City Council Agenda Packet 09-25-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 25, 1989 - 7:00 p.m.
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 11, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow expansion of a
shopping center in a B-3 (highway commercial) zone - Lincoln Companies.
5. Consideration of authorization to prepare TIP finance plan and set public
hearing for adoption of plan.
6. Consideration of reviewing requirements for Star City recertification.
7. Consideration of Town of Monticello ordinance prohibiting the use of sewage
sludge within the Town of Monticello.
B. Consideration of maintaining old water tower as a backup and Monticello
landtaa rk .
9. Consideration of bills for the month of September.
10. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 11, 1989 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None.
2- Approval of minutes.
Mot ion was made by and seconded by
to approve the toinutes for the meeting of August 28, 1989, as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens coimnents/petitions, requests, and cotnplaints.
A petition was submitted to City Council ;rode up of residents of the
Meadow Oaks area neighborhood. The petition requests that the City
maintain the drainage pond in the development as an outdoor skating area
during the winter months. , representing the Meadow
Oaks neighborhood, explained that the drainage pond is a suitable place
for an outdoor rink and that children are using the rink for skating
already. Council discussed the natter briefly, then directed staff to
research this issue and place it on an upcoming agenda for a more
,ietai led review. Althouah it Apr -ared thAt the concent irade sense, there
were concerns about insurance, availability to all city residents, and
concerns about adequate lighting.
4 . Consideration of conditional use permit - Lincoln Companies/K-mart.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Lincoln Conpanies requested
that the Planning Ceimnission continue the public hearing to Wednesday,
September 20, at 6:00 pan., as Lincoln Companies was not able to provide
the necessary site plan information for Planning Coxonission review at the
meeting scheduled for September 11. Planning Connission did continue the
public hearing; therefore, consideration of the conditional use permit by
Council must occur at a later date.
Consideration of adopting street right-of-way - 7th Street extension.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that as directed by Council,
staff investigated the potential cost of land acquisition and building
demolition associated with the proposed realigmrent of the 7th Street
right-of-way. O'Neill reported that the cost to acquire lands and
demolish structures necessary to change the adopted alignment would cost
a net a;nount of approximately $250,000. O'Neill went on to report the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority's position regarding the use of tax
increment financing to finance a portion of the realignment costs.
O' Neill noted that the HRA discussed the trotter at length and determined
that the proposed realignment is the best route for the 7th Street
right-of-way. However, the benefits associated with this realignment did
not outweigh the price tag. The KRA did indicate a willingness to
utilize tax increment financing to a limited degree to encourage
9
Council minutes - 9/11/89
development of the alternate route. It was the FRA's view that tax
increment financing could be justified to purchase the property owned by
Marvin Kramer which lies west of Minnesota Street. This purchase is
necessary to provide the right-of-way area for the future expansion of
the 7th Street right-of-way and eliminates the potential for greater
expense associated with possible need for condemnation of this property
at some point in the future in order to gain the necessary right-of-way.
In addition, a large portion of the cost to purchase the Kramer land can
be recovered through the sale of the property not needed for the
roadway. Under the HRA proposal, the net TIF subsidy would amount to
$127,000. Land acquisition cost associated with purchasing the Pratt and
Holthaus property would be the sole responsibility of the developer under
the HRA proposal.
O'Neill went on to report that staff submitted HRA's proposal to Lincoln
Companies. Lincoln Companies refused stating that the cost to purchase
the Holthaus and Pratt properties could not be justified based on the
benefits created by the additional land. O'Neill then outlined a
potential compromise position which called for splitting the acquisition
costs associated with purchase of the Holthaus and Pratt properties.
O'Neill reported that this alternative might be reasonable, as TIF
subsidy would be used to finance that portion of the land acquisition
costs that do not result in a benefit to Lincoln Companies.
Councilinember Fair noted that the funds needed to straighten 7th Street
QUlj Le j,;st!"I"ad becz" Of the ;.'PQCL it, WCu—C have
She noted the importance of the proper street alignment in terms of -the
potential for Monticello as a regional shopping area. It was the general
consensus of Council that the straight right-of-way, or alternative #2,
is the best alternative. However, a decision to use tax increment
financing to achieve this right-of-way may not be feasible if land prices
are deemed too high.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to direct staff
to negotiate reductions in land prices and direct staff to present the
matter again to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for further
discussion. If a finance plan cannot be established after negotiations
with the HRA, Lincoln Companies, and land owners, then City supports the
original alignment. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus, Warren
Smith, Fran Fair. Opposed: Dan Slonigen.
Consideration of an ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a
church in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Applicant, A Glorius Church.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the proposal submitted by A
Glorins Church, which calls for an amendment to the zoning ordinance
which would allow churches to be established in industrial areas of the
coimnunity. O'Neill reported that the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the zoning amendment based on the finding that the proposal is
inconsistent with the municipal comprehensive plan, the geographic and
character of the area Involved, the amendment will tend to or actually
depreciate the 1-2 areas affected by the amendment, and the applicant has
failed to sufficiently demonstrate a need for such use, as church
facilities are allowed in large areas of the community.
Council Minutes - 9/11/89
(
It was the consensus of Council that the proposed amendment would create
the potential for a negative impact on industrial areas of the rnimnunity
and that mixing industrial uses and church related activities might
create problems in the future. warren Smith noted that in this
particular situation, it might make sense to rezone the parcel, as the
property is near R-3 uses and is located directly across from the NSP
softball fields and NSP's Training Center, which are not heavy industrial
uses. Mayor Maus noted that he could agree in principal, but he stressed
that the property owners should make a petition for the rezoning whether
it is the present property owner or A Glorius Church. Councilmember
Blonigen noted his opposition to rezoning or an ordinance amendment.
After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to deny the zoning ordinance amendment which would allow
churches to operate as a conditional use in the I-2 (heavy industrial)
zone. Motion based on the findings presented by the Planning
Coimnission. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a laundromat/dry
cleaners in a PZM zone. Applicant, Curt ano Anna Mae Hogluna. AND
Ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a car wash in the PZM
(perfornance zone mixed) zone. AND
9. Conditional use request to allaw a cicancra in a P':)
(performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund.
Location: Lots 3 and 4, MacArluna Plaza.
O'Neill reported that the applicant proposes development of a two-story
structure matching the existing Riverroad Plaza. Each level will contain
3,200 square feet of usable space. One quarter of the lower level will
be used for 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 some time in the
future. The request for an amendment to the ordinance today and the
conditional use permit application pertaining to the car wash will not be
forthcoming until some point in the future. O'Neill outlined the
Planning Coimnission's recomnendation and noted that Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
associated with issuance of the conditional use permit. He also reviewed
the suggested conditions associated with the zoning ordinance amendment
and the conditional use permit.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan
Blonigen, to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by allowing dry
cleaning processing as a conditional use in the PZM zone subject to the
following conditions:
Council Minutes - 9/11/89
a. Dry cleaning operation must meet all OSHA safety standards.
b. Dry cleaning operation shall be sel!-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 :mist be in
compliance with chapter 3, section 2(G), of the zoning ordinance.
e. voice amplifiers used in conjunction with drive through process
shall not be audible to adjoining residential areas.
and 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.
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.
and motion to include granting of conditional use permit which would
allow development of a laundronat/dry cleaner on Lots 3 and 4, MacAriund
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.
Motion based on the finding that zoning amendments and conditional use
permit are consistent with the municipal comprehensive plan, geographic
area involved, such use will not depreciate the area in which it is
proposed, and the need for such use has been sufficiently demonstrated.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of granting permit to allow retaining wall construction
within street boulevard.
An attorney representing Paul noiaclatr reviewed his client's view of the
events leading to City request that Boisciair remove the retaining wail
which was recently placed within the street boulevard. Boisclair's
attorney noted that there are structures located an boulevard areas in
other parts of the community and that it is not fair to single out
Boisclair in this case when other properties are in violation of the
ordinance which limits structures being placed on the boulevard.
