operations. The serving of alcoholic
beverages to members and their guests
shall be allowed, providing that such
service is in compliance with applicable
Federal, State and Municipal regulations.
3. Offices of such use shall be limited to
no more than twenty (20) percent of the
gross floor area of the principal structure.
G)
10-8 (II
10-8 (I)
(II Bed and breakfast facilities provided that:
1. Bed and breakfast operations shall be limited to residential
structures existing prior to the date of this ordinance.
2. When abutting R-1, R-2, R-3, or PZR district, a buffer area
with screening and landscaping shall be provided in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G], of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance.
3. Adequate off-street parking and an access shall be provided
in the form of one parking space per rental unit, plus one
space for each ten rental units, and one space for each
employee on each shift.
4. Food served on the premises may be served only to overnight
guests of the bed and breakfast.
5. The owner, operator, or manager of the bed and breakfast
shall reside on the premises.
6. Activities shall be limited to those customary to the
operation of a bed and breakfast facility. Couunercial use of
the property for other activities not normally associated
with the operation of a bed and breakfast such as wedding
receptions, parties, etc., are not allowed under this
conditional use permit.
). Material used for the parking area shall consist of dust and
erosion resistent materials that will not cling to vehicle
tires and track onto public streeta. The materials used
shall also be capable of supporting vehicular traffic.
8. Operation of the bed and breakfast facility shall comply with
all state regulations governing such facilities.
(8/14/89. 1180)
07
9. The entire area other than that occupied by
buildings or structures or plantings shall
be surfaced with a material which will
control dust and drainage and which is
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
10. All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance.
11. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
(s) CARWASHES (DRIVE THROUGH. `SECHANICAL AND SELF-SERVICE)
PROVIDED THAT:
1. The architectural appearance and functional
C41' �p plan of the building and site shall not
J„ be so dissimilar to the existing buildings
or area as to cause impairment in property
t'-J�1v values ar constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed
to accommodate that number of vehicles
which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30)
minute period and shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
3. At the boundaries of a residential district,
a strip of not less than five (5) feet
shall be landscaped and screened in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 (0) of this Ordinance.
6. Each light standard island and all ielands
in the parking lot landscaped or covered.
5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall
be screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (Gj of this Ordinance.
6. The entire area other than occupied by
the buildings or plantings shall be aurfacod
with material which will control dust and
drainage which is subject to the approval
of the City Engineer.
7. The entire area shall have a drainage system
which is subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
0
C
CC]
C
E. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed
that the light source is not visible from
the public right-of-way or from an abutting
residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [H] of this Ordinance.
9. Vehicular access points shall be limited,
shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movement and shall be subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
10. All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance.
ii. Provisions are made to control and reduce
noise.
12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
MOTOR FUEL STATION, MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE
STORE, AUTO REPAIR -MINOR AND TIRE AND BATTERY
STORES AND SERVICE PROVIDED THAT:"
1. Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale
or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or P
oil, incidental to the conduct of the use
or business, the standards and requirements
imposed by this Ordinance for Motor Fuel
Stations shall apply. These standards
and requirements are, however, in addition
to other requirements which are imposed
for other uses of the property.
2. The architectural appearance and functional
plan of the building and site shall not
be no dissimilar to the existing buildings
or area as to cause impairment inproperty
values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
3. The entire site other than that taken up
by a building, structure or plantings shall
be surfaced with a material to control
dust and drainage which is subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
e. A minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand
five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum
lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150)
feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet.
10-8 [J]
10-8 (K] 1
[J]
APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS: When multiple family
structures of ten (10) units or more are approved
a maximum of ten (10) percent reduction in
the lot area per unit as regulated in chapter 3,
Section 4 may be allowed. The reduction in
lot area shall be determined based upon the
following table:
Condition To Earn Bonus Lot Area Reduction (per unit)
1. Type two (2) construction. 100 of.
2. Elevator serving each floor. 50 of.
3. Transit service available within three
hundred (300) feet of the entrance. 50 of.
4. Two-thirds (2/3) of the required
fee free parking underground
or within principal structure
(not including attached or
detached garages). 150 of.
5. Indoor recreation and social
rooms equal to twenty-five 1
(25) square feet per unit
or seven -hundred -fifty (750)
square feet total, whichever
is greater. 50 of.
6. Major outdoor recreation
facilities ouch as awimming
pools, tennis courts or
similar facilities requiring
a substantial investment
equaling at minimum five
(5) percent of the construction
coot of the principal structure. 20 of.
(K]
FINDINGS OF FACT: Prior to granting of a
conditional use permit the City Planning Commission
and City Council shall make the following
findings of fact. In the event that the applicant
shall submit insufficient materials for the
City to make informed findings of fact the
City Staff and Planning Commission shall request
additional information pursuant to Chapter 22
of this Ordinance.
I
1. The proposed project in conaiatent with
the spirit and intent of the Monticello
Comprohsnaive Plan goals and policies
and in keeping with the intent of the
'
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
0
10-8 (K] 2
2.
The proposed project is consistent with the
purpose of the Performance Zoning Ordinance
as outlined Section 1 of this Chapter.
3.
The proposed project will not have any
adverse impacts as outlined in Chapter 22
of this Ordinance.
a.
The proposed project shall meet minimus
screening and landscaping requirements
as outlined in Chapter 3, Section 2 [G].
5.
The proposed project shall provide adequate
parking pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 5
of this Ordinance and off-street loading
pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 6 of this
Ordinance.
16
6.
A
The proposed project shall provide a vider
range of housing types, price ranges,
and styles within the community.
7.
The proposedproject will provide amenities
and facilities and open spaces greatar
than the minimum requirements under alternative
ron>.ng .
S.
The proposed project shall in no way be
detrimental to the environment. Scenic
aspects and natural features, ouch as
streams, trees, topography, and goological
features, shall be protected and preserved
to the greatoet extent possible.
9.
The proposed project shall not impona
any undue burden upon the public services
and facilities, ouch as fire, police,
schools, etreets,water, sanitary sever,
and storm sever.
10.
The proposed project is designed in such
a manner to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries,
and also which will not be detrimental
to future land uses in the surrounding
areas. Architacture and site treatments
shall be compatible with adjacent structures
and site plans and shall respect the privacy
of neighboring homes and/or businesses.
11.
Findings of fact submitted by the Planning
Commission to the City Council shall address
additional requirements necessary to make
the project in compliance, with this Chapter
in all areas whore the Planning Commission
foals the proposed project is lacking.
10-8[K]11
70
0
_ �:rr..l tur � `+ $ :� � r'L '•1�' . � .i � - �.r_�=r:.. � --.t� t 8k'..a6r .1
/1 � -� 7 1 1 i - �-. -J S.••• �` 4, .. •Lir �. �.�•�„li •, .
�t w•i.
G �` —'� ° •=��� _!"�~� \ ~ ' ' � � » � _`-_'",-- _ , � - ^.� . - �- . _ _ , `i , _ ere �. ti:J:� .: , �� ----
�•-_�_r 33, t S•_�. '``l1` (. fiF.rr,. t.l1L •r• — ro,
27•-':._-- �' 2e 25 LO•V' •90 71priCulturi-OpM Spade
�� R1 ` .Singh iimily Ri[iTdirttial
_�' c R3 � ? \�:Y::.$1�,_ q� \�` s c i��• R2 � Single'& 2femily Residential
!:
t ". _ '� ""'�-r'..\,'.\t, ro - -------�- I llsdtumZansity ReaideMial
AO 0 , d R24 . ,„ R4 Nibile Nome Park
---- /- 1 _ -� ti i_ v t �'., \ `• ' _ :-PUD, Plan6ed Unit Development
�} - .eN\� 3a •� '' �• ! sr Of h"E6"Z>�te�tasldentlal
r/� i • - �' S " -� ^ \ PZ Perlocrosnee-Zbne-Mlaed
Nei hboniood afiuiness
' + I �oA' —Rg ��'�,r•�`"�•s '
132 (-.Limited,Kiinasi -
J •• fit �: Sf %2=t91` "•�• 99x1 HighwayBu0ness
R
`�.t,; 35' �4-� Reg onal'Buai...B. =3z
` I 1 t Upht`Ind Etii
a - R . ., P2-Np iB _ ,� ,12 Mea—ey 13 stri
1Ni1d. anEBeeeo "c�fiVdfWlll Remain
� •._.... ' ,� r..,t.a. �L '�-- j R`R3 :i•..� 2'�� gyp;\�c'� �\ o ' o.•....� v'llh��
xiG5Nj
yti
e2
-z" _ -I_ •2 `it
1•
1° r i 1 , - - I i •, 12 �JZ . ,�1/�0—��• :, arm.' --
Annexation Study A0
1 J t • q•- T, 7
City of Monticello - R,'
Wright County Minnesota 3
—o t Y
Existing Zoning 4'" N : � .�?` I, c s L . •. '. ' '� � . ��- �•'-� �'
�eaiMa�. a�.M.es•M.��er.Mese,MwsM���ea►a�ww•Mir.�ra "w�Mer.eei Mrs'
ry l;
+� pnn�e..� ow. [e.eu..or.e. ,� , i -•--�I -' '+r j� i :��� ':I' [F iiQYla 11
Ic
Tsvr
O
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
10. Consideration of granting a permit to allow retaining wall construction
within street boulevard. Applicant, Paul Boisclair. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello ordinances, Section 8-5, regulates the allowable uses within a
public boulevard to be trees, mail boxes, sidewalks, driveway approaches,
and advertising/newspaper boxes. Any other use of the boulevard requires
a special permit from the City Council.
Mr. Paul Boisclair owns a property at 806 Fast River Street (across from
Ellison Park) as a rental dwelling. Mr. Boisclair lives in Fresno,
California. In the spring of 1988, Mr. Boisclair informed the Building
Inspector that he had plans to do some landscaping on his property that
would encroach into the public right-of-way along River Street.
Mr. Anderson noted that any encroachment into the boulevard would have to
be approved by the City to prevent any obstructions that my interfere
with utilities or snowplowing efforts. The property owner's original
retaining wall construction and landscaping efforts consisted of large
rocks and boulders that were placed within a few feet of the curb. Gary
Anderson had Roger Mack, the Street Superintendent., teview the situation
and requested that the property owner remove part of the retaining wall
constructed with rocks, as it appeared it would be too close to the curb.
Mr. Boisclair removed the rocks and proceeded to construct a retaining
wall of large telephone pole type timbers which the staff now feels is
closer than initially recolmrended. The end of the retaining wall now
appears to be approximately 4 feet from the curb, or approximtely an
18 -foot encroachment into the boulevard. In discussing the situation
with Roger Mack, for snowplowing purposes, Mr. Mack feels that the City
should have a 6 foot to 8 foot distance to provide for winging snow. It
would appear that if the retaining wall is allowed to encroach into the
boulevard, a minilmlm distance should be established, if for no other
reason than to provide safety for snowplowing efforts.
Although I believe there are possibly mny property owners who have done
landscaping treatments within the boulevard, the question becolres whether
the City should allow perulanent type of obstructions within the boulevard
for safety or liability purposes. Although I realize that trees are
allowed in the boulevard and are certainly a permanent obstruction, the
establishment of a retaining wall to more than just landscaping, shrubs,
etc. Would the City of Monticello be liable by allowing the construction
of a perllanent wall for an accident, etc. There may certainly be cases
where because of the topographic situation, a retaining wall or
obstruction in the right-of-way is necessary, but in viewing
Mr. Boisclair'a property, I am not convinced that the retaining wall has
to protrude that far into the right-of-way as he now has it constructed.
There certainly appears to have been confusion or misunderstanding
between Mr. Boisclair and City staff concerning what was allowable; but
if the Council grants a permit for this construction, I believe there
N& should be a minimum of 6 foot to 8 foot separation from the curb as an
additional safety consideration. it should be pointed out that the
13
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
r
property has existed for a number of years without a retaining wall, and
the property in the front yard could be sloped and landscaped without
requiring the wall to project as far as it does into the right-of-way.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. According to the City ordinances, the Council could grant a permit to
Mr. Boisclair to allow for the construction of the retaining wall
within the public boulevard. If approved, it is recommended that
Mr. Boisclair be required to remain a specific distance from the
curb, approximately 8 feet is recommended.
2. only grant the permit if the Council feels that the topography of the
land requires the retaining wall to extend into the boulevard.
3. Deny the request and require the applicant to remove any portion
within the boulevard.
C. STAFF REMMIENDATION:
The staff certainly recognizes that there are a number of properties in
the city of Monticello who have done some minor landscaping, including
shrubbery, fencing, and other treatments within the public right-of-way
that have not been officially approved. The staff certainly recognizes
that certain properties because of the elevations may require some
C, encroachment into the right-of-way to prevent erosion, etc., but these
cases are very limited. In Mr. Boisclair's situation, although he has a
walkout basement, it does appear that his property could have been
altered with a slreller retaining wall without encroaching into the
boulevard as far as he did. The staff is concerned of the potential for
liability by allowing permanent, immovable objects being placed in the
boulevard should a car jump the curb and have an accident. The City
could be held liable by allowing the placement of a permanent object in
the boulevard in these cases. At a minimum, the staff believes the
retaining wall, if allowed, should be 6 feet from the curb to allow
sufficient room for snowplowing operations. If the Council does not have
any opposition to come landscaping efforts within a boulevard, possibly
the ordinance should be amended to better define what type of uses or
distances would be a ininirnum from the curb and under what situations they
would be considered. It seems that if it's strictly for aesthetic
purposes and serves no real purpose in erosion control, etc.,
encroachment should not be allowed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter from Mr. Boisclair requesting the permit; Copy of City
letter indicating violation.
(, NA I a
To: Mr. Rick 'dolfsteller August 15, 1989
Monticello City Administrator
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, tin. 55562
From: Paul Boisclair
878 E. Portland
Fresno, Ca. 93710
Re: Round Pole Retaining Wall �i 806 E. [fiver St.
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
Thank you for your time on the phone today. Per our conversation, and
per the letter I received from Monticello City Zoning Administrator
Gtr. Gary Anderson (dated August 8, 1989, enclosed), I write to you
formally requesting a variance, or conditional use permit, for the
continued use of the landscaning on my property at 606 East River St.
The landscaping in question regards retaining walls built along River St.
I initially asked Lir. Anderson on April 12, 1988 if I needed a permit
to landscape near the curb on my property, describing to him what I
had planned. He said no, but added that if the city had to access my
property for anything, costs to repair any damaged landscaping would
be borne by me. I understood, and began my landscaping.
Evidently keeping track of my progress, on August 16, 1988, Mr. Anderson
stopped by to inform me that he thought my initial retaining wall in-
stallation was too close to the street, stating that he wasn't sure
whether or not city snow plows would have a problem with it. He aug+
gestod I contact Monticello Street Superintendent Mr. Roger !lack to
verify an acceptable distance for my retaining wall.
I callod t.r. Back, who later came to my property, agreed with Lir.
Anderson's concern, and paintod a lino to show me an acceptable distance
(it was hio concern that plows could strike the retaining wall).
Since my initial retaining wall was now closer to the curb than rocom-
m ended, I proceeded to tear it down and roconotruct it in compliance
with Mr. Lack's recommended sot -back.
0
- 2 -
In Uay and June of this year I completed construction of my retaining
Walls. Seeding of the bare ground remaining (with grass) is planned
for October of this year, when cooler temperatures make it feasible.
Obviously, the demand by dr. Anderson for removal of my retaining
Wall at this time startles me. He has known of it since its
inception, and has even advised me during its construction.
1 have constructed my landscaping to improve the beauty of my property,
and to improve the ability to use it, as my property has a sharp slope
that doesn't allow for as such enjoyment as a more level yard allows.
I believe that I should be allowed to keep my landscaping for two
reasons. One, it improves the beauty and usability of my property,
and two, I have been completely up—front with city officials of my
plazas before and during construction. I have agreed to and complied
with all of their instructions and recommendations.
Per the suggestion of lionticello City Attorney lar. Tom Hayes during
my recent phone conversation With him on this issue, please place my
request for a variance, or conditional use permit, for the continued
use of my landscaping on the next Monticello Planning and Zoning
Commission agenda.
thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Paul Boioclair
ccs Tom Hay on
Rich Cnrloon
Mori Malone
Dick I.'e.rtio
Cindy Lomm
Dan IdcUonnin
0/0
.,-, G- 14 - S -, M .:. N 1 1 : � e " -r1 1 0 K I t4,:;
August 8, 1989
2iLI Easr Broadway
Monticello. ION 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Merro: (612) 333.5739
V� ,h
Paul M. and Kelly L. Boisclair
C--C,w-,
Route 1, BOX 109
On , I
F..... F `�
Buffalo, MN 55313
A
Re: Poles placed within the boulevard of a public
right-of-way at 806 East River Street
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Boisclair:
You have placed large round poles within the boulevard portion
of the East River Street public right-of-way. These round
poles are not an allowable use within the boulevard portion of
the East River Street public right-of-way. Enclosed is a copy
of the allowable and prohibited uses of the boulevard portion
of a public street right-of-way.
You will have ten (10) days from the date of this letter,
August 8, 1989, to remove the round wood poles from the
boulevard portion of the east River street public
right-of-way. Failure to remove the round wood poles from the
boulevard portion of the East River Street public right-of-way
within the ten days will result in this matter being turned
over to the Monticello City Attorney's office.
Under Section B-5-4, Prohibited Uses, all uses of a boulevard
not listed in Section 8-5-3 are prohibited unless a permit has
boon approved by the City council of Monticello. if you would
like to seek possible permit approval by the Monticello City
Council, you will have to submit a letter in writing to the
City Administrator. Mr. Rick Wolfateller, to be placed on the
next regularly scheduled council agenda. The moeting date is
oat for August 28, 1989. Your letter will have to be received
MON 1 1 :29 < U A I O K I NG p . 02
Paul M. and Kelly L. Boisclair
August 8, 1989
page 2
by the City Administrator no later than 12:00 p.m., August 21, 1989,
to be placed on the next regularly scheduled City ODuncil agenda.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Gary Anderson
Zoning Adininlatcator
GAAd
Enclosure
CC: Rick Wolfateller, City Administrator
John Simola, Public Works Director
Roger Mack, Street Supt.
Tota Faves, City Attorney
f File
Von
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
tt. Consideration of contracting for City Assessor position for year 1990.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As a result of the Council's action August 14 to retain the position of
City Asessor locally if possible, I placed an ad in the local newspaper
requesting applications from qualified accredited assessors. only one
application was received, and that was from a gentleman who had not had
any experience in assessing but was interested in obtaining some
certification in the future. As a result, the only qualified individual
who could assume these duties for the City on a part-time or contract
basis is Peggy Stencil.
Gary Anderson and myself discussed the assessing duties with Peggy, and
it is our opinion that she would be a qualified individual who could do
an adequate job as the City Assessor for the year 1990. As you may
recall, there are three levels of certification for assessors, with Gary
being currently a certified assessor, with the next level being a
certified specialist; and what the City needs is an accredited assessor.
Peggy currently is a certified specialist, one level above Gary's
license, but one level lower than what the City would need eventually.
Peggy is close to obtaining her accreditation; and if she became a City
employee either on a part-time basis or through a contract arrangement,
she would have one year to become accredited. She has indicated she
would not have a problem with obtaining her accreditation by the end of
1990.
Gary and I discussed with Peggy ways of sharing some of the duties
between Gary's position and Peggy in doing the assessing. Although all
the details have not been finalized, there is rationale for Gary to
continue doing the assessment work relating to new construction since he
1s involved in issuing the building permits and doing inspections while a
building is being constructed. I should mention that Gary could continue
to do assessing work as long as the City had an individual to meet the
State standards and County regulations. It is anticipated that Peggy
would be responsible for all of the residential assessments, including a
review of 25 percent of the parcels each year. In addition, I am
assuming that Peggy would also do commercial and industrial assessing,
although Gary may participate in this segment also.
Under a proposal made by Doug Gruber, County Assessor, the County would
do the assessing work for the City on a contract basis at $5.00 per
parcel. There are approximately 1,750 parcels, which would amount to a
fee of $8,750 if the City contracted with the County. Peggy has
indicated a willingness to contract with the City for $4.50 per parcel.
As a result, if she did all of the parcels, the contract amount would
total $7,875. once the final allocation of the work is determined
botwe.en Gary and Peggy, it is assumed that the City's costs for 1990
would be less than the $7,875 but would depend on the actual amount of
parcels Peggy did.
15
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
If the City Council determines that it is still in the best interest of
the City to control its own assessing duties, this appears to be the only
reasonable solution at this time considering the late date and the fact
that the assessment work should be started in the very near future for
next year. I believe Peggy is a qualified individual who currently has
arrangements with two other cities and a number of townships in Wright
County. When the City utilized Peggy's services earlier this year to
help complete the 1989 assessment, she proved to be a hard worker whose
attitude is to gat the job done to meet the deadline.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve entering into a contract
arrangement with Peggy Stencil to be the City Assessor for the year
1990 at $4.50 per parcel. This would arrlount to a laximuwm of $7,875
but should be less than this amount depending on the amount of work
shared by Gary Anderson.
2. Turn the assessing duties over to the County Assessor under a
contract arrangement at $5.00 per parcel for a total estimated cost
of $8,750.
C. STAFF RECOMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation that the City enter intu d cuntrdct
arrangement with Peggy Stencil as the City Assessor for 1990. It appears
` that Peggy and Gary will be able to work together to conplete the
assessment in a timely lrenner at a lower cost than what the County is
proposing. In addition, the City will retain control of the assessment
work, and it appears a natural for Gary to continue assessing new
construction since he is heavily involved in the process from the
beginning. The balance of the work would be divided amongst the two
depending on Gary's workload. Although there is an advantage to allowing
the County to do the assessing work in that all coiplaints/inquiries
concerning evaluations can be directed to the County, I believe it's
iirportant for the City to retain its own assessor if possible, as it
provides us with accurate, up to date information for our own records and
ioakes us more accountable to the citizens.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None. nrl
16
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
12. Consideration of accepting comnuter parking lot deed from Wright County
with restrictive covenants. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A number of years ago, Wright County agreed to deed a parcel of land
adjacent to I-94 and Highway 25 to the City for use in developing a
commuter parking lot. The City proceeded with developing the lot but had
never received a warranty deed or quit claim deed from the County for
this property.
In December of 1988, a developer from the Twin Cities, Mr. Tom Dolly,
made a presentation before the City Council proposing to swap property
adjacent to the Silver Fox Inn for a new coimmwter parking lot and
developing the same in exchange for our present comnuter parking lot
site. Mr. Dolly was representing individuals who had proposed to build a
comsercial activity such as a convenience store/gas station and/or
franchise food outlet. Mr. Dolly had been informed that the City did not
actually have title to the property yet, and the City Council was
somewhat reluctant to relocate the parking lot to a less desirable
location convenience -wise. Mr. Dolly has been persistent in discussions
with the County Attorney, Bill MacPhail, and City staff in trying to
determine whether such a land swap was feasible. Although no firm
decision was made by the City Council, it appeared to be the consensus of
the Council that the City should retain ownership of the cotmnuter lot in
its present location to provide for future cloverleaf designs for an on
and off ramp to I-94 when MN/DOT determined this design to be feasible.
The discussions with Mr. Dolly again resulted in the City requesting the
County to deed over the property to the City. The transfer should have
taken place a number of years ago; but the County Attorney's office had
failed to prepare the proper deeds. As a result of the City's and
Mr. Dolly's persistence, the County Attorney prepared a quit claim deed
for the comnuter parking lot but included a reversion clause that states
the City of Monticello must use this property as a public parking lot
forever or all right and title reverts back to the County. Although
after a number of years we finally got our deed, the staff felt this deed
was quite restrictive in not allowing the City to utilize the property
for any other purpose other than a comwter parking lot.
In light of the reversion clause, I wrote a letter to Mr. MacPhail
requesting the County Board reconsider their reversion clause to a less
restrictive form. The City has used the property for other public
activities such as junk atmiesty day, and there may be other uses in the
future which technically according to the quit claim deed would not be
allowed. We requested that the reversion clause siigily state that when
Its principal use no longer continues for highway purposes, the commuter
lot could revert back to County ownership provided the City is reimbursed
for its construction and maintenance cost of the property if the County
turned around and sold the property for an economic gain. Since the
T County seemed to be concerned over the City selling the property and
making a profit, we should also be protected if the County should take it
back and sell it themselves.
17
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
After waiting a number of months, I finally got a letter from
Mr. MacPhail indicating that he did bring the subject up before the
Wright County Board in June of 1989. The County Board was concerned over
the persistence of a developer, Mr. Dolly, and his interest in the
property and was reluctant to remove the restrictive reversion clause.
The County Board minutes indicate that the County is not opposed to the
City utilizing the coimnuter lot for other public purposes such as junk
amnesty day, etc., but the reversion clause would stay. As a result, if
the City Council accepts the deed under these conditions, the property
could not be sold or transferred for other private uses but would have to
remain a coimnuter parking lot or for other highway related purposes. The
purpose of this agenda item is to once and for all either accept the
comnuter parking lot with the restrictions attached or to direct staff to
continue negotiations with the County Attorney and the County Board in
obtaining less restrictive clauses in the deed. With action by the City
Council one way or another, Mr. Tom Dolly would have his question
answered as to whether this property would ever be available for any type
of private development.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the commuter parking lot deed as presented by the County with
the restrictive reversion clause attached.
2. Refuse to accept the quit claim deed without rurtner revision to the
reversion clause..
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although the staff feels the City of Monticello is being singled out with
this restrictive conversion clause and the staff does not feel other
comunities have received this Same type of treatment, it doesn't appear
that the County Board will deed the property to the City without making
sure the City cannot sell it in the future for a profit. Although I
believe the staff is not supporting a relocation of the comnuter lot next
to the Silver Fox Motel as proposed by Mr. Dolly, we were more concerned
over other uses the coimnuter lot iray be used for in the future that would
be in violation of the restrictive conversion clause. If the City ever
decided to build an information center or utilize a portion of the
commuter lot for other public buildings, would this be in violation of
the strict highway purpose of the clause? It appears with the County's
Board action of June 13, I don't believe the County would enforce taking
the property back if other public uses are made of the property. As some
of you may recall, there was interest by the Council in retaining
ownership of this property for a future cloverleaf off of Highway 25 even
though that might be 10 to 20 years or more away. As a result, the
property would probably never be used for anything but a comnuter lot or
highway purposes. By accepting the quit claim deed as presented by the
County, Mr. Tom Dolly can be informed that the City would never be
selling the property to any other developer; and I believe this will
16
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
I
�- satisfy Mr. Dolly and he can proceed with any plans he may have for the
Silver Pox site knowing that it's the closest available undeveloped site
to this interchange.
A
D. SUPPORING DATA:
copy of quit claim deed (March 9, 1989)1 Copy of letter requesting change
in the deed from the City (May 15); and August 22, 1989, letter from
County Attorney indicating no change will be made in the deed.
19
C
Office of
WRIGHT COUNTY ATTORNEY
WILLIAM S. MacPHAIL
Phone: 612.682.3900
Wright County Courthouse - Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Macch 9, 1989
Mr. John Simola
Public WocksDicectoc
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Commuter Packing Lot Quit Claim Deed
Dear Mc. Simola:
Enclosed herewith please find Quit Claim Deed conveying to the City of
Monticello the same interests which was conveyed to Wright County by
the State of Minnesota. Please bring to the council's attention the
Revecsion Clause on the last page and also the Waiver of Maintenance
Rights, which the County has already expended money for. Inocdec that
thece be a proper, record made this time, the Board cespectfully
requests the city council to focmally approve and accept the Deed, and
also cequests that the Deed be cecocded.