-a
Council Minutes - 9/11/89
Administrator Wolfsteller reported that he is not convinced that the
retaining wall has to protrude as far into the right-of-way as it is now
constructed. There appears to have been confusion or misunderstanding
between Mr. Boisclair and City staff concerning what was allowable.
It was the general consensus of Council that due to the misunderstanding
regarding the exact placement of the retaining wall, it would not be
required that the retaining wall be moved at this time and that a permnit
would be issued to allow the retaining wall to re2nain.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to grant
Mr. Boisclair a permit allowing a retaining wall to continue at the
present location on the boulevard with the understanding that if there is
a need to reinove the retaining wall because of extension of sidewalk or
because of other utility improvements, it shall be removed at the expense
of the owner. Permit granted based on the fact that unique circumstances
created a need for the variance. Dan Blonigen noted that the retaining
wall presently leans toward the street and that he would not support the
motion unless it is required that the retaining wall be vertical, as it
is likely that with the present design, the retaining wall over time will
lean even more into the boulevard. voting in favor of the motion: Fran
Fair, Warren Slnith, Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
11. Consideration of contracting for City Assessor position for year 1990.
Administrator Wolfsteller reported that as a result of Council's action
August 14 to retain the position of City Assessor, locally if possible, an
ad was placed in a local newspaper requesting applications from qualified
accredited assessors. Only one application was received, and that was
from a gentlem9n who had not had the necessary experience.
As a result, the only qualified individual who could assume these duties
for the City on a part -tile or contract basis is Peggy Stencel.
Wolfsteller recouanended that the City enter into a contract arrangement
with Peggy Stance 1 as the City Assessor for 1990. It appears that Peggy
and Gary will be able to work together to complete the assessment in a
timely mnanner at a lower cost than what the County is proposing. In
addition, the City will retain control of the assessment work; and it
appears natural for Gary to continue assessing new construction since he
is heavily involved in the process from the beginning. Wolfsteller went
on to report that the work would be divided ammncjst the two, depending on
Gary's work load. Although there is an advantage to allowing the County
to do the assessing work in that all commplaints/inquiries concerning
evaluations can be directed to the County, it wag Wolfsteller 'a view that
it's important that the City retain its own assessor, if possible, as it
provides us with accurate, up-to-date informatiori for our own records and
makes us mere accountable to the citizens of Monticello.
Ken Maus noted that this arrangement works out well, as the City can
utilize Peggy Stencel's services almost on an as—needed basis. Dan
Blonigen asked how meany hours must be visited each year as part of the
overall assessment process. Peggy Stencel noted that the City must visit
at least 25 percent of all the homes to determine if any changes should
be mkade to the umsrkot value of those homms.
5 9
Council Minutes - 9/11/89
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to enter into a
contract with Peggy Stencel to be the City Assessor for the year 1990 at
$4.50 per parcel. This would amount to a maximum of $7,875, but should
be less than this amount depe,muing on the amount of work shared by Gary
Anderson. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Consideration of accepting commmnmter parking lot deed from Wright County
with restrictive covenants.
Rick Wolfsteller reported that a number of years ago, Wright County
agreed to deed a parcel of land adjacent to 1-94 and Highway 25 to the
City for use in developing a commuter parking lot. The City proceeded
with developing the lot, but it never received a warranty deed or quit
claim deed from the County for this property. Wolfsteller reported that
a deed for the commuter parking lot with restrictions attached has been
submitted by the County Attorney. Council was asked to review the
restrictions and indicate whether or not the City should accept the
parking lot deed as presented with the restrictive reversion clause as
attached.
Warren Smith noted that he would like to see the City of Monticello
treated like other cities in that the reversion clause applied to this
property is not consistent with how the County treats other similar
properties in other municipalities. Ken Maus expressed his concern that
the restriction that requires tnat a property oe only used for wmmutem
parking is unduly restrictive and that other functions associated with
transportation should be allowed.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to accept the cotmnuter parking lot deed as presented by the
County with a restrictive clause attached. Voting in favor: Fran Fair,
Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen. opposed: Warren Smith, Ken Maus.
13. Review of liquor store six-month financial report.
Joe Hartman and Rick Wolfateller presented the liquor store six-month
financial report which shows that sales for the first six months of 19$9
were up slightly over the samre period last year by a 19 increase. Cost
of sales were approximately 28, resulting in gross profit percentage down
2% over last year. Expenses for the first six months were up 99 over
last year, which results in operating income of $38,856, or $8,900 less
than the same period last year.
After discussion, nation was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan
Blonigan to accept the six-month financial report submitted by Joseph
Hartman. Motion carried unanimously.
14. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement carpeting for liquor
store.
Council reviewed quotes from various carpeting suppliers and awarded the
project to the low bidder, Larson Carpet and Furniture of Monticello.
Council Minutes - 9/11/89
Motion made by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren Sinith to purchase
replacement carpet from Larson Carpet in the sutn of $5,300.00. Motion
carried unanimously.
15. Consideration of public inforiation brochure marketing plan.
Gary Iverson and Steve Henning from Henning 6 Associates were present to
outline alternative proposals for development of a marketing program and
information and promotional materials. Steve Henning outlined the
proposal which called for development of a generic brochure which could
be used as an outreach mnarketing tool to generate inquiries from
companies outside the commnunity. It could also be used as a single piece
or with a letter and business reply card, also, for secondary use as an
information piece to noncommercial inquiries about the cormmunity. This
brochure would give enough information about the commnunity to be enticing
without telling everything about Monticello. Because of the quantities
needed, the tool would be relatively small to stretch the production
dollars as well as saving the cost of postage. Henning suggested that
this document be letterfold size so that it could be used with or without
a business reply card. Benefits of this brochure is that it is
inexpensive to produce and can be produced individually or in large
quantities to be used with a specific mailing list or siumply to an
individual prospect. In addition, Henning 6 Associates suggested
development of a community profilebooklet to be used in response to
inquiries generdced by the oucredch ULeCiWe ur ieyueSLS foe irwra
detailed information than that contained in the generic brochure. Such a
profile booklet would be a 9 X 12 pocket folder for the cover with 4
pages of text and photo stitched into the center. The 4 pages should
really present the Monticello commwnity including the surrounding area to
best advantage. Included within would be testimonials from selected
individuals, key business people, council members, educators, etc. A
stock pile of shells would be left blank. city staff could imprint
detailed, but timely information in small quantities so that these pages
could be frequently updated. Then the sheets could be inserted in a
pocket in the back of the booklet. Also discussed was the developtrtent of
a video tape program to use in presentations to business prospects. The
video tape can be shown to a group as part of a forxal solicitation or
sent to qualified prospects that are making further inquiries about the
commnunity. The total cost including printing of all three programs
amnounts to $28,000. Fran Fair has suggested that the video portion of
the promotional package presented should be put on hold unless vemtmbers of
the business connunity are willing to contribute towards financing the
video portion of this program. Warren Smith concurred and noted that
staff should request that business organizations look towards existing
with this portion of the project. Shirley Anderson noted that it is
iinportant to gain the support of the business commaunity in development of
the video. She would not support inclusion of the video portion of the
program described by Henning 6 Associates.
0
Council Minutes - 9/11/89
After discussion, kation made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair
to allocate budgeted funds in the amount of $16,000 and direct City staff
to work with Henning 6 Associates in development of a marketing program
which would include development of a generic brochure and community
profile booklet. Voting in favor of the motion: Ren Maus, Fran Fair,
Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. opposed: Dan Blonigen.
16. Consideration of adopting resolutions authorizing the preparation of
assessment roles and setting the public hearing date on Project 89-02:
Mississippi Drive Improvement; Project 89-03: Oakwood Industrial Park
Overlay Improvement.