Thank you very much for your coopecation.
very sincerely youcs,
William S. MacPhail
Wright County Attorney
wSM:lcd
Enc.
CC: Richard Norman, County Coocdinatoc
Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer
QUIT CLAIM DEED
The County of Wright having acquired the real estate hereinafter
described for highway purposes, and the County Board of said County
having determined that the same is no longer needed by said County for
highway purposes, and that the same may be conveyed and quit claimed
to the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, Upon said determination and pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 163.11, Subdivision 5, said County of Wright, in
consideration of the future maintenance, improvement or reconstruction
,by Grantee of such roadways, the County of Wright, Grantor, hereby
conveys and quit claims to the City of Monticello, Grantee, for
highway purroaea, all _._ _nterest _nc'_ud;ng aay ._r.�i._..._.
restrictions, covenants and easements that run with the land, together
with and including the right of access control as shown herein; see
exception to access conveyance as described herein; except that access
to Trunk Highway No. 392, renumbered 94, to Trunk Highway No. 129,
renumbered 152, or to Trunk Highway No. 25, from the lands herein
described shall be restricted as hereinafter set forth in the
reservation clause; and subject to the Reversion Clause: in and to the
real estate situate in the County of Wright, State of Minnesota,
described as follows:
Pago 1 of 5 G)
MPERIFY DLSCRIPSION OF M-MTER PARF:ING LOT ALDNG I-94 IN MX7CE1.1.0
All that part of the S'4 of the S.W.; of Section 11. Township 121 North, Range 25 West,
wtdch lies 33 feet northeasterly of a line naming parallel with Line 1 described
below and southwesterly of Line 2 described below:
LIE 1 (This constitutes the Cz:-.terline of the Frontage Road)
comnencing at a point on the east line of said Section 11, 99.8 feet
north of the southeast corner thereof; thence nm northwesterly at a
bearing of N 64.56'00" W (the east line of said Section 11 is assured to
bear North) for a distance of 209.9 feet; thence proceeding at a bearing
of N 75' 26'00" W for a distance of 4925.7 feet along the Centerline of
Westbound I-94• thence proceeding at a bearing of S 14' 34'00" W
for a distance of 217.0 feet to the point of beginning of Line 1;
thence proceeding at a bearing of S 75, 26'00" E for a distance of
288.1 feet; thence proceeding on an 8'00 tangential curve concave to
the sour_17:est (hsdrg a ce.^_-al a^g_e of 27' 00'00") for a distance of
337.5 feet' thence proceeding on tangent to said curve at a bearing of
S 48' 26'00" E for a distance of approximately 755 feet and there terminating.
LDZ 2 (This constitutes the southerly R/W limits of I-94 and the westerly R/W
limits of Trunk Highway M. 25)
camencing at the point of beginning for Line 1; thence proceeding at a
bearing of N 14. 34"00" E for a distance of 33 feet to the R/W line of
I-94 and the point of beginning of Line 2; thence proceeding southeasterly
along the southerly R/W line of I-94 parallel to and 184 feet southwesterly
of the centerline of Westbound I-94 for a distance of approximately 350
fee-, :h-ance
-teed'- scct^.easterl a1 :he RN lac of -94 a
distance ofapproxivately 600 feet to a point 280 feet southwesterly
(measured at right angles) of the centerline of Westbound I-94; thence
proceeding southeasterly along the R/W line of I-94 for a distance of
apprex'_-ately 490 feet to a point 465 feet southwesterly (measured at
right angles) of the centerline of Westbound I-94 and 75 feet northwesterly
(measured at right angles) of the centerline of T.H. 25; thence proceeding
southwesterly along the westerly R/W lune of T.H. 25 for a distance of
approximately 65 feet to a point 75 feet northwesterly (measured at
right angles) of the centerline of T.H. 25; thence proceedinZ southwesterly
along the R/W line of T. H. 25 for a distance of approximately 115 feet to
a point 50 feet mrtheasterly (meamred at right angles) of Line 1. (This
point on Line 1 is approximtely 20 feet from the Lime 1 termination point);
thence proceeding southwesterly toward the ternirwclon point of Line 1 to a
point 33 feet northeasterly (measured at right angles) of Line 1 and there
terminating.
The above tract of land lies within the A.of the SYA of Sec. 11-121-25 and
contains 2.4 acres, more or less , exclusive of the present road right-of-way.
Page 2 of 5
D
RESERVATIONS CLAUSE:
Subject to the following restriction and reservations:
No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No. 392 renumbered 94,
to Trunk Highway No. 129 renumbered 152 or to Trunk Highway No. 25
from the lands herein described and conveyed in Parcel 3 on S.P.
25-23, in Parcels 6, 8, BA, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 35A,
36, 37, 38 and 39 Rev. on S.P. 152=129-21-1, in Parcels 29 and 35 on
S.P. 8610 (152=129) 901, in Parcels 329, 335, 337, 429 and 437 on SP.
8680 (94=392) 901, in Parcels 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 27, 28, 39,
40, 42, 208, 212, 220, 220A, 221, 239 and 321 on S.P. 8680 (94-392)
902 and Parcels 7A, 9, 12, 14 and 17 on S.P. 8680 (94-392) 903; except
that access shall be permitted within a distance of 50 feet on each
side of the following described line: From a point on the east line
of Section 11, Township 121 North, Range 25 West, distant 99.8 feet
north of the southeast corner thereof, run northwesterly at an angle
of 64 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds from said east section line
(measured from north to west) for 209.9 feet; thence deflect to the
left at an angle of 10 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds for 3349.8 feet;
thence deflect to the left at an angle of 77 degrees 31 minutes 00
seconds for 546.5 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 8
degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds for 186.2 feet; thence deflect to the
right at an angle of 113 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds for 300 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run
southeasterly on the last described course for 500 feet and there
terminating; also access shall be permitted along a line run parallel
with and distant 33 feet esterly of the west line of Section 36,
Township 121 North, Range 24 West; also access shall be permitted
along the following described line: Beginning at the point of
intersection of the southerly extension of the east line of Block B of
the flat of Blocks A, B and C in Government Lot 9 of said Sectiz.n 36
with a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet southerly of the
north line Section 1, Township 120 North, Range 24 West; thence run
southerly to a point distant 75 northeasterly (measured at right
angles) of the point of termination of Line 1 described below and
there terminating:
Line 1. Beginning at a point on the east line of said Section 1,
distant 953.8 feet north of the east quarter corner thereof;
thence run northwesterly at an angle of 57 de,rucs 57
minutes 00 seconds from said east section line (measured
from north to west) for 2338.9 feet and there terminating;
also access shall be permitted along the following described line:
Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet
southerly of the north line of said Section 1, distant 100 feet
easterly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant
384 feet northeasterly of Line 2 described below; thence run northerly
to a point distant 33 feet southwesterly (measured at right angles) of
a point on Line 3 described below, distant 61.7 feet northwesterly of
its point of termination and there terminating;
Line. 2. Beginning at a point on the east line of said Section 1,
distant 972.44 feet north of the east quarter corner
thereof; thence run northwesterly at an angle of 45 degrees
00 minutes 00 seconds from said east section line (measured
from north to west) for 2688.92 feet. thence deflect to the
.left at an angle of 36 decrees 24 minutes 00 seconds for
669.1 feet and there terminating;
Pago 3 of 5 . 0
Line 3. From the point of termination of Line 2 described above, run
northeasterly at right angles to said Line 2 for 217 feet to
the point of beginning of Line 3 to be described; thence
deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds for 100 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 2
degree 00 minute 00 second eur,.c (delta angle 8 degrees 49
minutes 00 seconds) for 440.9 feet; thence on tangent to
said curve for 1069.4 feet; thence deflect to the right on a
12 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 49 degrees
15 minutes 00 seconds) for 410.4 feet and there terminating;
The State of Minnesota reserves a perpetual drainage easement,
including the installation and maintenance of related drainage
structures- on that part of the lands herein conveyed in Government
Lots 7 and 9 of Section 7, Township 122 North, Range 26 west, which
lies within a distance of 25 feet northwesterly and 50 feet
southeasterly of Line 4 described below:
Line 4. From a point on the east and west quarter 1 ine of Section
12, Township 122 North, Range 27 West, distant 991.5 feet
west of the east quarter corner thereof, run southeasterly
at an angle of 36 degrees 43 minutes 00 seconds from said
east and west quarter line (n,=asured from east to south) for
727.3 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30
minute 00 second curve (delta angle 16 degrees 15 minutes 00
seconds for 1093.3 F_Jet; thence on tangent to said curve for
335.5 feet to the. point of beginning of Line 4 to be
described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90
dcgrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 231.7 feet; thence deflect
to the right on a 39 degree 11 minute 50 second curve (delta
angle 66 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds) for 174.0 feet and
there terminating;
also the State of Minnesota reserves a perpetual drainage easement,
including the installation and maintenance of related drainage
structures on that part of the lands herein conveyed in Government Lot
3 of Section 32, Township 122 North, Range 25 West, which lies within
a distance of 25 feet on each side of tine 5 described below:
Line S. From a point. on the west line of Section 30, Township 122
North, Range 25 West, distant 2036.3 feet north of' the
southwest corner thereof, run southeasterly at an angle of
57 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds from said west section line
(measured from south to east) for 9106.3 feet; thence
deflect to the left on a 0 degree 30 minute 00 second curve
(delta angle 2 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds) for 453.3
feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 276.7 feet to the
point of beginning of Line 5 to be described; thence deflect
to the left at an angle of 97 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds
for 600 feet and there terminating.
Page 4 of 5
REVERSION CLAUSE
Grantee agrees that the subject property shall be used and
�. maintained forever as a public parking lot. If any part of the
� — s
property herein conveyed shall not be used and maintained for this
purpose, or if any part shall be used for any other purpose
inconsistent with such purposes, then all the right, title, and
interest in and to the property and to the improvements thereon, shall
revert to and revest in Grantor, as fully and completely as if :his
instrument had not teen executed.
WAIVER OF MAINTENANCE RIGHTS
Grantee, by acceptance of this deed, specifically waives the
provisions of M.S. 163.11, Subd. 5b, and specifically agrees Grantor
-shall not be liable for maintenance pursuant to said statute.
No deed tax due hereon. COUNTY OF WRIGHT
By
arty NNe son Its Board Chairman
By ••a.r`—
R char rmn Its County
Coordinator
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this �°day of
March, 1989, by Arlyn Nelson and Richard Norman, tnu Chairman of the
County Board and County Coordinator of Wright County, a corporation
under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the County Board.
rrL�" 0. b�
This Instrument was drafted by: Notary Public
w.,w.,.n,v�,..• • �nww�nnnn
William S. MacPhail ;�.: •,:�;�,w�
Wright County Attorney
Wright County Court House
Buffalo, MN. 55313 �' "•""0 `''0" 1°"'` �!oo;
(612) 682-3900, Ext. 110
Attorney I.D. 166151
Pago 5 of 5 (9
Vi '✓
MONTICELLO May 15, 1.989
Office of the Cin Administrator
250 East Broaduav
Monricello, %IN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Merro: (612) 333.5739
Mr. William S. MacPhail
Wright County Attorney
Wright County Courthouse
Buffalo, MN 55313
Re: Commuter lot quit claim deed
Dear Mr. MacPhail:
The City of Monticello staff has reviewed the quit claim deed with
the City Council.. The City Council finds the reversion clause in its
present form unacceptable. As written, the reversion clause does not
adequately protect the City's investment in the commuter parking lot,
nor does it allow public activities such as Junk Amnesty Day to occur
on portions of the property not currently being used for a commuter
parking lot.
If it is the County's wish that the property revert to the County
should the City consider selling it, this would not be a problem and
could be dealt with with a re -worded reversion clause. The City,
however, insists an having full use of the property for public
purposes that do not, for any significant duration, violate a "for
highway purposes" covenant.
It does appear that the County may be singling out Monticello for
this type of reversion clause, as we understand several previous
resolutions have been made allowing other cities ownership and/or use
of County property obtained from unused state right-of-way without
these reversion clauses. I have enclosed a sample reversion clause
/y
Mr. William S. MacPhail
May 15, 1989
Page 2
that the City would be more comfortable with. Please review it with
the County Hoard and respond. If you have any questions, or if we
may be of additional assistance, please contact us.
Respectfully,
�CIRROPMONTI CELLO
Rick Wolfs ller
City Administrator
RW/kd
Enclosure
cc: Ren Maus, Mayor
John Simola, Public Works Director
Tom Hayes, City Attorney
Pile ,/
b
SWLE REVERSION CLAUSE
The property shall revert to Wright County when its principal use no longer
continues for "highway purposes" such as a commuter parking lot.
The City reserves the right to recover its costs for the commuter parking lot
construction and physical maintenance from Wright County should the property
revert to Wright County and consequently be sold by Wright County for economic
gain.
C
9
t
Office of
WRIGHT COUNTY ATTORNEY
WILLIAM S. MacPHAIL
Wright County Courthouse - Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Phone: 612.682.3900
339-6881
1-800-362-3667
August 22, 1989
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator - City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Commuter Lot
Deac Mr. Wolfstellec:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the Board's Minutes of June 13, 1989,
regarding the above. As you will note, it is the Board's intention that this
property remain in the public domain for use by the public. The Board
therefore declines to alter the terms of the initial transfer. The Board
did, however, go on record as stating that the Board has no objection to
other temporary uses of the property for public purposes, provided the same
are not totally inconsistent with its use as a commuter lot. You are hereby
advised that such uses, if temporary in nature, will not cause the County to
take any action.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Also,
ploase rwo that Mr. Dolly is provided with a copy.
WSM:cjh
Enclosuco
Sincerely,
William S. MacPhail
County Attorney
Equat gpPanunityl Affbmatirl Ar,ion Emptor, O
6/13/89 WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
absent. Motion carried 3-0 with one abstention.
At 11:00 A. M. County Attorney, MacPhail, met with the Board and gave a \
brief summary of the status of the commuter lot in the City of Monticello.
stated that some years ago.the City of Monticello requested acquisition
L. a parcel of land to use as a commuter lot. He said that, for some
reason, the deed was not properly recorded at that time; however, the
County has now provided them with another deed stipulating that the
property be used as a commuter lot or else it would revert back to the
County. He provided a 'copy of a letter from the City of Monticello stating
that the reversion clause in ita present form is unacceptable; and a sample
reversion clause was attached for t=he Board's consideration. MacPhail said
he could understand the City's position that the principal use of the
property would be for a commuter lot, but they would also like to be able
to use it for other public actD i ties ouch as Junk Amnesty Day, etc..
however, he has some concern aboaut a particular developer's persistent
interest in the property. He added that, in his opinion, the Board needs
an explanation as to why this inte lest exists. Engstrom moved to lay the
matter over until the County Attorney has time to research this concern.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Following some further discussion, motion was made by Mittkowski 8 seconded
by Schillewsert to authorize the County Attorney to forward a letter to the
City of Monticello conveying our concerns and authorize them to use the
commuter lot for temporary recycling purposes and/or other similar public
service uses. Motion carried unanl mously by those present.
MacPhail provided the Board with an informational letter from Assistant
County Attorney, Debra Kultala, u pdating them on the grant statue for the
Victim/witness program.
11:19 A.M. a lengthy discourse- took place between the Board and Jeanne
Bryant b Sue Nichols, concerned citizens. Their questions and concerns
about the proposed compost ayet.es were addressed/clarified with the
assistance of Assistant County Att-orney, Brian Asleaon, & Environmental
Health Officer, Chuck Davis. At the conclusion Mittkowaki commented that
everyone agrees that a solution to the solid waste problem is necessary,
and he shares their concern about the coat. He said it would be his
suggestion to put the issue on am binding referendum and lot the people
decide. No Board action on any qua stions or comments took place.
The Board recessed at 12:20 P.M. arced reconvened at 1:20 P. M.
On a motion by Schillewnert, secoraded by Mittkowaki, all present voted to
reaffirm the mobile home placement for Roseline Ortloff for another year.
Nelson commented that the letter =rom the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
regarding the Deferred Loan Program -Phase V is merely informational for the
Board at this point in time.
Motion was made by Sehilleveert, aseconded by Vlttkowaki, L carried 4-0 to
approve the application for a Charitoble Gambling License renewal for the
Buffalo Lions Club.
9
7
r
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
13. Review of Liquor Store six-month financial report. (R.w.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the six-month financial statement for
the liquor store operation comparing the first six months of 1989 with
the same period in 1988. Joe Hartman, Manager, will be available at the
Council meeting to review the report and answer any questions you may
have concerning the operation.
To briefly summarize the financial report, sales for the first six months
of 1989 were up slightly over the same period last year, approximately
1 percent increase. Cost of sales were up approximately 2 percent
resulting in a gross profit percentage down 2 percent over last year to
$116,036 compared to $118,720 in 1988. Expenses for the first six months
were up approximately $6,250 or 9 percent increase over last year, which
results in an operating income of $38,576, or $8,900 less than the same
period last year.
In reviewing the expenditures for the first six months, it should be
noted that the 1989 figures for professional services are $2,000 higher
than last year, which is attributable to the audit fee being incorporated
in the first six months of this year, where it was not included yet last
year. Typically, the second half of each year generates more income than
the first half does and results in approximately bU percent of our
revenues being generated in the second half of each year. Using this as
an assumption, our operating income for the full year is still estimated
to be between $95,000 and $100,000.
In reviewing the gross profit percentage of liquor, beer, wine, and
miscellaneous, it appears that some adjustments in the gross profit
markup for beer and miscellaneous sales should be reviewed. The off -sale
liquor stores have been decreasing the amount of miscellaneous
merchandise that is being sold. Municipal liquor stores are getting away
from selling miscellaneous food and candy items, etc., and are focusing
more on the liquor operations. In our case, total, miscellaneous sales
are only averaging about 3 percent of total sales, so it is a minor part
of our business operation. In rogards to beer sales, it appears that
further analysis of our markup on beer should be the emphasis in that we
would like to improve on our gross profit percentage for this product.
Other than a review of the six-month financial statements and any
questions the Council members may have in regards to the operations, the
only action required to acceptance of the report as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of six-month financial statement.
20
It
MONI ICLLLO PANICIPAL LIQUOR
11M,1111"', LIQUOR SIOIE
I JUNE 30, 1989 AND 1988
ASSETS
CURRONT ASSCIS
CIIANGL IIINU f
CASK IN BANK, - CHECKING
INVESIMLNIS
NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE
INVENTORIES
PREPAID INSURANCE
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
PROPLRTT AND EQUIPMENT
LAND f
BUILDINGS AND IMMVEMENTS
PARKING 1.01
FURNITURE AND MIMS
ACCUM. IILPR. - BUILDINGS
ACCUM PF.PP fUPNITI!PC Il MIURC
Ai IILPR. - PARKING LUT
TOTAL PkUPLkIT AND EOUIPMEIIT
TOTAL ASSETS
It
1,500
1 1,000
119,448
76,618
405,837
516,066
266
335
150,678
131,800
7,933
-------
11,687
-------------
1 685,662
6,840
185,445
39,751
64,292
(60,5701
(56,.291)
(13,982)
f -------------
165.496
1 051,140
f 737,507
f 6,840
183,869
39,751
58,805
(51,500)
(52,217)
(10,858)
-------------
f 174,692
-------------
4 912,199
(/52..Oo
Tri
MUIIIICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCL SHELI
LONG-TERM LIABILIIILS
-------------
TOTAL LUNG -TERM LIABILITIES 4 0
TOTAL
' -'! �PI!1!Irs 4 86,761
r
'ipuitY
RETAINLD LARIIINGS / 698,.71
REVENUES OVER EXPWOIIURCS 66,113
---•---------
TOTAL EOUlfY f
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
SEE ACCOUHIAWTS' COMPILATION REPORT.
i
761,387
t 051,118
.............
f 0
-------------
1 87.757
1 757,985
66,157
-------------
1 821,112
-------------
f 912,199
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
JUNE 30, 1989 AND 1988
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
CURRE14 LIABILITIES
ACCOUNTS PAYADLL
f 76,289 f
79,273
SALES TAX PAYABLE
5,397
5,135
PAYROLL W/H - FICA
177
57
PAYROLL W/N - PERA
100
32
ACCRUED SICK LEAVL I VACATIONS
1,720
1,659
SALARFCS PAYABLE
3,068
1,372
PAYROLL W/H - MEDICARE
10
9
PAYROLL W/H - STATE
0
-------------
219
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILFFIES
------------
f 86,761
/ 87,757
LONG-TERM LIABILIIILS
-------------
TOTAL LUNG -TERM LIABILITIES 4 0
TOTAL
' -'! �PI!1!Irs 4 86,761
r
'ipuitY
RETAINLD LARIIINGS / 698,.71
REVENUES OVER EXPWOIIURCS 66,113
---•---------
TOTAL EOUlfY f
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
SEE ACCOUHIAWTS' COMPILATION REPORT.
i
761,387
t 051,118
.............
f 0
-------------
1 87.757
1 757,985
66,157
-------------
1 821,112
-------------
f 912,199
It
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
R6'CULIE AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
[I
Ilk
I
rOR THE tHREE ROIIfHS AND SIX MONTHS ELIDED JUNE 30, 1989 AND 1988
CURRENI-PERIOD
CUR -PD
TEAR-IO-DAfE
Y -1-D
SAME -PD -LSI -YR
PD-LYR
Y -I -D-1.51.11
YID -LY
AMUUNI
RAI IU
AMOUNT
RAI IU
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNI
RATIO
SALES
LIQUOR
f 80,197
25.631
145,676
27.32
1 73,175
23.031
136,437
25.84
BECK
191,002
61.05
315,782
59.22
196,137
61.74
313,154
59.12
PINE
32,3GL
10.35,
57,314
10.75
36,039
11.34
61,033
11.56
OIHEI i1DSE
10,168
3.25
15,710
2.95
11,222
3.53
16,756
3.17
MISC. HUII•TAXABLL SALES
522
.17
1,155
.22
977
.31
2,677
.51
DEPOSIfS AND WORDS
(1,363)
1.44)
(2,261)
(.42)
204
.06
(1,009)
(.19)
BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC
30
.01
30
.01
66
.02
78
.01
DISCOUNtS
(74)
(.02)
(146)
(.03)
------
(114)
-------------
(.04)
------
(164)
............•
(.03)
- -
TOTAL SALES
-------------
6 312,850
---
100.00 1
-------------
533,259
100.02
1 317,705
99.99 6
527,962
99.99
COST 0160ODS SOLD
1 1241,557)
(77.2111
(417,222)
-------------
0B.24)
------
1 (283,263)
-------------
189.1611
......
(409,241)
-----------••
(77.51)
- -
GROSS PlUrll
----------•-•
1 71,293
--
22.791
116,036
21.78
1 34,442
10.83 1
110,720
22.48
l CHL AND ADIM. EXPLMSES
PERSUNAL SERVICES
SALARIES, RLGULAI
1 18,147
5.901
36,J57
6.82
1 1G,727
5.27 1
35, T,8
6.68
PERA
647
.21
1,316
.25
630
.20
1,307
.25
MEDICARE UIIHHEILUINGS
47
.01
79
.01
51
.02
65
.01
INSUlANCE, TIED ICAL AND LIrE
2,005
.64
4,009
.75
1,165
.37
2,330
.44
SOCIAL SLLUPIIY
1,143
.37
2,326
.44
1,114
.35
2,309
.44
UNElVLOYACNI BFJ(IfIT
0
.00
0
.00
------
9
.............
.00
------
9
.............
.00
....--
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
---------•---
/ 22,289
------
7.131
-------------
44,086
8.27
1 19,696
6.21 1
41,278
7.82
SUPPLIES
Orria SUPPLIES
1 52
.011
90
.02
1 63
.02 1
OD
.02
GENERAL OPERA( m SUPPL IES
I'm
.56
2,878
.54
2,441
.77
3,004
.57
NAINILHANCE Or BLDG. SUPPLILL
0
.00
0
.00
164
.05
164
.03
NINOP EQUIPPICN7
60
.02
60
.01
------
0
-----•-------
.00
------
0
.............
.00
TOTAL SUPPLIES
----• ----•---
1 I,Bil
--
.60 1
-------------
3,028
.5'7
1 2,668
.84 1
3,257
62
SEE ALLU11111ANT5' LOMPILAI ION
REPORT.
[I
Ilk
I
n/. ,
MONIILELLO MUNiCIfAL LIQUOR
Page 1
GROSS PROrR BY PRODUCT
SOLD
q
for the Period 04/01/89 to 06/30/89
Current -
Period
Year - to
- Date
Sm -Period -Last -Yr
Year -to -Date -Last -Yr
Aawunt
2
Auunl
Z
Aeount
%
Asount
X
LIQUOR SALES
f 00,197.19
100.09 1
145,675.50
100.10 t
73,174.74
100.16 1
136,436.69
100.12
DI;,11=1I;,
t 74.21) 1
.09) {
146.14) {
.10) t
114.08)
1 .16) l
163.93) l
.121
COST 01' SALLS I.I000R
61,724.01
77.04
109,42120
-------------
75.19
------ ------
55,957.96
----
76.59
104,096.36
76.39
GROSS PROFIT
S 1U,398.97
2?...76 f
36,106.16
24.81 1
- z:z z.::ss:szz::
17,102.70
23.41 1
:s:zzs
32,176.40
ezz=-:zz::cza
23.G1
=-
BEER SALES
ers:n:::::zzz
191,001.70
zzsa_
100.72
z::a:s:::szez
315,781.51
100.72
196,136.99
99.90
312,153.64
100.32
Dt:PIfeIIS AND RECUMBS
l 1,362.67) l
.72) (
2,260.96)
t .72)
204.26
.10 1
1,009.021 t
.32)
COST Dl SALES - DEER
155,635.51
02.07
255,366.70
-------------
01.45
------ -------------
112,251.63
97.92
------
250,916.48
------------
00.64
-----
GROSS PWI11
------------
1 34,003.52
------
17.93 1
58,153.85
18.55 1
sssaze azxceasszzza
4,089.62
2.08 1
a:zzzc
60,228.34
z:ez:szz:::sa
19.36
s:s:m
UIIIC COLIS
uzaass:s::sa
32,368.33
eazzez
100.01
.n:r:zzzcszz
57,313.74
100.00
36,038.72
100.00
61,032.75
100.00
Of SALES - WINE
61.56
37,338.33
65.15
24,774.11
68.74
39,112.99
64.09
G6USS WIT
.21:861.52
...-
f 10,500.01
-----
32.44 1
------------
19,975.41
onaasanma
34.85 1 11,264.61
.s■ra ■nasazauas:
31.26 1
u■sss
21,919.76
z:acauueeaa
35.91
mass:■
OTHER ;TALCS
a..nuau■so
10,161.00
mseaaa
99.70
15,709.95
99.01
11,222.23
99.42
16,756.21
99.54
BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC
30.09
.30
30.09
.19
65.57
.58
77.89
.46
COST Of SALCS - OTHER
860.14
8.51
11,515.10
.73.16
•----------
6,327.66
56.06
8:814.20
52.36
GRU,;S PROTif
...........
t 1,729.83
- --
91.49 1
------------
4,324.86
■ssc:c■_aeaa
26.84 f 4,960.14
suss■ mmsu.sn
43.94 1
.sassy
8,019.82
.z■.usaun
47.64
at.au
MISC. 10 -TAXABLE SALCS
eresaeusaes■
511.67
ssn.a
100.10
1,155.09
100.00
976.95
100.00
2,617.49
100.00
LOS - MISC. NOR IAXABLE
1 (11.60)
1 11.81)
069.66
75.29
...... .............