After discussion, motion made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair
to adopt resolutions ordering preparation of assessment roles and setting
a public hearing date for October 10, 1989. Motion carried unanimously.
17. Consideration of final payment request for Project 89-02: Mississip i
Drive Road Improvements; Project 89-03: Oakwook Industrial Palk Roa�
Improvements, Buttalo Bituminous.
John Simola reported that the anticipated construction costs for the
Mississippi Drive project, excluding engineering inspection, testing,
legal, and bonding cost, was $87,409. The actual construction costs in
place are $67,836, which represents a savings of $19,573. He also noted
tnat the savings associated with the Oakwood Indusrridi Pdrk Ruda
amounted to $17,600. Finally, Simola recommended final payinent to
Buffalo Bituminous as recommended by the City Engineer.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to
authorize final payment to Buffalo Bituminous pending receipt of the
proper documentation in the amount of $38,447. Motion carried
unanimously.
18. Consideration of quotes for landscaping at the new water tower site.
Roger Mack reviewed the four quotes that were received by the City and
recommended that the City enter into a contract with Schillewaert
Landscaping for the landscaping at the water tower at a total cost of
$11,901. Fran Fair questioned the credibility of the bidding process in
that using quotes rather than a formal bid can create the potential for
an unfair advantage. Roger Mack noted that since the total project cost
was under $15,000, it was not necessary that a formal bidding process be
completed and that the City does have latitude to negotiate prices based
on an original quote.
After discussion, motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to authorize the City to contract with Schillewaert Landscaping
for the landscaping at the water tower at a total cost of $11,901.
Motion carried unanimously.
0
Council Minutes - 9/11/89
19. Consideration of purchase of lawn vacuum for Parks Department.
John Sitnola swmsarized his report by stating that it appears to be cost
beneficial to purchase a lavn vacuum rather than contract with a quality
lawn care maintenance company for vacuuming of 12 acres of parks twice
per year at an estimated annual cost of approximately $5,000.
After discussion, motion wade by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to purchase the vacuurn as recormoended by staff.
20. Other Matters.
Cary Anderson presented Council with a quote from Security Locksmith for
replacing latching hardware in all offices.
After discussion, motion rade by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to purchase locks and services necessary to install/replace
latching hardware in all offices in the amount of $2,154.55. Motion
carried unanimously.
Jeit U�ner11
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
4. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow expansion of a
shopping center in a B-3 zone. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On September 20, 1989, the planning Commission reviewed this utter and
recormrends to City Council that it grant Lincoln Companies a conditional
use permit which would allow expansion of the shopping center for
occupation by K -Mart. The motion was based on the finding that the
development, if in compliance with the conditions, is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, character, geography of the area, the development will
not decrease land values, and the need for the use has been sufficiently
demonstrated. Attached you will find a site plan review narrative
presented by Gordon Orschlager of KKE Architects. Also enclosed is a site
plan review submitted by John Uban. Please refer to this documentationas
well as the site plan for site plan review information.
r" av B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing a shopping center to
expand in the B-3 zone subject to the following conditions: a S F sir
a. Approval of site drainage plans by the City Engineer) u�Excavation
permit provided only after site drainage plans have peen
approved.
4 .
b. In the event that public improvements are installed privately,
all improvements, specifications, and construction must be
approved by the City Engineer.
C. Lincoln Companies' dedication of land to City which is necessary
for 7th Street alignment.
d. City acquisition of utility easement areas as defined by the
Building Inspector and City Engineer.
e. Alternate site plan approved contingent on meeting or exceeding
standards associated with site plan presented to Planning
Commission at the meeting of September 20, 1989. John Uhan and
City staff charged with evaluating and judging alternative site
plan relative to performance standards established with initial
plan.
f. Staff and planning consultant approval of landscaping plans.
g. Planning consultant and City Engineer approval of revised parking
plan.
Motion based on the finding that the conditional use permit is
1 consistent with comprehensive plan, geographic area Involved,
character of the area, the need has been sufficiently demonstrated,
and that the development will not have a negative impact on the
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
adjoining land values. The conditions noted above speak for
themselves. Staff would like to note that the City Engineer has
elected to research storm sewer issues prior to issuance of a formal
request for feasibility study. This action was necessary to allow
excavation and grading to occur within the time table presented by
Lincoln Companies to the City of Monticello. It was, therefore,
mandatory that this information be collected prior to formal
authorization by City Council. Staff felt comfortable with OSM's
decision to couplete the necessary study, as Lincoln Companies has
indicated that they will pay engineering costs even in the event that
this project does not proceed. with this alternative, staff requests
that Council make a separate motion to order a storm sewer feasibility
study for areas affected by the proposed development.
2. Motion to deny issuance of conditional use permit. The conditional
use permit should be denied only in the event that Council can
demonstrate that the criteria for granting a conditional use permit
have not been met. It appears that the conditional use permit should
be granted, as Lincoln Companies will be able to comply with those
items that assure the City that the development will not have a
negative impact on adjoining properties and the City in general.
Finally, it should be noted that Lincoln Companies is not necessarily
in favor of the requirement that they dedicate the land necessary for
the 7th Street right -of -may. However, at the same time, they have not
refused this requirement. I believe it iuportant to retain this as a
condition within the conditional use permit so as to assure the City
that there is a sufficient right -0f -way necessary to create the
roadway between Locust and Minnesota. This roadway is critical to the
proper circulation of traffic in the area and, therefore, must be
included on the site plan as a requirement of the conditional use
permit.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Minutes of the Monticello Planning Comnission meeting; Narrative
description of project submitted by RRE Architects; Site plan review
submitted by John Uban; Copy of Site plan.
SEP 19 '89 16:00 F F.61I IucE OP1=111 TEC I S Pw."E . UOc
lt�)�
xor•un.k. xrenk Crickion
A rchleccm Inc.
I�pl 11/.1 1,Cn., \.•Illi
a -A5, W,'54'11
�•t l; 1l7�Ijrrcl
4'.1.5 111 1.67
PROJECT NARRATIVE
MONTICELLO MALL ADDITION
MONrICELLO, MN
COM. No. 89-01-1056-01
INfRODUCIION
This proposal will expand the existing mall from 72,000 s.f. to
approximately 170,000 s.f. The addition includes Kmart as the anchor
tenant, a new mall entrance and 6,000 s.f. of new shops.
1.
traffic/Site Circulation
the mall will extend along the proposal extension of 7th Street. The
existing main entrance will be retained without modifications at 7th
Street. Two additional curb cuts will be provided to the site to
service the Kmart Store. The existioy parking layout on the north
side of the mall will be modified to coordinate with the Kmart parking
lot. Service to the Kmart Store will be provided along the western
edge of the site.
2.
Surrounding Land Uses
The property Is bounded on the south by Interstate 94, on the east by
tlighway 25, on the north by 7th Street, and on the west by additional
cuumm rcial property.
The only residential uses adjacent to this development occur north of
Ith Street and consist of several townhouse and apartment projects.
3.
Utilities
a. Nater: A water main will be constructed in 7th Street by the city
and we will connect to that line and run the service Into the
t
southwest corner of Kmart.
b. Storm Sewer: Our storm newer will connect to a proposed city
extension of the storm sewer trunk system to the site in Maple
Street.
�rrhltalure
1'Iannll il:
I nI•I lin IN•,Ir�
SEP 19 '89 15:07 FP011 RICE AP,iHI TEC15 Pu 4E. O01
Page Two
Kmart #3866
Comm. No. 89-01-1056-01
4. Arehltectural Design
The mall addition will continue the architectural vocabulary of the
existing mall utilizing several different textured concrete masonry
bl ock s. Accent color banding on the new addition will match the
present color scheme and unify the entire development. The existing
north mall entrance will be relocated to the west and will be
articulated in the fora of a hexagonal tower which will be equal in
height to the Kmart entrance. Additional horizontal banding will
accent both the Kmart and the relocated mall entrance.