1,969.55
201.60
.---
3,635.39
-------------
135.78
------
GROSS WIT
..- .
1 583.::7
.....
111.81 1
a.$. .
............
2M.43
■.■..........
24.71 14 992.60)
....n aa.uan■....
(101.60)1(
usm.a
957.90)
■■aaamuu
l 35.78)
.■nu
TOTAL SALES
sasaac■sna■■
312,094.10
979.32
533,374.63
176.04
317,753.69
525.09
528,047.96
721.75
TOtAL COSI Of SALES
241,556.83
304.53
417,222.36
-
120.33
---
213,262.90
»...--- -
994.62
------
409,241.45
-- ------ _
284.52
......
TOTAL WOSS PROFIT
-------------
1 71,331.27
.auanu■■a.
------
674.79 1
onu
--.....
116,152.41
u.s.tauao
055.71 1
n.n.
34,490.99
mau.■.un
530.48 1
■■w.
118,806.51
n.u■uaana
437.23
oun
n/. ,
1
MOMICELLO MUNICIPAL LIMP
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
v MRIICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
EOR INE INTOE NINTHS NID six MONTHS SIDED JUNE 30, 1989 AILD 1988
CURRENT -PERIOD (UR -PD YEAR-tO-DAIS Y -T -O SAME -PD -LSI -TR PD -LTH Y -f -D -LSI -YR YID -LY
AMOUNT IAT 1O ANUMI RAI 10 AIMNI RATIO ANWNI RAI 10
OTHER SERVICES AND GIMES
PROfESSlO11AL SERVICES (AUDIT) 6
2,760
UB 1
2,760
.52 1
552
.17 1
702
.13
MMUNICATION
186
.06
383
.07
277
.09
118
.08
TRAVEL•EIYOERENCE-SCHDOLS
0
.00
40
.01
132
.01
232
.01
ADVERT ISlll6
771
.25
2,217
.13
1,062
.331
1,607
.30
INSURANLL, GEWAL
I,BG6
1.tA
9,316
1.75
7,897
2.19
7,897
1.50
UfIL1fICS, CLLCtRICAL
2,081
.67
3,712
.70
2,688
.85
3,793
.72
U7I1.I11M, HEALING
113
.00
732
.11
230
.07
751
.1/
UTILITIES, S I Y
27
.01
27
.01
87
.03
118
.02
MAINIENAIICE Of ERUIPMLNI
126
.01
1,980
.37
126
.01
1,036
.20
EOUIPMENT
0
.00
033
.08
035
.11
585
.II
IAXES AND LICMS
250
.OB
262
.05
250
.OB
318
.07
GARBAGE
123
.11
812
.16
501
.17
808
.15
DEPR. - ACOUIRLY ASSETS
1,061
1.30
7,580
1.12 .
.....
1,228
---- ----^
.39
------
8,373
......... --
1.59
-
10M 0I1119 SLRVICE! 1 CIMMESI
------ »-----
15,670
•---••
5.031
------•------
30,316
5.71 1
15.506
0.89 1
26,669
5.05
cstlf SERVICE
TOTAL DEBT SEMIICCS 1
0
.001
0
.00 1
0
.00 1
0
.00
TOTAL GEMAL I ADIM. CXPEI(SESI
39,810
12.761
71,160
14.55 1
37,869
11.94 1
71,204
13.49
LOYAL OMATINO INCOMC 1
31,183
10.031
28,576
7.23 1
(3,021)
(1.11)1
07,517
8.99
OTHLR UI MC (EXPIASES)
INTERLSI INCOME 1
13,701
1.011
26,665
5.00 1
18,891
5.951
18,891
3.58
OTHER INCOME
10
.00
33
.01
65
.02
93
.02
CASH LING/6HO11
791
.25
839
.16
(15)
(.00)
(16)
4.011
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) 1
11,M
0.661
37,537
5.17 1
18,911
5.97 1
10,910
3.59
ILEI INCOME 1
11,068
asusauaaaa
11.691
•aria
66,113
asssunau■
12.10 1
ratan
15,517
asamassaa
1.661
asaaaa
66,457
aaunaasa t.
12.58
ssaa
SEE ACC"ImII' COM tUTION REPORT.
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
14. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement carpeting for the
Liquur Store. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the 1988 budget, the City liquor fund budgeted $6,800 for
carpet replacement for the Liquor Store. The red plaid carpet in the
store is the original carpet and is approximately 13 years old. It is
beginning to show its age, and Joe Hartman has been seeking quotes from
local carpet suppliers for the past few weeks. Although it's not easy to
coirpare one brand of carpet with another, Joe has received four quotes
for carpet installation from Golden valley Furniture and Larson Carpet in
Monticello, Kjellbergs Carpet out of Buffalo, and Tom's Flooring in
Mound. All of the firms have indicated a willingness to have the carpet
installed over a weekend without any disruption of our normal hours. It
is anticipated that the carpet could be installed after closing Saturday
night and be completed by the time the store opens on Monday morning.
Joe has tentatively set a preferred date of October ld or 21 for the
installation if the Council approves the purchase.
Kjellbergs Carpeting out of Buffalo, Minnesota, did not have a lot of
choices of carpeting types within a reasonable price range but submitted
a quotation of $6,100. Tom's Minnetonka Flooring of Mound, Minnesota,
submitted a quotation of $5,889 for a coimnercial grade of carpet. Joe
Will have avallaole two or three samples of different types ui edrl+et
that could be purchased for this amunt. The quotation received from
Golden Valley Furniture covered two types of carpet. Again, the
selection is limited, but one type which Joe has a sairple of could be
installed for $5,997. Golden Valley Furniture also submitted a second
quotation for a plusher, thicker carpet at a price of $8,955. Although
this does appear to be a richer looking carpet, I'm not sure whether the
additional cost can be justified. There are advantages and disadvantages
to this type of thicker carpeting; but I believe there is enough
comercial grade tight weave carpeting available that will meet our needs
at a lower cost. Larson Carpet and Furniture of Monticello submitted a
proposal for $5,300. Joe also has a sample of this carpet for the
Council to review.
As you will see from the awsples to be presented at the Council meeting,
there certainly is a number of color choices that could be used for the
new carpet. I believe there is an advantage to having a tight weave
thick density carpet to minimize traffic patterns, etc.; and it would
appear that a darker color would be less likely to show the patterns
within the aisles and the main traffic areas and less likely to show dirt
accuimrlation. If the Council authorizes the carpet to be replaced,
Council members are certainly welcome to pick out a color choice or that
decision can be left to staff members.
21
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
i
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. After reviewing the carpet sainples available, authorization could be
granted approving the carpet replacement. If the sample provided by
Larson Carpet is acceptable, the cost for the complete installation
would be $5,300.
2. If the carpet replacement is acceptable, a carpet selection and
quotation from another supplier could be accepted.
3. Do not authorize replacement of the carpet at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although the carpet that was originally installed has upheld well, it is
now showing its signs of age and replacement carpeting should be
considered in the near future. As I indicated above, the City budgeted
$6,800 in 1988 for this replacement; and a number of options do exist
depending on which carpet is selected. Although each individual staff
member probably has a different idea of what carpet colors and patterns
would be appropriate, it appears that we would be able to have the
project done under budget. Before the carpet becomes too worn out or
stained, it is recommended that it be replaced in the near future. If
the Council has a preference of one carpet over another, we would not
have to be tied into the lowest quote, as we are unable to nave each
supplier bid on the exact same carpet quality.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of quotations received. (Joe will bring with him samples of the
carpets being proposed by the suppliers.)
C
22
KK
$1'0 TOTAL FLOOR STORE AND MORE! CONTRACT FLOOR COVERINO
«... W a ..uo..-- aeala PROPOSAL
CUSTOMER - NAME J08 of DlNmam team tu;tomar}
ADORES°Cr
Ju Ct� { lu� AN ESTIMATE 0NL'
CITY � � C, AN ACTUAL BID
PHONE 5'�..�.a..� a-- DATE-- } TOTAL INSTALLED PRICE J OL') 19 0 f
AREA PATTERN COLOR SIZE VAROAGE PRICE
�t C ir�A c� G ►LC.e G' nc .3 Y3 'i � '
{
-'0'4�
{ I
( I
i
{
i
I I I
Salm ta.
Tata Msi—I I
tnvai4uon trabr on wow
tnual;l;on troy an Co.vllta
!
In\trll-an lrbol glut it., C6r001
In.l Il4OOn labor Intra
P•.aaa now
Sla.v.ay
Total Lrba t
vkls� .000aw Atcoptai oyt
INSTALLED PAiCE
�totat
TOM'S MINNETOINIKAFLOORING, INC.
F- No 102OPC C.M,—. . Papp—, A Conn.. paw, Engleh 1 111 a —at PW
TOM ALBERS
Tom's
SM Mika
"'odng 0-r,
2321 CO:
MerCe Blvd.
2321C.m
• 15A 11101
JoUnd tdN 55364 Go no No
(612)472 4722 (612t 472 4722 Mounn MN 55364
PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
To: q 4.9.47d..Z2,J ..............
. ......................Dare,i9y 19"y
proced Thr undersigned contractor proposes to furnish all materials and perform all labor necessary to complete the fol.
lowing: .7/
j, 7 -V9 1
s,,p 91
b, a"l
ay
F_
;�..7<7 4
0 05"A u It. fear
All nlfthr oboe work to he completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner aff d' t at■
9d'"d Fecti'm
for the sum . . ..... . ...... ...... - . . ... D.Us" (;'?,. :M -' *7 I.
F.7-1. Ps)roem, to be made 9? -1' 'If" V. drlc&-17�4Nc_.-,
a, the work p,ogressr,
to the value of....
per cent I of all work compirted. The ~ire amount of
contract to he paid within ........ _ .. . days after completion.
Any change from the shoe sporifications involving este cost of material or labor will only be e.ftuird upon
F-s written orders for them There will be eitrat charges for changer.
C6,6.. All agreements about changes must be made in writing.
coal'sir.
By :r"Z�a AVZ10&_z
TO T"9 CONTRACTOR,
... Pt.... You are hereby authorised to furnish all materials and labor required to complete the work mentioned in the ahm,
proposal, for %:%ich I (We) agree to pay the amount seculloned In the proposal according to Its terms.
ACCFJ'TW 11Y BUYERM a 1e B.F.
T. -ear— M2$50 Larsen Carpet & Furniture, Inc. Nair: 29S 2124
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
�ar¢F +tl rnr eureR, In Yn �. �nnM1� •rnw�.+,aw..m....n rrw nuL«.Rrm.m rmr R+•c•.�
1 1 vu. wr rUn+oN • e �••w„ • �rnm[ 1]I UUnw mrU rI iwnluw� •� • +a
fj %v W+rwraar. � m ub r.mu rx�w fn eau n. Pe +I . u n+ v Co+.tt«x Nuenmr
11�u axew, LARS N /CARPET a FURNITURE. f•remMem/.)a/./x/Jm-M,k�+r`fi/.�i}r3J�n/w�Yw NR.,
�
Mtlry W A mw1 a¢eA 1+.'i m my rrm+ wl m..ln.mr Mxn nrnlErl. rN r�rN mn unv:Ft///II mry tlur•In etllN Prywrvr{{r•v%% .
r Ylmw:
Yerdago Arem .4 ,f Pattern Color Price
WRITE Room
.Dining Room / (�
mitt' Room � I ,
EnIT s1s.�¢.. r3rr.. [1..'.:
Unlit R I
Bedrooln N6, 1 I
C
Bed. oomf No. 4
Bath
Sinn If
Podding/ A%
' "t- z
imtaitaiion tatwr on wood
Installation 1•bo• on Concrate
5tal'way
installation labor dire down camel
In tallation labor Intel$
{ Prepare floor
{
117 Down at dmo of Purchase
1!3 at dniivorp
Batance In 30 days Isom Completion of Int)
6.—
I="
ur. dame« ro IRr rrw m m• LwNn Crum • rmnmu, Ind
rpnikpr•, Ymm ee]a7. ousu
Id nr r im• ar•m.In IM1. mFm» mr[nHt m+T«n a, rN •admw«ry
nrPw•An m1+Ymrn1 In MIYaI rm 16 arv•.,•nI'- rXIII In aI
•xn Im+wfmrU a has +rrMh«w h Iq Rlrl nIT In• '. et M; I1 NI
r trY am I•«rmwu• ran N [rlirie++ IN I. IN Yu r•aur• al aur« 1a
m.nrr arlw al Nrr [n.rrr •1 •YwrmL m Io ram awu I. •
e al •e n.rs •n« •IN rxun In mw m• wrm.nn +e�• n«Y.re.,
1Im• . of •rm r •b m MLI•rm• d «swrum F rr aNlm,m+.. wlr
wmmm� rmnurr. r «.ow or erlr i ran u•mr Ynv sawn nr au...
arlN mwr Y Iw«m• a.rmm+ Nr .n m Y«I Yr mr «rerlm ulwn rb m..
rmn wrmwr rwwr 1+» wr erR M1w:onr• rwY wr Iwerw
TM1n Cannrr em+•w m• OR oNmrrrr al m• µY« Irh «rnpr
Nary IhN Na d I nr yn mr« 1• R"', — r• aur! .1 r.rw+I.y
OR-
Nr1vmN• IR m• 6mwt. aura roam •rr • E IN. YI OR .1 I «
our. w TIF, n•ur •m rin wmunw. •Ire Irpw ro mr N` I Yr erl«'r
N m'" N mann •Ir e•1«,. Y a...,. -N` •w« rr.
wll�. a •..ITT .. w,r "IO ra n+rE N m•o1y Ercn I«.r« ro
«� note. N Imo µby r W w aur« i el•Mn m rMNrr
lei
o•++.r cwnnwl '
Tarn
Sub Total S
Sub Total S
Od-
iI. IUF.1 C.-IT.L. •AICs
r, Io1.L Down ••rrrwT'c•m.