5. Landscaping
The existing landscape theme will be carried out along the perimeter
of the site. Trees will be planted in parking lot islands to break up
the paved areas. Dense plantings will be placed along the 1-94
frontage to screen the service areas of the project.
6. Site Layout
a. Parking: The existing parking lot layout wll l be modified to
increase parking efficiency. 90° perking will be provided along
the north and west side of the site with the main access drive
adjacent to the mall building.
b. Service: Kmart service docks will be located on the east side of
their building and they will utilize a trnsh compactor. The
existing service dock for Snyder's will be retained.
c. Grading: Storm drainage will he held in a retention pond on the
south edge of the property prior to outlettt ng into the ti ty storm
drainage system.
d. Si to Signage: Site signage will be submitted 1n a separate
package to the city for approval.
110 '211 up: J9 USO. INC. Vjnut
I
WO
CONSULTING!' NNEFS
CFi
LZ,NDSC;FE ARITEI TS
3n(I
FIRST AVENUE �11l RT le
SUITS.IO
NIINNE SPOLIS, NIN 5;{11
511.�3y. ;?n0
PLANNING REPORI'
IWIii: 19 September 1939
TO: Jeff O'Neill. City AdminCwalor and Planning Commission
ITROt& John Uban. Dahlgren, Shazdlow, and Uhnn, laic.
HU: Preliminary Review of K-Mnit Site flan: Uncoils Ptnitelties, Develnllet;
KKF Aichilnts; Met ila and Associates, Eti oter-ts; 11"taon rat ber,
Lanti,-:ipe Architects
PRO L-cr 2I:5_C
I.incoln Properties is prastxlsing to ndd an R6,479 squat fault K -Mal t to the existing
Monticello Mall. Ilse plait expands the Moll westerly to K -Mort and includes the
epttettgiatl of Seventh Sheet Guth the roeisting mull enttnijue wcslwnid to Minnesota
$Iterl- ,
K -Mart will face north with its parking lot sloping down toward Seventh S4 net, wIdJe
its loading and the hnrk side of K-Mattwill lie dila-Ily ndjnrent to interstate 94
tight -of -way. A storm sewer pond is proposal along the 1-94 and the K -Mau loading
at ea.
L _. KS
Ilia new K-Mnit wiibeset baric npptoximatety 110feel Guru 1.94 rigln-uGway. Ilse
loading arra is approximately 45 feet at its closest setback to the, interstate, while
parking behind the Mall ix within 7 feet of the existing right -or -way.
'Ihere npprmrs to lie tnnut fns- adjushnent to the parking, gethnck and rearrangement of
•nil lvity nd)'mm�t to Highwny 94 it) allnw fast amp a"cening of pat king, It wding, and
r buildinps from the Interstate.
The parking sed stick G am Seventh Sti wet is 7 to 9 feet Ilse parking setback shoidd be
ins eased aluna Seventh Su net hecitisr they a naccls to Ire in triple at can far acs eenhig of
lila cannnieicinl activity Brom the adjacent residentinl pmninctirectly noun of
Seventh Sheet. Iliesn Prapet ties also pin iaccs all' of Seventh Sn eel.
nn M so Ili): 19 nils. INC. 4h 111,;
K-Mnrt Site Plan Pegs 2
PA IZiC U
The proposed expansion with K -Mart increases the parking from 395 to 894 parkin.-
stalls.
arkingstalls This rept eseuts a 5 parking stall per 1,000 square feet for the addition. "Ibis
ratio works for retailing but such a ratio wunld not work for restaurant au:a 111,11
wurrlJ be hoc-htcd within 1hr. A1aJ1 area. 1 f Lhc rnstau, cut rias are kept to 5 percent or
less of the It --amble art,, there should be no par king problertt.
The parking stall size is 9 feet by 20 feet, with a 24 foot aisle. 'Ilia foe Lvim aluua
the front of the main eauartm are 3U feet in width. The par king lot cit culatiou is
su aighttorward and should work to acc o nnrudite the traffic circulation on-site.
The entrances to the Mall area have been sin cad out at approximately 3UU to 400 bout
intervals along Seventh Sttoet. TLB throat or distance between the parking lot and die
club of Seventh Street can only handle die stacking of noc of two errs anetnptiog to
exit or enter the shopping urall. We wottld like the develulxr m explore methods of
incneasiug tic stackingdistanoe for Lhe major entrances.
1 We believe that ilia busiest entrance will be the one furthest to the east and elosost to
`j Highway 2S_ T his entrance should Ire designed to line eqo dhedly with Wnln n t Snext
and develop a more direct house to the main drive along the Lrom of use MatL live
believe that this will sipifhrnntly enhance ciroibliun.
A double landscaped island is beingrernoved fienn Urc exisliogparking lot and to lactvI
with anew parking nr ca. Ther a is uu sttrh fmtrue beuug rcurrued io the uverall plan.
We. would suggest that some major archs of landsehping within die parking lot be nctdexl
u1 help direct uaffe chmilalioo and u1 break die rapansr- of patking. As the- slope of
thn far king Int exposes a gtwrd deal of the: lot to tho residents to Um nrn th, it iv quito
important Les hive n fully Ixnrisrnpewl pat king lot.
09&AQE
At this point. no specific sign package has been presented utter than a K -M art sign on
the fired of We building and a K -Man sign on the back of the buldinp with extnostn e
toward the fore rnre. No pylon signs are propcm. d at this time.
Itini.DING AJJJ'—M 41]!L
The buildutg design includes horizontal hnntling to tic the K -Mart to thn existing renter
and tall entryways to accentuate tha usnin enttnnces In the buildings. Elmmanse of the
exposure to the, lulctslale, wn would want the decorative treatment to be continuous on
nU fuer sights of the bulldiny,
fIMIOMM
Tho Site Plan attaches the K•Mart store to the existing mall and places the lmck of
K -Mart adjacent to hanslale 94. Iletwe-en K -Marl and the lmentste, a pond must be
placed to stns r. water, thus making it difficull to screen the londing and pnrk ing arms
and the expnnne of L hobuildioa ftnm the ndjnernt public iisi ir.
zq)
so ua:3a DSU. INC. OwI3
H -Mart SHe Plan Page 3
The plan also leaves a large lot to the west that will accommodate some Futuro
commercial. developmenL As now desimrA there is no shared aoaxs with the adjacent
parcel. We suggest that appropriate ch culatiwr linkages be provided for.
'llte Grading Plan should include the gr.[fGng of all slopes along 7111 St cet nod
incorporate the plaw; for the adjacent property to the north. 'I he vnvithouse and
apartivetrt eumplcx to the north has a Phase 11 which is Io be built adjacent to Seventh
Street with direct acce=ss. if Seventh Street is too high, access to the [forth [flay not
be possible. The design of Seventh Street is unt completexl as it ties into the existing
Seventh Street alignment. This has to be rzrcfully designed since there are significant
grade changes and aexss problems to adjacent purl ria Gc . A. redesign of Seventh Street
will undoubtedly create a steeper 1nu king lot in front of K -M arL
01717 -SI CCONSLUFkiAUO_M
With the addition of K -Mart, the intey.seetion of Seventh Street with I Iighway 25 will be
near capacity. Improvements will have to be matle to this lnierse(sion in the tlrtut e
to allow for any addilionaldevelopment to take place along Seventh Street Shar el
responsibility for that improvement should be made now with dee develeliet.
The City should consider n north -south connection fi om Seventh Sri oea to Broadway at
Minnesota Street
A comhletel Inntlsraipe plan has not been reviewers at this point, but a preliminary plan
indienttng general areas of land-=14ng has herrn reviewed with the developeIL"1, Lsctpe
architect Impinvemeuts nexxl lobe made to the screcninp nln[fg hiteistnte 94 awl
adouyrp Seventh StrceL Additionally, the m rangemerd. of ltudlsctpc island.- within the
parlang lot should be adjusted a, WIcr control tra(lie and breakup deo expaw-C of Ilio
parking Int
'Iliolandscrikic kinnels That were removed from die existing pniking lot entry landscaping
should be reinstalled somcwhete within lite pairidog ares to help define traffic patterns.