J, arrrnnrp •.L.NCY IaIrrr•mr '
•Frrrn +•11
•.un•.m ••I,ANee urr •al •
•. TIRE IN—cert!AENTr•L •
a. TIRE a.l ANC• l•rm •+-••41
•m Nr M Ruvr rF Irlw m,,.,�,�mr•«wF m•n•.R
IN. m�.n.nne.m.m..r1
m•Rm YI 1 Yn roll Y nlrx Im+Nlr•m
TIRE ••L• .AICI Ilam .+TNI 1
/ ov". c..�L•ro"rre IERIFE ii ca:+o.�ir.+i cowileiia'i llva
er 'rF.G:c/irL�6+:/4C7�j�.! turm`L e+µ•lur
n
GOL!jLV VA" 7 FLIPIZ ISURE Co.
P. J. can s1
MontloDS;o, U:an. CUM
t
J
Please detach and return upper portlon with your remittance.
DALE CH A eGrs ANO cnmi6
IAIANGS
t4j
.a....•,or �.•..r mm. •eru oau.•.•.oun•no.vo.u.A
I hl. panlon n fW roe r.[ord•. Your eh•ri Ir Ywl .•na.l.
9
I
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
15. Consideration of public information brochure/marketing plan. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
At the July 24th Council Meeting, the City Council authorized Henning
& Associates to prepare alternative proposals for development of a
marketing program and information and promotional materials. The
proposal was to range from a cost of $8,000 to $16,000 including
printing costs.
I received the attached proposal from Mr. Steve Henning on Thursday.
The proposal clearly outlines the purpose and clearly defines the
three options: Generic Brochure, Community Profile Booklet, and
Video. Also, included are estimated costs per options with
comparative costs between independent projects and the marketing
program. I inserted subtotals and totals on Mr. Hennings proposal to
assist you in your comparative cost analysis. However, keep in mind
these are estimated costs which Mr. Henning intentionally rounded
upward.
I have been unable to reach Mr. Henning prior to preparing the agenda
item. However, my understanding is that Henning & Associates request
a commitment or authorization from the Council to cover their concept
time. In the event Mr. Henning is not at the Council meeting I will
provide Council with a verbal clarification of his statement.
Please read and review the proposal prior to Council meeting. 1
believe the real question here is, "Does the Council see the need for
a marketing program?" There's no question that the City needs public
information/brochure, as we have none. Presently, the City of
Monticello has no marketing program; all industrial prospect leads are
by personal reference, telephone, mail and walk-in inquiries to the
City Hall.
A market program should increase the number of prospect leads and
should improve the quality of prospect leads. However, any market
program established will not be successful unless Staff time is
available totar et industries and carry out the program. The
Department o Tra o and Economic Development has an Industry Finder
and Marketing Guide (TOOLS) Program with available technical
assistance for target marketing which Mr. Henning is familiar with.
Unless the Council is willing to authorize a marketing program I would
recommend elimination of the Generic Brochure because the majority of
Chamber information requests are from individuals interested in moving
to Monticello (community and public services), interested in what to
ace in Monticello (tourism), or interested in the availability of
motels, dining facilities, recreational facilities, and unique shops.
These inquiries are not interested in information which is enticing,
without telling anything. However, again it's an excellent option and
should be considered a part of a market program.
�a god
wo U"
23
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
City Staff recommends the City Council consider the following
suggested alternatives and take action on the public information
brochure/marketing plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Market Program, Options 1, 2, and 3.
2. Market Program, Individual Project Options 1 and 2.
3. Individual Project Option 2.
4. Any other combination.
5. Denial of all options.
C. STAFF R.ECOr44ENDATION
City Staff recommends the City Council authorize Henning 6 Associates
to proceed with the development of a market program for the City of
Monticello. Unless Monticello has the ability to promote and sell
it's unique amenities and developed industrial ixprovexents and
programs,many excellent businesses are unaware of what we have to
offer. Staff believes it pays to advertise.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of Henning 6 Associates proposal.
Sp �A
C �,o
24
011ie Koropchak
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear 011ie:
In the following pages I have proposed three distinctly
different communications tools that may be used
independently -- or collectively as part of a more
comprehensive marketing program -- by the City of
Monticello.
I have tried to give a general definition of each piece
by its respective stated purpose. Following each
description, I have prepared production time estimates
to enhance your planning efforts. At the very end of
this proposal I have given approximate costs to produce
each tool -- Generic Brochure, Community Profile
Booklet, and Video. Costs are based on doing one
project independently from the others, so City Council
can choose one. I have also given estimates for
proceeding with all of these tools simultaneously, as a
marketing program.
If we commence work on more than one of these projects
simultaneously, our combined fees could be less. For
example, in our meetings we would be covering more than
one project, making our total meeting time more cost-
effective. Photographs could be taken for all projects
at the same time (including the videotape, if we use
slides), thus substantially reducing those fees.
Pleaso do not look upon these as final price Quotes. In
estimating I have intentionally rounded costs upwards.
we will be invoicing for our actual time incurred on
behalf of the City. All outside purchases will be
invoiced at cost -- with no hidden mark-ups. I
sincerely believe we can tighten up the production
budgets, but we have to develop our concepts to the
point whore we have tighter specifications first.
Obviously, we need a commitment to cover ou oncept
time.
o �& 0 ® 1 t " �V
A O o ��
Henning & Associates
-o,: E=ns,::a r. DEs!c:
402.: Central A e N.E.
Columbia Heignis MPJ 5527
(612) 781-8464
September 5, 1989
011ie Koropchak
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear 011ie:
In the following pages I have proposed three distinctly
different communications tools that may be used
independently -- or collectively as part of a more
comprehensive marketing program -- by the City of
Monticello.
I have tried to give a general definition of each piece
by its respective stated purpose. Following each
description, I have prepared production time estimates
to enhance your planning efforts. At the very end of
this proposal I have given approximate costs to produce
each tool -- Generic Brochure, Community Profile
Booklet, and Video. Costs are based on doing one
project independently from the others, so City Council
can choose one. I have also given estimates for
proceeding with all of these tools simultaneously, as a
marketing program.
If we commence work on more than one of these projects
simultaneously, our combined fees could be less. For
example, in our meetings we would be covering more than
one project, making our total meeting time more cost-
effective. Photographs could be taken for all projects
at the same time (including the videotape, if we use
slides), thus substantially reducing those fees.
Pleaso do not look upon these as final price Quotes. In
estimating I have intentionally rounded costs upwards.
we will be invoicing for our actual time incurred on
behalf of the City. All outside purchases will be
invoiced at cost -- with no hidden mark-ups. I
sincerely believe we can tighten up the production
budgets, but we have to develop our concepts to the
point whore we have tighter specifications first.
Obviously, we need a commitment to cover ou oncept
time.
o �& 0 ® 1 t " �V
A O o ��
I believe these communications devices make the most
cost—effective program; it is flexible in application,
unique within the universe of community marketing
efforts, and presents the City of Monticello with a
superior marketing edge for the dollars invested.
GENERIC BROCHURE
Purpose: For use as an outreach marketing tool, to
generate inquiries from companies outside the
community. To be used as a single piece or with a
letter and business reply card (BRC). Also, for secondary
use as an information piece to non-commercial inquiries
about the community.
Desc rintion: Should give enough information about the
community to be enticing, without telling everything.
Optional self -mailer. Because of quantities needed, the
tool should be relatively small to stretch the
p:eductien dollars as well as save in the cost of
postage.
I suggest letterfold size, so that it could be used with
or without a BRC. With a BRC it could be used for
promoting industrial development to specifically
selected groups; without a BRC it could also be used
with individual correspondence and easily fit inside a
standard business envelope. In the latter case other
community groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, could
use it also.
Inexpensive. Flexible. Effective.
Ll mss, 3moortan� yo underetatid the roles o� both the B�c�
and Lim cover lettern- achieving your marketing coals,
Used with a generic brochure as I am suggesting, they
allow you the most cost-effective means to communicate
with an audience. Inexponsive to produce, city staff
can develop these in-house. They can be produced
individually or in large quantities, to use with a
specific mailing list or simply to an individual
pros pact. By customizing your message to a market
niche, rather than trying one generic proposition to
everyone under the sun, you are maximizing your
marketing effectiveness!
To further increase your effectiveness. Henning 6
0
1 -
Associates could be consultants on a specific as -needed
basis for writing the cover letter and BRC. That way,
if it is something general in purpose you could do it
yourself, and use our agency when you have a more urgent
need to prepare a hard-hitting targeted mailing.
Aporoximate Timetable:
2 Weeks for initial design and copy,
1 Week for revisions,
2 Weeks for photography (which could begin as soon as
design/concept is approved),
2 Weeks for production of camera-ready art,
2 Weeks for printing
Subtotal of estimated time ..................... 9 Weeks
(Add in time anticipated for review, meetings, and
approval process)
COMMUNITY PROFILE BOOKLET
Puroose: To use in response to any inquiries generated
by the outreach device, or requests for more detailed
information than that contained in the Generic Brochure.
Descriot%on: 9" x 12" pocket folder for the cover
(designed to be graphically attractive, of course). with
four pages of text and photos stitched into the center.
The four pages should really present the Monticello
community -- including the surrounding area -- to best
advantage. I would even recommend the use of
testimonials from selected individuals -- key
businesspeople, council members, educators, etc.
A stockpile of shells (coordinated pages that have a
common header) would be left blank. City staff could
imprint detailed but timely information in small
quantities, so that these pages could be frequently
updated, and then the sheets would be inserted in a
pocket at the back of the booklet.
I suggest that all of these materials -- the small
generic brochure and the information booklet -- be
printed in the four colors of the new city logo.
C
C/D
C
Photography should be kept black and white -- this will
be very aesthetically pleasing and distinctive from what
one might see other communities try to do. It will also
help to stretch your budget.
Aooroximate Timetable:
3 to 4 Weeks for initial design and copy,
1 to 2 Weeks for revisions,
2 Weeks for photography (which could begin as soon as
design/concept is approved) ,
2 Weeks for production of camera-ready art,
4 Weeks for printing (preparation of the die -cut pocket
adds substantially to the time required for production),
Subtotal of estimated time.. . .. . : - * * , , " , * 11 to 12 Weeks
(Add in time anticipated for review, meetings, and
approval process)
VIDEOTAPE
Purpose: To use in presentations to business prospects.
Can be shown to a group as part of a formal
solicitation, or sent to qualified prospects that are
making further inquiries about the community.
Description: A fast -paced six to eight minute tape,
professionally narrated, with upbeat music and a few
carefully selected and edited interviews.
The right music will enhance the impact and help retain
the audience's attention. People will absorb more
information when they can enjoy watching it and when
they don't have to struggle to concentrate on what's
being said or shown to them. The most common mistake
many communities make is trying to show too much, thus
making their audio-visual messages too long.
Interviews with prominent leaders from your community
will give the message a personal touch that lends credibility.
Surveys of key decision -makers responsible for site
location indicate one of their most important criteria
is the sense of community attitude. what bettor way to
illustrate the positive Monticello attitude then through
the direct words of some of its citizens?
0
l
Approximate Timetable:
4 Weeks to write and finalize script,
4 Weeks to shoot, record soundtrack, edit
and produce final videotape.
Subtotal of estimated timetable ................ 8 Weeks
(Approval of script is built into timetable, but
add in time lost due to weather conditions or
scheduling of interviews, editing suite availability, etc.)
If the City of Monticello commits itself to a focused
marketing program, all of these pieces could be prepared
simultaneously at substantial cost savings, compared to
the combined costs of producing these communications
tools if they were implemented individually over a
period of time.
Budaet Planning Estimates
Project Program
GENERIC BROCHURE
Agency Services
` Consultation and project coordination ........... S 1,000 S 800
Design, copy, keylining .......................... 2,000 11800
Photography ...................................... 500 385
Outside purchases
Type and stats ................................... 500 500
Printing (5 - 10m) ........................2,500 - 3,500 3,500
11,500 ka , A 005
COMMUNITY PROFILE BOOKLET
Agency Services
Consultation and project coordination............ 2.000 1,700
Design, copy, keylining .......................... 2,500 2,500
Photography ...................................... 500 385
Outside Purchases
Type and stats................500 500
Printing, diecut, collate, score 6 stitch........ 4,000 4,000
(2m kits) — —�
g,Soa 9,oIt's
VIDEOTAPE
Agency Services:
Consultation and project coordination.... _ .... _ .S 2, 750 S 2,300
Script..... . ...... 1,600 1,600
Outside Purchases:
Option A:
Develop a slide presentation first, then transfer to video.
Cost includes soundtrack with professional
narrator, music, fees and equipment rental...... 2,400 2,250
Option B:
Using live—action video shot on location, same soundtrack as
above, additional production technicians (necessitated by video
format) , edit suite and equipment rental. _ ..... 6,750 6,750
Subtotal Option g ........................ _ .... S -2-b ,
6. 7Cso 71 . -A- -�o
Subtotal Option @........................ _ .... S__1"00 , 10_65
.2g. 100 tib. -%'3.o
(Neither of the above cost estimates include tape dubs,
which usually range from $8 to $15 each, depending on
quantity ordered. )
ABOUT THE AGENCY
Henning & Associates is a communications management
enterprise specializing in business -to -business
marketing programs. I personally served as
Communications Manager for a community development
corporation, and in the same capacity for one of the
country's largest financial institutions, prior to
forming the agency in 1982.
Our services include Strategic Planning, Creative,
Research, Media, and Production.