Additional landvnlrutg is also needed for the new parking lot M%insiuu. Oriwtitics and
crindations of required landscaping have not Lleen completed at this time.
It. should be noted that the arta ad'ncent to Seventh Street should be more completely
screened to the Ix tiefil of The resl(�ents to the north.
0
OFF
Schden
OwsNi Mayeon6
ASSodaI6,N[.
2071 Cast Hennepin Avenue
M.nneapulls. MN 55413
e12 -331.9b60
FAX 331-380o
Engineers
S—eyws
Planers
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, City of Monticello
FROM: Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Manager Water Resources Department
DATE: September 25, 1989
SUBJECT: Hydrologic Analysis of Monticello Mall Development Plans
As requested, we have completed a Hydrologic Analysis of the drainage plan that
will service the Monticello Mall area. This analysis revealed the following:
1. In its existing condition, a large depression is present on the Monticello Mall
site that is generally capable of accommodating runoff from the 20 acre
drainage area tributary to it with no discharge for a 100 year return frequency
24 hour rainfall event. The Monticello Mall site, in its existing condition
will generate a peak discharge rate of approximately 5 cfs to the north and
into the staple Street storm sewer system for a iGo year rainfall event.
The proposed drainage plan for the Monticello Mall provides for approximately 4
acres of drainage area directly tributary to this storm sewer system. This
will result in a 5 year discharge rate of exceeding 20 cfs and could cause
flooding in downstream areas during a 100 year return frequency rainfall event.
As a result, it is recommended the development plan be revised to limit the
discharge rate from the Mall site to the undeveloped condition which has been
established at approximately 5 cfs. This can be accomplished by directing as
much water as possible to a retention basin located to the southwest of the
proposed Kmart building and providing stormwater storage on the parking lot to
accommodate runoff that can not be directed to the southerly retention basin.
Both of these storage areas will have outlets restricted to limit the discharge
rate from the area to a total of 5 cfs for a 100 year event.
PRW/cmw,
09/89-12
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Martie, Mori Malone, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lem,
Dan McConnon.
1. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow expansion of
a shopping center in a B-3 zone.
After the public hearing was opened, Gordon Orschlager from KKE
Architects reviewed the proposed cite plan. Orschlager reviewed the
building layout, landscaping plan, and parking design. David Putnam of
Merela Associates, Inc. reviewed the engineering issues pertaining to the
development. Putnam noted that a ponding area is planned for the rear of
the structure which is designed to handle the run off originating from
the roof of the structure and the rear of the parcel. Putnam indicated
that the water surface will originate from the proposed 7th Street right
of way and that sanitary sewer service lines from the addition will
connect to an existing line at the intersection of Walnut and 7th Street.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the City Engineer has had soim
concerns regarding the iaanagement of storm water that is being displaced
by the K -Mart building addition. O'Neill went on to indicate that. the
City Engineer is coirpleting calculations that will provide the r_ILy with
a better undersLanding of Lhe area drainage pattern so as to assure us
that the drainage plan and storm water uanagement plan proposed will be
sufficient. O'Neill went �n t� indicate thAt th^ storm water w+nagetrnt
plan for this area and it's iuVact on the site plan will not be
understood until the infontation is gathered. It is expected Lhat Lhe
information will be available to the City Council at their meeting on
Monday, Sept. 25th. David Putnam indicated that he would be in contact
with the City Engineer and coordinate his storm water design work with
the work being conducLed by the City Engineer. At this point in the
meeting John Uban provided a Site plan review and noted his observations
regarding the site plan and it's iuq)acL on Monticello in general. Uban
stressed the importance of designing a good road eystem connecting Lhe
7th Street shopping area to Broadway. He noted that continuation of
Minnesota to Broadway should be considered in order to achieve the proper
traffic flow from Broadway to the 7th Street shopping area. Oban noted
Lhat the addition will have a significant. visual iLry3act on the
residential areas nnrth of the development. Uban recoimnended that this
impact be buffered by landscape plantings or by creating a deeper green
area between 7Lh Street right of way and the parking area or by
eliminating access to the apartment and using the 7th Street right of way
as an obstruction to site lines between the, apartment and the K -Mart.
Uban also indicated that the rear of the K -Mart should be landscaped so
as Lo soften the impact of the loading docks and flat surface of Lhe
structure. It was Uban's suggestion that the retaining pond be designed
so as to allow for areas on the perimeter of the pond to be used for
planting areas.
Uban noted that the traffic flow and parking plan proposed is straight
forward and workable,. However, he had some concern that: the vehicle
stacking arrangement proposed could use Inprovement from a public
(9/
Planning Coimnission Minutes - 9/20/89
safety standpoint and that it might snake sense to ittprove the plan by
providing additional vehicle stacking capacity. At this point in the
meeting general discussion ensued. Dan McConnon asked Tom DuFresne of
Lincoln Companies why K -Mart is locating in Monticello. Tom DuFresne
noted that the K -Mart is the largest retailer in the U.S. and they intend
on staying that way. They have sophisticated systems that provide them
information that allows them to enter markets that they know will be
profitable to their company. DuFresne also noted that K -Mart has the
capacity to fund operating deficits early on. It may be that initially
the K -Mart will not be profitable. K -Mart's decision, however, takes the
long term into account and it is their view that Monticello is in a
strategic position to become a regional shopping area and that is the
primary reason why they have elected to locate in Monticello rather than
Buffalo. After general discussion a motion was made by Dan McConnon and
seconded by Richard Martie to approve the conditional use permit allowing
a shopping center to expand in the B-3 zone subject to the following
conditions:
A. Approval of site drainage plans by the City Engineer.
Excavation permit provided only after site drainage plans
have been approved.
B. In the event that public improvements are installed privately
all improvements, specifications, and construction tmrst be
approved by the City Engineer.
C. Lincoln Company dedication of land to City which is necessary
for 7th Street aligrunent.
D. City acquisition of utility easement areas as defined by the
Building Inspector and City Engineer.
E. Alternate site plan approved contingent on meeting or exceeding
standards associated with site plan presented to Planning
Comninninn at the imeting of SepteiMber 20, 1909. John Uban and
City nt.aff charged with evalmnting and judging alternative cite
plan relative to performnce standards established with Initial
plan.
F. Staff and planning consultant approval of landscaping plana.
C. Planning consultant and City Engineer approval of revised
parking plan.
Motion based on the finding that the conditional use permit is consistent
with the comprehensive plan, geographic area Involved, character of the area,
the need has been sufficiently demonstrated, and that a development will not
have a negative ittpact on the adjoining land values. Motion passed
unanimously.
At this point in the meeting a general discussion regarding the 7th Street
alignment issues ensued. After discussion, motion was mads by Dan McConnon
e
and seconded by Cindy Lem to support the straight alignment of 7th Street
based on the fact that 7th Street when straightened will provide room
necessary to provide better screening between co mnercial and residential
uses. In addition, the potential for the highest and best use for the
property between 7th Street and the freeway is made possible as more land is
available for larger regional retailers and the straightened alignment will
result in the elimination of the two residential structures which represent
non -conforming uses in the B-3 zone. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, meeting adjourned.