Cli.ents include Columbia Heights Housing 6 Redevelopment
Authority, The City of New Richmond (Wisconsin), Itasca
County Development Corporation, Business Development
Services, as well as many industrial accounts.
Most respectfully submitted,
q.0
`�
Step en A. Henning
6 0
14
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
16. Consideration of adopting resolutions authorizing the preparation of
assessment rolls and setting the public hearing date on Project 89-02
(Mississippi Drive Improvement) and Project 89-03 (Oakwood Industrial
park overlay improvement). (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Project 89-02, Mississippi Drive street improvement, and Project 89-03,
Oakwood Industrial Park overlay project, are nearing completion and final
cost should be available in a short time. These two projects were
anticipated to be assessed to the benefiting property owners yet this
fall for collection on the 1990 tax statements. A public hearing on the
adoption of the assessment rolls for these two projects requires at least
a two weeks notice, and it is suggested that to meet the County Auditor's
time table, the assessment hearing be held on October 10, 1989.
The original construction price for the Mississippi Drive improvement was
$87,410, and the Oakwood overlay project was $99,303. The Oakwood
project has been completed by Buffalo Bituminous, and I believe only
minor work needs to be completed on the Mississippi Drive portion of the
project. With the help of the City Engineer, assessment rolls should be
available within a few weeks so that affected property owners can be
notified of their potential assessment.
As you may recall, the Council discussed previously what portion of the
Mississippi Drive improvement project should be assessable to the
property owners; and it was the general consensus at that time that the
Council would be looking at a minimum of 20 percent of the project cost
being assessable. In order to make sure that at least 20 percent of the
cost is assessed, the staff typically uses 21 percent to provide a
cushion, as State Statutes require at least 20 percent to be assessed.
In regards to the Oakwood Industrial Park overlay project, it was the
Council's preliminary intent to assess 50 percent of this project cost to
the property owners affected. The Council should determine at this
meeting when establishing a public hearing date for adoption of the
assessment roll any alterations to the previously discussed percentages.
Unless I hear otherwise, I will prepare the assessment rolls based on
21 percent for Mississippi Drive and 50 percent for Oakwood Industrial
Park.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolutions ordering the preparation of the assessment
rolls and setting the public hearing for October 10, 1989.
2. Do not adopt the resolutions but wait until the entire project costs
are determined, which may be too late to get the assessment rolls
certified yet this year.
25
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
�- C. STAFF REMMMENDATION:
Since the original bond sale for these projects anticipated the
assessment roll would be adopted this fall, and the fact that the amount
of work yet to be coinpleted can be easily determined, the statf feels
comfortable in preparing the assessment roll as soon as possible. The
minor work that is left can be estimated, and the assessment rolls can be
prepared in the next few weeks. As a result, staff recommends that the
public hearing date be set for October 10.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of resolutions.
26
Resolution 89 -
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Whereas, a contract has been let and the costs determined for the improveirent
of Mississippi Drive between East Cty Rd. 39 and it's termination point, and
the contract price for such improvements is $ and the expenses
incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amount to
$ so that the total cost of the improvement will be
S
NOW, THEREPOREE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is
hereby estimated to be $ , and the portion of the cost to be
assessed against benefitea property owners is estimated to be $
2. The City Administrator, with the assistance of the Consulting City
Engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed
for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land
within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by
law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for
public inspection.
Adopted by the Council this 11th day of September, 1989.
Rick wolrstoller
City Administrator
C
Ken Maus, Mayor
Resolution 89 -
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Whereas, a contract has been let and the costs determined for the improvement
of Thomas Park Drive, Chelsea Road (from Oakwood Drive to Fallon Avenue), and
Dundas Road (from Oakwood Drive to Fallon Avenue), with bituminous overlay to
increase load carrying capacity, and the contract price for such improvements
is $ and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of
such ii(provements amount to $ so that the total cost of the
improvement will be $
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is
hereby estimated to be $ , and the portion of the cost to be
assessed against benefited property owners is estimated to be $
2. The City Administrator, with the assistance of the Consulting City
Engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed
for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land
within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by
law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for
public inspection.
Adopted by the Council thio !itis uey ui SepLewueL, i989.
Rick wolrsteller
City Administrator
C
Nen Maus, Mayor
RESOLUTION 89-
!� RESOLUTION SETTING A HEARING
It ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on September 11, 1989, the City
Administrator was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of
improving Mississippi Drive between East County Road 39 and its termination
point with bituminous surfacing and under drain system, and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has notified the Council that such proposed
assessment shall be complete and filed in his office for public inspection no
later than September 22, 1989.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
A hearing shall be held on the 10th day of October, 1989, in the City
Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment, and at such time
and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will
be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment.
2. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of the
hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official
newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in
the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed
notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the
/C assessment tuil nuc leso U,au Lwu week» pL:iui L%:) 016 ii26Ciu3s.
Adopted by the council this 11th day of September, 1989.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick WOltsteller
City Administrator
G)
RESOLUTION 89 -
RESOLUTION SETTING A HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on September 11, 1989, the City
Administrator was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of
improving Thonas Park Drive, Chelsea Road (from Oakwood Drive to Fallon
Avenue), and Dundas Road (from Oakwood Drive to Fallon Avenue) with bituminous
overlay to increase load carrying capacity, and
WHEREAS, the City A1ministrator has notified the Council that such proposed
assessment shall be couplete and filed in his office for public inspection no
later than September 22, 1989.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELM, MINNESOTA:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 10th day of October, 1989, in the City
Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment, and at such time
and place all persons owning property affected by such iaproveinent will
be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment.
2. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of the
hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official
newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in
Lite noLicn the Lo Ldl COSL Ji Che 4ruYEi6ent. He SYu111 also CaUGO 0 -ailed
notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the
assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings.
Adopted by the Council this 11th day of September, 1989.
Rick Wolteteller
City Administrator
C
Ken Maus, Mayor
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
17. Consideration of final payment request for Project 89-02 (Mississippi
Drive road improvements) and Project 89-U3 (Oakwood Industrial Park road
improvements) - Buffalo Bituminous. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Both of the above referenced projects are now complete. The Mississippi
Drive project required significantly more excavation of unsuitable
materials in the lower end than was originally anticipated. These areas
were refilled with Class V. In the upper portions of the project
receiving the overlay, it was noted during construction that the original
blacktop was extremely thin. This may reduce the overall life expectancy
of the overlay portion of the street to a figure less than what was
originally quoted. On the brighter side, significant savings were
achieved in the area of the under drain system. Much of the old system
was found intact and in serviceable condition, saving several dollars on
the project. The anticipated construction cost for the Mississippi Drive
project, excluding engineering inspection, testing, legal, and bonding
costs, was $87,409.65. The actual construction costs in place are
$ 67,836.65 , which is a savings of $ 19,573.00
The Oakwood Industrial Park project went quite well. There was some
difficulty in final imnhole adjustments, but this work has been
completed. There are also some areas in which the ridability is a little
less than we expected due primarily to a single lift overlay. we have
noticed in other areas where similar overlays were done that the
ridability improves after a year or two, so we expect this not to be a
problem, and we should have now achieved 10 ton or better streets in
Oakwood Industrial Park. The original anticipated construction cost for
the Oakwood road improvement project, excluding those costs as outlined
above, was $99,303.43. The final construction costs to date are
$ 81,710.43 , a difference of $ 17,593.00 The total for the
two projects done by Buffalo Bituminous of Buffalo, Minnesota, is
$ 149.P547.08 Total paid to date to Buffalo is $ 111,099.38 ,
thereby leaving a balance of $ 36,447.70
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize final payment to Buffalo
Bituminous pending receipt of the proper documentation an ammunt of
$ 30,447.70
2. The second alternative is not to mmke final payment to Buffalo
Bituminous at this time. This does not appear to be applicable, as
the work has been coupleted, and the City Engineer has recolmnended
final payment.
C. STAPF REC0MMENDATION:
Staff recoummends final payment as outlined in alternative 11 and as
recommrended by the City Engineer.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
27
t
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
18. Consideration of quotes for landscaping at the new water tower site.
U.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may recall, at a previous meeting the City decided to remove the
landscaping portion of the contract from the new water tower project and
have it done locally. Caldwell Tanks, Inc., has agreed to reduce the
contract by an aimunt of $17,137 for removal of the landscape items. The
City has scaled back the project slightly and has asked for quotes from
four local landscapers. Assuming that we were going to be under the
$15,000 bid requirement cut-off and because of time constraints, we asked
for quotes rather than going out for bids. We did, however, go through
the detailed specifications for the project.
All of the work may not be completed this year since we are getting into
a critical area as to whether we can accouplish the seeding; and in
addition, some species of trees should be planted in the spring.
We solicited four quotes. The City received the following quotes:
1. Fair's Garden Center Base Bid = $13,400.00
1
2. Fair's Garden Center Alternate Bid* m $12,450.00
3. Schillewaert Landscaping Base Bid** _ $11,901.50
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize the City to contract with
Schillewaert Landscaping for the landscaping at the water tower at a
total cost of $11,901.50.
2. The second alternative is not to award the project but to make
changes or wait until next year.
C. STAFF RECOMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Park
Superintendent that the City authorize the landscaping project as
outlined in alternative 11.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the landscaping plan, Copy of the quotes.
•2-1/2" Maple, substitute Linden for Pin Oak
••3" Maple
28
re
PROPOSALS DUE BY 2:00 P.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1989, AT CITY BALL, 250 EAST
BROADWAY, MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362.
I C
Contractor Name / �if).��✓��^ c�+i
Official Address Col
)'tt..r.},olio /1'•�
GRAND TOTAL PRICE
$ 3, Phone Number
s
A
PROPOSAL FORM
FOR
LANDSCAPING AND PLANTING
NEW WATER TANK SITE
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
To the City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
PO Bos 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Gentlemen:
(l) The following proposal is made for landscaping and planting for
Project 88-05, the City's new water tank site.
(2) The Undersigned certifies that the plans and specifications have been
carefully examined and that the site of the work has been personally
inspected. The Undersigned declares that the amount and nature of the work to
be done is understood, and that at no time will misunderstanding of the plans
and specifications be pleaded. On the basis of the plans and specifications,
the Undersigned proposes to furnish all necessary apparatus and other means of
construction, to do all the work and furnish all the materials in the manner
specified, to finish the entire project within the time hereinafter specified,
and to accept as full compensation therefore the sum of the various products
obtained by multiplying each unit price herein bid for the work or materials,
by quantities thereof actually incorporated in the complete project, as
determined by the City. The Undersigned may be subject to reasonable increase
or decrease, and hereby proposes to perform all quantities of work as either
increased or decreased, in accordance with the provisions of the
specifications, at the unit prices in the following Proposal.
(3) PROPOSAL SCHEDULE: Bidder agrees to perform all work described in the
apecific3tions and as shown on the plans, for the following unit prices:
Landscaping Proposal Form
Page 2
Item Quaff Unit Unit price Total Price
I. Seeding (including 1.64 acre /.soo Z7'b�•
mulch & fertilizer)
II. Sodding 950 SY
III. Planting
1. Acer Rubrutn Red 3 each 7 Jn -00
=
Maple 4" caliper,
B 6 B
2. Fraxinus 7 each ey) 2100
Pennsylvania
"Lanceolata" Green Ash
4" caliper , B 6 B
3. Pinus Resinosa 13 each 2ff
Norway Pine,
10 ft., B S B
4. Quercus Ellipsoidalis 5 each x7100•
Northern Pin Oak
3-1/2' caliper, B b B
S. Rhus Typhina Surnac 50 each
2 ft BT, patted
GRAND TOTAL 00. JO
(4) The City of Monticello, when awarding this contract, shall consider the
lowest GRAND TOTAL.
(5) The Undersigned further proposes furnish the necessary insurance
certificate and to execute the Contract Agreement within ten days after notice
of the award of contract has been received. The Undersigned further proposes
to begin work as specified and to couplets the work on or before dates
specified.
(6) In submitting this proposal, it is understood that the right is reserved
by the Owner to reject any or all proposals and to wave infonrelitiea.
(7) If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation?
Ai Ant. 5,3 t4
9air93-U4 j vNre
1 Block East of Stoplights
201 East Broadway — Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Phone: (612) 2952244 Sept. 7, 1989
- QUOTATION -
CUSTOM LANDSCAPING 8 DESIGN
COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL TO City of Monticello
RAIN-$B/RD
Underground Irrigation Systems
QUANTITY SIZE VARIETY
PRICE
AMOUNT
Alternat Proposal for Landscape and Planting
New Water Tank Site
3 2;"B6B Acer Rubrum Red Maple
250.00
750.00
7 4"B&B Pennsylvania Lanceolata Green Ash
300.00
2100.00
13 10ftB&B Pinus Resinosa Norway Pine
250.00
3250.00
31"B6B Green Spire Linden
300.00
1500.00
note: Substituted for Pin Oak
50 2ftPot Rhus Typhina Sumac
25.00
1250.00
1.64ecre Seeding( including mulch 6 fertilizer)
1500.00
2460.00
950syl, Sodding
1.20
1140.00
C
grand total T2450.00
note pin oak spring item only
C
N
PROPOSALS DUE BY 2:00 P.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1989, AT CITY BALL, 250 EAST
BROADWAY, MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362.
Contractor Name c.yl.�.' llp 1r,p.}
`\ ee erv. QL =Nc.
Official Address_jEXT � ykn4 13)
GRAND TOTAL PRICE
$ -11. 101 . SQ Phone Number—.z15--J(. y_3
PROPOSAL FORM
FOR
LANDSCAPING AND PLANTING
NEW WATER TANKSITE
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
To the City of Monticello
250 Fast Broadway
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Gentlemen:
(1) The following proposal is made for landscaping and planting for
Project 88-05, the City's new water tank site.
(2) The undersigned certifies that the plans and specifications have been
carefully examined and that the site of the work has been personally
inspected. The Undersigned declares that the amount and nature of the work to
be done is understood, and that at no time will misunderstanding of the plans
and specifications be pleaded. On the basis of the plans and specifications,
the Undersigned proposes to furnish all necessary apparatus and other means of
construction, to do all the work and furnish all the materials in the manner
specified, to finish the entire project within the time hereinafter specified,
and to accept as full compensation therefore the sum of the various products
obtained by multiplying each unit price herein bid for the work or materials,
by quantities thereof actually incorporated in the couplete project, as
determined by the City. The undersigned may be subject to reasonable increase
or decrease, and hereby proposes to perform all quantities of work as either
increased or decreased, in accordance with the provisions of the
specifications, at the unit prices in the following Proposal.
(3) 'PROPOSAL SCHEDULE: Bidder agrees to perform all work described in the
specifications and as shown on the plans, for the following unit prices:
(9
Landscaping Proposal Form
Page 2
Item Quantity Unit
I. Seeding (including 1.64 acre
mulch 6 fertilizer)
II. Sodding 950 SY
III. Planting
1. Acer Rubrum Red
Maple.?K caliper,
BaB3"
2. Fraxinus
Pennsylvania
"Lanceolata" Green Ash
4" caliper, B 6 B
Unit Price
1.5[;m
3 each
3 cJ
7 each
Total Price
1,,,_. o0
b 19-)5
3. Pinus Resinosa 13 each ga $ 9 f3i � 7
Norway Pine,
10 ft., B a B
4. Quercus Ellipsoidalis 5 each
)139 g ILI4.5
Northern Pin Oak
3-1/2" caliper, B 6 B
5. Rhus Typhina Sumac 50 each IL-1. oy g lac-
2 ft RT, potted
GRAND TOTAL
(4) The City of Monticello, when awarding this contract, shall consider the
lowest GRAND TOTAL.
(5) The Undersigned further proposes furnish the necessary insurance
certificate and to execute the Contract Agreement within ten days after notice
of the award of contract has been received. The Undersigned further proposes
to begin work as specified and to complete the work on or before dates
specified.
(6) In submitting this proposal, it is understood that the right is reserved
by the owner to reject any or all proposals and to wave informalities.
(7) If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation?
0
.,Q. fpt7r
colst"Ic-
I,** Ulm
_i 'Ells" ECT EXISTING BURIED
E
Arlco c .1 S TO BE
B, L E Ii
S'T '.R' IR I E 15 c 10 �. s El RS TUC I I
E
�PROTECT 'E'icc,
—,BEGS- GRAVEL SURr&CE
EPM SI I U IFOLIS SURFeCE
2.06
=v
V5P
PLAO-MG SCHEDULE
SVkt NO NAME 61ZE COND.
.4 4LEZ -Bib
OCUJA Am
r%4L::)
,.!"AlY• MAA
04241.Ab tli* D. r,
cll.
"or
Lop f.
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
19. Consideration of purchase of lawn vacuum for Parks Department. W .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, the City Council tabled the purchase of a lawn
vacuum at a cost of $1,745 pending further investigation of contracting
lawn vacuum services. Although the City owns and maintains approximately
40 acres of parks, for purposes of our cost study, we assumed that the
lawn vacuum would only be used in Ellison Park, West Bridge Park, East
Bridge Park, Meadow Oaks, and a small park on Mississippi Drive, for the
purposes of leaf pickup only and not for general groundskeeping care and
maintenance. Excluding all hard surfaced areas in these parks, we have a
total of approximately 12 acres. This is being very conservative, as the
lawn vacuum would also come in handy for sweeping the hard surfaced trail
systems and portions of the smaller parking lots.
We obtained a quote for contract services from Quality Lawn Maintenance
Company in Monticello. This firm is a reputable company which already
has in place those insurances required by the City. Quality Lawn would
utilize two crews of two people each and have indicated, based upon
observat oni s -o the areas to be vacuumed, that it would take six two -Iran
crew hours or three double two-man crew hours per acre for each time.
T�ieir price is $32.50 per crew per hour. Basing an annual cost upon two
times as suggested by the Mayor would cost $4,680, excluding
transportation of the leaves to the compost site, which would be at $65
per hour for the crews for loading and $25 per hour for hauling for the
truck. It's probably safe to say that contracting for two times in the
fall would cost approximately $5,000 for the 12 acres. Currently, the
City thoroughly cleans the parks twice in the fall and once again in the
spring, along with continued pickup throughout the year during routine
mowing services. To match this level of service with contract service
operations, one would expect that we would have to utilize services "more
than twice per year."
Now to look at our costs. To do this, it is probably easiest to
calculate hourly rates for the City employees and City equipment and
utilize an efficiency reduction factor as suggested by the Council.
The City uses a two-man crew for park maintenance. Both of these
gentlemen are older and well seasoned in their trade. They are seasonal
workers, and together with benefits cost the City $11.38 per tour. No
full-time mechanic operator individuals have been involved in routine
lawn care in our park system for years. This work has always been done
by seasonal employees. The John Deere 650 tractor would be utilized to
pull the lawn vacuum. Tho cost of this tractor, including purchaso,
insurance, maintenance, and operational costs, is $4.89 per hour. These
costs have been given to the Council numerous times in the past during
requests for various new equipment and are easily verified with City
records. This brings us to a total crew coat utilizing one mower of
$16.27 per hour. The City has no leaf blowers, so I have not included
frosts for same.
29
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
As stated earlier, the cost of the lawn vacuum is $1,745. Based upon a
very conservative seven-year life and a resale value of $550, the
ownership cost would be $156.43 per year. The actual operational costs
should be quite low; but for the purposes of this evaluation, we will
assume they are $100 per year, bringing the total cost of owning the lawn
vacuum to $256 per year. Again, being ultra -conservative and saying that
the machine will be used six hours per acre per tithe, which is the same
hours estimated by the contractor when you consider he is using two
machines to do the work in three hours per acre, this brings us to a
total of 144 hours per year, or $1.78 per hour for the machine. Adding
this to the labor cost gives us a total cost of $18.05 per hour.
Now if one assumes only a 70 percent efficiency rate for the City lawn
maintenance crew versus a contractor, our cost per hour would be $25.79,
which, again, I believe, is very conservative.
Based upon the above figures, there is an estimated savings of $6.71 per
hour. Since it would take our contractor 144 hours annually utilizing a
two—tren crew to vacuum the 12 acres twice, the annual savings over
contracting would be $966.24. These costs are easily calculated, and
anyone who has questions about these figures should contact tee prior to
Monday evening's meeting. One can argue also that City crews are less
than 70 percent efficient or that there are some hidden costs which we
are not covering such as the cost to snake out a paycheck, the coat of
lost interest on the $1,745, or the cost of storing a piece of
equipment. It is also easy, however, to argue that the piece of
equipment would see much more use than twice per year and would also be
used on other City grounds to better ittgtrove the overall efficiency of
City crews. One can also argue that it takes tithe to supervise a
contractor, check upon his work, initiate contracts, check bonds and
insurances, and authorize payments to the contractor.
In summary, there appears to be a savings having the City purchase a lawn
vacuum. Cit is also safe to say that a portion of the first year's
savings have been wiped out through the research in preparation for this
second go around on Lhis agenda item. Therefore, if there are
significant doubts about the information presented here, it would not be
a big money lorser to contract and would free up our seasonal park workers
to do other things.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize purchase of a lawn vacuum from
Scharber and Sons at a cost of $1,745.
2. The second alternative is to authorize the City to contract with
Duality Lawn Maintenance Coirpany for power lawn vacuuming of 12 acres
of parks twice per year at an estithated annual cost of approximately
$5,000.
30
N
Council Agenda - 9/11/89
3. The third alternative would be to continue as we are with hand raking
and wind rowing of the leaves and other lawn debris.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As stated earlier, the numbers appear to favor purchase of a lawn
vacuum. However, I am not opposed should the Council consider
contracting services in this case and will leave this decision to the
City Council.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the quote from Quality Lawn Maintenance Company; Copies of
various supporting information.
f� '�2�
7)
31
PROPOSAL
LUN,1'IY IPhU 6UkJNl7JdA1Jl:E LU. till:. No
P.O. IUX 1123
PUM1CF.IM, n91 55362 Date
878-2840
V/tl]AF4 U.AVFS W.1'111 2 fNCMP.S NJU 2 (1111 VJVIII WIAN"l•RS 74313 H/11UZ.
U93T 1'PR HOUR $65.00
HAULM. WPM UIJr•IP '111UC: 'lU SITE.
061' PIN HOUR $25.00
UL1'L1:U111G OG I,LVU' VUI Llrll: N)4J, A'/1'I'1.: 't -UU-" PGA rU11 1S 3 HOURS GIVE OR T!u(L• .
u
All mntenal is guaranteed to be an specified. and the above work to be performed In accordance with the drawings and
specifications submitted for above work end completed in o substantial workmanlike manner for the num of
Dollars ($ I.
with payments to be made act follows: W
'l1:IC YUL)1!!
l
An Ilerar� w dr — t— eruct Ic.t�m. Imdn
rte. ena:l ry.eV.
—1 -.11 ^• ne:ww uvr uu wrnurr na.r. •m .dl ^®^+ •^ Raopoctlully submitted' I(Ql! YI' Uh7d]II1< �I
.•l,. — —
ea At
ue [ ars ne slue cru ®tim.c. All
"rmM1.penl
�n+n ara sastr o role(. terve Pu. (ro
oro, u..mno .,n Pllr m.rmrr n..vs.c. ,wn nm. l wvr • Par 11
.m.. Cvnten..ten e^0 P.M. L-oaA,tr onuses. m.U--, to b
ta•e^vn °r
Nots— Thin proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted
within days
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL \
The shows or.CM. GlIMI kntldm and conditions are omisfoctary and are hereby occopted You era outharuod to do the work an specified
Peymont will be made as outlined obova.
Signature
Onto Signature `
II`
Tam®atmt aaw L)UPLICA I E "r"� •"'t `
Sheet No
Proposal Submitted To:
Work To Be Performed At:
Name C1'I'Y OF I,U 1'JCI:UU
CITY P JUIILi
Street
Street
City
City State
State
Date of Plans
Phone
Architect
We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of
V/tl]AF4 U.AVFS W.1'111 2 fNCMP.S NJU 2 (1111 VJVIII WIAN"l•RS 74313 H/11UZ.
U93T 1'PR HOUR $65.00
HAULM. WPM UIJr•IP '111UC: 'lU SITE.
061' PIN HOUR $25.00
UL1'L1:U111G OG I,LVU' VUI Llrll: N)4J, A'/1'I'1.: 't -UU-" PGA rU11 1S 3 HOURS GIVE OR T!u(L• .
u
All mntenal is guaranteed to be an specified. and the above work to be performed In accordance with the drawings and
specifications submitted for above work end completed in o substantial workmanlike manner for the num of
Dollars ($ I.
with payments to be made act follows: W
'l1:IC YUL)1!!
l
An Ilerar� w dr — t— eruct Ic.t�m. Imdn
rte. ena:l ry.eV.
—1 -.11 ^• ne:ww uvr uu wrnurr na.r. •m .dl ^®^+ •^ Raopoctlully submitted' I(Ql! YI' Uh7d]II1< �I
.•l,. — —
ea At
ue [ ars ne slue cru ®tim.c. All
"rmM1.penl
�n+n ara sastr o role(. terve Pu. (ro
oro, u..mno .,n Pllr m.rmrr n..vs.c. ,wn nm. l wvr • Par 11
.m.. Cvnten..ten e^0 P.M. L-oaA,tr onuses. m.U--, to b
ta•e^vn °r
Nots— Thin proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted
within days
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL \
The shows or.CM. GlIMI kntldm and conditions are omisfoctary and are hereby occopted You era outharuod to do the work an specified
Peymont will be made as outlined obova.
Signature
Onto Signature `
II`
Tam®atmt aaw L)UPLICA I E "r"� •"'t `
1
I. PARKS FOR LAWN VACUUM SERVICE
Ellison Park 4.2 Acres
West Bridge 2.3 Acres
East Bridge 2.1 Acres
Meadow Oaks 5.0 Acres
Mississippi Drive .9 Acres
TOTAL 14.5 Acres
II. WAGES
HOURLY RATE
OVERHEAD TOTAL
1. AL H. 4.70
.2C- T -.n-
2. Harry F. 5.50
1.14 6.44
CREW COSTS ITS
III. TRACTOR COSTS
J.D. 650
Purchase price
5,888.00
Avg, hrs/year
304.00
Fuel coat/yr @ .37 gals/hr. @ 1.00/gal
112.48
011 6 lube costs/yr
33.00
Parte/yr
300.00
Yearly labor for maintainence
500.00
Insurance
100.00
Ownership cost (assume 7 yr. 2,800 resale) 441.00
Total yearly cost
1,486.48
Cost/hr. @ 304 hrs/yr.
4.89
IV. LAWN VACUUM COSTS $1,745.00 PURCHASE
COST/YR (asume 7 yr. 650.00 resale) $ 156.43
Fuel 6 parte/yr. 100.00
TOTAL YEARLY COST $ wrw
divided by 144 hrs. per yr. $ 1.76 /hr.
U
o kamA Lodumiflu t ��
sss�srn •as..oar.. nowrwe•re swor•.,.c ceti rcn- sr. c�ouo...�nnrsor• sua� re�en.one ns.ur
City of Monticello SEpt 8 1989
City Hall
Monticello Minn. 55362
Replace latching hardware on all offices.
8 Full mortise latch sets with lever handles 1439.60
1 Full mortise lockset with lever handles 219.95
1 Medeco lock cylinder 45.00
Medeco biaxial keys priced at 3.00 Each
Labor to install all hardware 450.00
2154.55
Security Locksmiths
Herbert R Bares