-01` �W
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
Consideration of utilization of tax increment financing to fund a portion
of public improvements associated with K -Mart project. W .O.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the City Council, Council discussed use of tax
increment financing for the purpose of assisting with realignment of the
7th Street right-of-way. As a result of that meeting, staff was directed
to work with the HRA, property owners, and Lincoln Companies towards
development of a finance plan that would achieve the straight alignment
utilizing finance option 2A as the basis of the negotiations. Since that
time, Tom Holthaus has reduced the price of his property from $56,000 to
$49,900, and Marvin Kramer has reduced his property price from $197,000
to $187,000. The HRA met to discuss option 2A and concluded that
although the straight alignment is the best alignment, the cost to
achieve this alignment is not offset by the benefits or public purpose
achieved. The HRA in their motion referred the matter of whether or not
to use tax increment financing to assist realignment of 7th Street back
to City Council. On September 20, 1989, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of Lincoln Companies' conditional use permit request
and indicated support for the straight alignment in a separate motion.
The motion was based on long terin benefit of the straight alignment.
The most significant development, however, since the previous meeting
4 pertains to Lincoln companies' new request for considerable additional
tax increment financing participation in the financing of utilities
associated with this project. Please review the letter submitted by Tom
DuFresne to the City of Monticello dated September 21, 1989, in which he
outlines the need for tax increment financing based on financial need.
Lincoln Companies has now implied that the quality of the project rests
on City participation in financing a portion of the public improvements
with TIP. Lincoln Companies' request obviously changes the focus of
Council's decision from determining to what extent TIF could be used to
achieve the straight alignment to determining to what extent tax
increment financing should be utilized as an incentive for Lincoln
Companies to proceed.
It should be noted that the HRA decision to reject use of tax increment
financing was based on financing of the street portion only, and TIP use
based on financial need was never presented to the HRA. Had Lincoln
ComQw nies requested tax increment financing assistance based on
demonstrated need, their recommendation regarding use of such funds for
public improvements may have been different. The HRA was never given the
opportunity to review use of TIF under these terms.
LINCOLN OOMPANIES' PROPOSAL/TIF ASSISTANCE
The addition housing the K -Mart facility will generate approximately
$105,000 annually in revenue available to pay off public imrprovement
related debt accrued at the outset of the project. Over the life of an
eight-year economic development district, this project hag the capacity
to pay off a potential debt of $600,000. Lincoln Companies to asking
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
for TIP assistance equal to $452,400. Under this scenerio, it would take
about seven years to pay this debt before the taxes would be available to
the City, school, and county. In their proposal, Lincoln Companies
requests that tax increment financing be used to finance the construction
of 7th Street in the amount of $130,500; partial payment of acquisition
costs associated with Pratt and Holthaus property in the amount of
$71,500; acquisition of the Kramer property in the net amount of
$127,000; installation costs associated with sanitary sewer connections
and temporary ponding in the amount of $84,000 and $39,400 respectively.
Altogether, use of tax increment financing dollars requested amounts to
$452,400.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Lincoln Companies is asking that Council establish its own tax increment
district and finance plan associated with the addition. This plan will
be separate from the project area now managed by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. Utilizing Council authority to develop this
alternate TIF district represents a break from City tradition; however,
it is totally legal and permissible for Council to establish its own tax
increment financing program.
Demonstration of "But For" test
In theory, tax increment financing is to be used when it can be
demonstrated that a project will not proceed or is not economically
viable without utilization of TIP funds to defray costs associated with
public improvements or extraordinary site corrections. Lincoln Commpanies
is asserting that there is a financial need and that the project will
have difficulty without some assistance. At this time, however, staff
has not been provided with financial information that would allow the.
City to determine if the project is significantly less feasible or
profitable without extensive TIP assistance. One of the difficulties
with this project is that information necessary for decision making is
lagging behind the critical points at which decisions must be made. In
other words, Council is asked to make a decision regarding tax increment
financing before all the project costs are in and on the table. If
Council decides to use tax increment financing to assist with this
project based on the fact that there is a financial need, staff should be
directed to work with Lincoln Companies to verify the project'^ inability
to absorb additional costs and report back to Council accordingly.
PREVIOUS PRECEDENT REGARDING USE OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING/00MMERCIAL
VENTUWS
Following is a review of the use of TIP for other developments. Please
note that use of TIP for these projects was critical to their success.
However, the [IRA never has required thorough documentation of a financing
gap.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
Construction 5
Street Construction $127,500
San. Sewer/Waterinain $116,500
Raindance
Land Acquisition $229,000
Street Construction $ 75,000
HRA POLICY GUIDELINES
Attached you will find a copy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
tax increment financing policy guidelines. These guidelines were
reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as it considered the
use of tax increment financing for the realignment of the 7th Street
right-of-way. The HRA determined that the use of tax increment financing
to assist with the realignment of 7th Street right-of-way was not
consistent with the policies set forth. The HRA's decision on whether or
not to use tax increment financing may have been different if the
development of the K -Mart facility was at stake. Attached for your
review are the tax increment financing policy guidelines which you may
wish to use as you determine to what extent you wish to contribute TIP
funds toward this project. Noted in the left hand margin are staff
cormnent s .
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve use of tax increment financing funding in the
arount of $452,400 for the purpose of assisting in construction of
7th Street right-of-way land acquisition, sanitary sewer connections,
temporary ponding as proposed by Lincoln Companies. Motion to
include setting of a public hearing for October 23, 1989, for
purposes of review and adoption of the tax increment financing plan.
Adoption of the plan subject to verification of financial need by
City staff.
under this alternative, development of the K -Mart would be assured,
however, the taxes generated by the K -Mart facility would not be
available to the school, city, or county for approximately six years,
as those new revenues created by the K -Mart would be used to pay off
the debt as outlined above.
2. Motion to modify Lincoln Companies' proposal and set a public hearing
for October 23, 1989, at which time the tax increment financing plan
will be considered. Use of tax increment funding subject to further
review of financial data relating to this project.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
It is likely that Council will review the proposals submitted by
Lincoln Companies and suggest modifications without significant risk
that the project would be abandoned. The first obvious modification
that could occur would be elimination of acquisition costs associated
with the 7th Street alignment. If Council elects to choose the
curved alignment acquisition costs associated with the Pratt,
Holthaus, and Kramer properties, the tax increment funding level
would be decreased by $243,000, which would reduce the tax increment
assistance from $452,000 to $225,000. Although it is important to
Lincoln Companies that the road be straightened, this may not be a
requirement for the project to proceed; and, therefore, this portion
of the TIF plan could probably be eliminated from the program if
Council feels that the realignment of the 7th Street right-of-way
cannot be justified in light of the cost.
Alternative 12 will require that the Council negotiate with Lincoln
Companies at the meeting of September 25. Although Lincoln Companies
indicates the project needs financial assistance, it is not clear if
the project will proceed without it. It may be that Council would be
able to modify the proposal in a manner that would reduce the total
level of assistance requested.
Street Construction
Following is a narrative review of a potential alternative to Lincoln
Companies' proposal.
It does not seem reasonable that TIP should pay the entire
construction cost as proposed by Lincoln. Rather, it is proposed
that the City use TIP to finance the cost to oversize the road, as
this oversizing benefits the entire community. This amounts to 259
of the total cost. In addition, it is suggested that the City use
TIP to finance that portion of the roadway that would have otherwise
been assessed to Ridgeview Apartments which equals 259 of the
remaining assessable amount for a total of $66,063. Lincoln
Companies would be responsible for paying 506 of the remaining
assessable amount or $56,625.
Land Acquisition
Alternative 12 calls for a 60/40 split of the cost to acquire the
Pratt and Holthaus property. In contributing $45,000 for the
additional space gained, Lincoln Companies to paying $1.32 per square
foot, which is a reasonable price. The City contributes $65,400
under this proposal for the sake of realigning the roadway as a
public purpose activity.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
The City should elect to purchase the Kramer property at this time so
as to head off future problems associated with completing the roadway
through to Elin Street. This purchase, though expensive, will be
significantly less than the cost to condemn, if necessary, at some
point in the future. Obviously, the TIF contribution could be
reduced significantly if Council desires to not purchase the Kramer
property and run the risk that condeumation would not be needed.
Stops Sewer
Staff is not sure what specific iirprove,nents are represented by
Lincoln Companies' request for $84,000. Assuming that this number
represents project storm sewer cost, it might be reasonable to use
TIF to finance 508 of this cost off site, as, according to John
Simola, the City will benefit significantly from storm sewer
extensions necessary for the K -Mart. The figure noted on the table
represents a 50/50 split of such costs. If sanitary sewer costs are
part of the $84,000 figure, the City may wish to reduce its
participation, as Lincoln Companies appears to be the sole
beneficiary of any sewer improvements 1nade.
On—site ponding
No TIP participation is suggested, as this appears to be a site
specific improve,nent without benefitting the City except by possibly
allowing us to maintain a smaller storm sewer system. Again, the
engineering data is not complete. Therefore, we do not know to what
extent, if any, the retention pond benefits the City.
Demolition relocation
All demolition/relocation costs would be paid via TIP under this
alternative. If Krainer property is not purchased, this cost is
reduced by $13,000.
In summary, utilizing past precedent as best we can, Council may
elect to propose a modified version of Lincoln Coupantes' propnsal by
adopting a finance plan which would call for the following level of
TIP assistance: 7th Street, $66,063, Pratt, Holthaua, Krauier,
$243,9001 Sewer connections, $42,0001 Tetgoorary ponding, $0.00, for a
total of $306,463. In the event that Council elects not to realign
7th Street, the total TIP contribution would be reduced to $108,063.
7TH STREET ALIGNMENT
What was once the primary issue facing Council relative to use of tax
increment financing remains important but is now a secondary issue.
Lincoln Coupanies' request for TIP assistance with funding of costs
that directly affect their project with or without the 7th Street
,! right-of-way creates less discretionary funds for Council to be used
for the 7th Street right-of-way. Therefore, it is understandable
that TIP funding of the realignment is less likely. Despite this
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
fact, it should be noted that across the board, Planning Commission,
HRA, the developer, City Council, staff, John Uban, and economic
development expert, Pat Pelstring, all agree that straightening the
7th Street alignment will create the potential for the highest and
test use of the land along the freeway. Unfortunately, the
opportunity created by straightening the 7th Street alignment is not
easily converted into a dollar amount. In other words, we know that
it will cost approximately $244,000 to achieve the best alignment,
but we don't know to what extent that cost will be offset by the
opportunity created by the preferred alignment. Let it suffice to
say that K -Mart elected to locate next to the mall primarily because
of the space that was available and because of the freeway location.
This decision was rade by K -Mart after they took a strong look at
locating in Buffalo. The combination of the land availability
between the freeway and 7th Street combined with the freeway exposure
is what wade Monticello special to K -Mart. By realigning the road
and preserving land area necessary for similar developments, the City
can preserve its comparative advantage over Buffalo and preserve the
asset that has enabled Monticello to wrestle a major retailer to our
community. On the other hand, there is significant distance between
the freeway and 7th Street associated with properties farther down
7th Street which could be utilized by a tenant needing a larger
freeway lot. Enclosed you will find a copy of John Uban's report
regarding the realignmtent issue.
3. Motion to deny use of tax increment financing assistance as proposed
by Lincoln Companies.
Council does have the option of denying any use of tax increment
financing assistance with this project. Lincoln Companies' request
for TIP assistance is coming at late stages, and the request to some
degree is unfair given the fact that the City has had little time to
review the trotter and determine if tax increment financing is
actually necessary. Council trey want to take the view that the mall
is in serious trouble and that Lincoln Companies has to do sotoething
in order for it to survive. And, therefore, Lincoln Companies should
be in a position where they simply must pay what it costa to get the
K -Mart in place. On the other hand, it could be that Lincoln
Companieo is truly in a position where they might decide that it's
better to cut their losses now than go any further with this
project. Tom Dufresne has indicated verbally that the debt and
operating costs associated with the lifeless mall is creating a
financial burden that could result in Lincoln Companies abandoning
the project. For what it is worth, he has indicated that City
assistance is very important.
Although Council has the option of calling Lincoln Coupanies' bluff,
I think that due to the high cost of site preparation and storm sewer
development, the City should take Lincoln Companies' proposal
seriously.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
C. STAFF RFOOMMENDATION:
If it can be determined that tax increment financing assistance is
necessary in order for the project to proceed, then staff recommends that
tax increment financing assistance be granted to Lincoln Companies for
the purpose of installation of public iuprovements to the following
extent: 7th Street right -0f -way, $55,063; Land acquisition, demolition,
$243,900; Sanitary sewer, storm sewer connections, $42,000; Site
grading/corrections, $0.00; Teuporary pond development, $0.00. It is
staff's view that there is some credibility to the claim that a financing
problem is emerging that may have not been totally anticipated at the
outset of the project. It is without question, however, that the City
should have access to the project financing documentation to determine if
a funding problem exists and report back to Council. In reality,
however, it may be next to impossible to document the "but for" and the
TIP dollars contributed may ultimately represent an incentive rather than
"gap" financing.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Tom DuFresne of Lincoln Coupanies dated September 21, 1989;
Financial models showing alternatives 1, 2, and 3; Copy of tax increment
financing polity; John Uban's report; Other mist. notes.
_/n(•�� + o0 Clod i n v.
Pic, vi
AJ. �.� o, t d3
/9 s9 a�:I�l; S jo -2
G ",-4. 0%4 a w
OC.'
ne k4 icl.r
d, -d OaR
Pl/o.,
� Oc./cbr.P "30 /Y'is y
I
!31..x.". 16
,Yrc -[.,F 11.4" , 0 / Re v..—" b 4,".t 30 '• �o.^c0...tf
O c J o to o A 3-3
n o P r�l�. ,, I •- 6 i c /1 �0 , v_ /id / i�/a.,
a 6 U—i o L,[ a a i /,,..�
1
01c
60Z.teL01. ,)i h'-71fN / ik, 1
4e.+a I.. A f CN.•er MO. -t /.nee/ •..oL C.h /e W. SC.•rs �..S.:. e.ri �I•
♦ �.1.-c.......-� ISS i.e t-�•:.a/w lew�e•i.'. S ai .�I:e. Fe S no /o �t
Trr
4r
SEPT 6 HRA APPROVES CONCEPT OF TIF FOR KRAMER PROPERTY ONLY
DEVELOPER TO FINANCE HOLTHOUS/PRATT ACQUISITION AS
DEVELOPER IS PRIMARY BENEFIrIARY OF RE -ALIGNMENT
SEPT 7 STAFF PRESENTS PROPOSAL TO DEVELOPER - DEVELOPER INDICATES THAT
COST TO ACQUIRE PRATT/HOLTHOUS EXCEEDS BENEFIT.
SEPT 8 STAFF MEETS WITH DEVELOPER TO DISCUSS COMPROMISE
OPTIONS. STAFF PREPARES ALTERNATIVE FOR COUNCIL
REVIEW WHICH INCLUDES 50-50 SPLIT OF PRATT/HOLTHAUS
COSTS.
DEVELOPER STUDIES COMPROMISE PROPOSAL. MAKES NO C"ITTMFNTS
PRIOR TO COUNCIL REVIEW ._ '//oR i /o ob/.,\
SEPT 11 COUNCIL REVIEWS HRA PROPOSAL/PROPOSED COMPR17M1S IRECTS
STAFF TO USE COMPRLMISE PLAN FOR BASIS OF N TIATIONS
AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH LAND -OWNERS T LOWER LAND
PRICES, DEFER NEGOTIATIONS TO HRA - IF NEGOTIATIONS FAIL,
REVERT TO ALTERNATIVE ONE.
SEPT 13 DEVELOPER SUBMITS TIF PROPOSAL WHICH CALLS FOR SUBSIDY OF '
PONDING. SAN SEWER, STREET AND LAND.
SEPT 14 HRA REVIEWS AND REJECTS COMPROMISE PROPOSAL. SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE
ALIGNMENT TWO BUT CAN NOT JUSTIFY USE OF TIF TO
ASSIST WITH RE -ALIGNMENT COSTS. DEFERS JUDGEMENT REGARDING
USF OF TIF 10 BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. ALSO RECOM4ENM THAT
THE KRAMER PROPERTY NOT BE INCLUDED IN TIF PLAN.
HRA NEVER SEES DEVELOPER PROPOSAL.
SEPT 18 HULTIIAUS REWCES PRICE FRLM $56.000 10 $49,000
9qIJ0 plo---•:.� �o .... ..i,on �e.a e.. e. �� '`/•i�•�./ e�
t'o✓cd:Nh�o.-e.l Ust Pio ,,.. �� �e _ .Jt je ��.. /c r.�a,/•e ..
Am
,%O lD-r l..4e "Ae o•awsr.^ ''3/•.M�, Pi d-90 Od Pee1r 14
,{ I�ef.�M1irt tMw.� ¢../ev.s.re r,�l..alie- •/� TTS
fes, �o•ece..rp
ke► $et p•d. .S �r•r fre.w /97 /oi%Tmo
S• +pl 4u.1•.e�r a..,bw,TS Lc�I�R/ Tynr�.c 7Oler r..rnt,
P Ott o l i 7r
017
Sep 14,89 U9:24 THE LINCOLN COMPANIES F. 03/U3
MONTICF;LL0 TIF PLASS
CALCULATION OF
VALUE
Couatruct.iot, Cont 1.9RS,000.00
Land Cost 326,000.00
Total Available. 2.311,000.00
Value
CALCULATION OF
I NC.RE':MENT
Total Est. Market 2,311,000.00
value
Tax Capacity Rntio
0.0516
Total New flax
119,247.60
Capacity
0.26
Original Tax
2,269.30
Capacity
476,649.79
Captured Tax
116,970.24
Capacity
Fiscal Uinpnriticn
0.00
Contribution
33,379.49
Retained Tax
116,978.24
CA 118C t t.y
Tax Capacity Rate
0.82091
Annual Tax
90,028.61
Increment
CALCULATION OF
GROSS PROCEEDS
Annunl Payment.
96.028.61
(Annual Increment)
RepsymcuL Period
0.26
Interest RMA
0.0676
Groom Prenent Value
476,649.79
CALCULATION OF NRT
PROCEEDS
Oroaa Procceda
476,849.79
Costa of Imsnance
33,379.49
Capitalized
04,374.72
Interest
Rainwealmrntt,
4.708.00
Proceeds
Not. Proceeds 383,864.08
Sep 14.64 09:23
THE LINCOLN COMPANIES
F.u2/U3
NONTICCLLO TIF SOURLY./USE ANALISIS
j
SOUNCES
LINC01•N COMPANIES LINCOLN
COMPARIEE HORN10 TIY
LAND SALE
City
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT ASSRSANENT
PROCEEDS
USES
7TH 87111T
161 ,DOO.00
0.00
58,150.00 11,160.00 61,60D.00
0.00
0.00
151,000.00
FEAT!
6 1 ,000.00
26,100.00
0.00 0.00 15,500.00
0.00
O.QD
61,000.00
AMPAUS
66,000.00
15,000.00
0.00 0.00 11,000.00
0.00
0.00
66,000.00
11061
19 7,000.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 111,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
191,000.00
SAMITIIT S10 1
84,000.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 84,000.00
0.00
0.00
84.000.00
CONNECTIONS
TWO1111 PONDING
89,400.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 19,100.00
0100
0.00
11,400,00
DEMO/REt061TI0N
8,000.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 8,000.00
0.00
0.00
8,000.00
MAL
696,400.00
50,500.00
61,750.00 11,160.00 119,400.00
18,000.00
0.00
598,400.00
ACTUAL LINCOLN
COMPAYITI OAIt
Palet o1 cohir16u1RA
64,400.00
14-d
Lead pert6ar
50,100.00
loeeuu ti
58,150.00
Total
173,6SO.00
Nor Ci1S 4657
TIF 1.11 68,111.00
1
3/1989
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTIIORITY
City of Monticello
TAX INCRF14ENT FINANCING POLICY
Program Purpose: The Monticello Rousing and Redevelopment
Authority will utilize Tax Increment Financing to support the
community's long-term economic and housing goals.
Policy Considerations: The [IRA will analyze and evaluate Tax
Increment Financing proposals based upon the following policy
considerations. Each project shall be measured against these
considerations and the project's value shall be determined, based
upon meeting these considerations.
t�f (1) The project shall be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
G P (2) The project shall demonstrate long-term economic and/or
I housing benefits to the community.
(3) The project shall create and/or retain employment for
Monticello residents.
n (4) The project shall increase moderate priced housing
options for area residents.
P
15) Thr_ project shall facilitate the redevelopment or
elimination of "substandard" or "blighted" areas as
determined by the IIIA. I pt., t t He""')
rJ N (6) The project shall facilitate the "clenn-up" of
es environmentally unsound property. (Erit.•i,a,e s,/r ('r.•rr✓,r., �rrr:sn •�
(7) The project shall provide tidditional public funding
t.l,'S Cor. public improvements Including tit. IIItIPs and/or
1 park development which would not otherwise be available.
(.ICS (8) The project shall be deemed to promote additional
I dentred "spin-off" development.
POLICY GUIDELINES
(1) Tax Increment Financing will be considered for use in
economic development, redevelopment and specialized
housing projects. The standard level of assistance for
projeetn nhall be an f.ollowa:
g) 13
A. Manufacturinq Projects - The 11RA may, to the extent
of the available project Increment, compensate
manufacturing projects for the cost of their land
acquisition. if additional funding is feasible for site
development costs, the funds shall be lent to the manu-
facturer over a ten-year time period at the then current
interest rate (this rate will be reviewed and adjusted
periodically).
t�
D. Office/Commercial Projects - The 11RA may provide
La assistance to the extent of the available project
Increment, to compensate the busIness/develope r to
\` ' "equal ize" the project to accepte,l area market
` 5Land ardn, Additional availabLe 'rJF funds shall lie pro-
vided to the company/developer as a 10 -year loan at the
J, \ I then current Interest rate ( this rate will be reviewed
and adjusted periodically).
\ C. Housinq Proiects - The BRA may provide assistance
to encourage the development of housing projects which
are consistent to the (IRA's objectives. TIF compensation,
to the extent of the project Increment available, shall
be uti lized to compensate the developer to "equalize"
the project to accepted market standards. Additional
asnistance may be available to a developer either as a
grant or loan, so long as the benefits of the assistance
are passed through in reduced rents and/or purchase
cot r e .
(2) The standard term of the Tax Increment Financing bond issues
shall be amortized based on receipt of 8 - 13 years full
Increment with the district having n maximum length of
25 yenin. Rconomic Devolopmr_nt and Soils Corrections
1)lst:ric1.s shall. conform to ntatutoiy requirements.
(3) Tax Increment Financing projects in the City of Monticello
must be accompanied by a signed development agreement with
the developer which includes an assessment agreement nottiny
forth n minimum market value.
(4) Tax Increment Financing may be used fort
,k A. Land acquisition ),7 n.
D. Site preparation and improvement..
)' C. Public improvements.
0. Parking and landscaping.
E. Demolition.
t
F. Bonding costs.
G. Capitalized interest.
){. Legal, administration and engineering.
(5) The Monticello Planning Commission shall review each 'fax
Increment Financing proposal to determine that the
established and/or modified development district is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and to review
the specific Tax Increment Financing District to review the
appropriate zoning.
-3-
' .- - .3 '�c• �,.,;` _"�1`e' . a� '.� f//„ _ _ ,. n���� o\` „sic ����� ,___^}_—_��{•�.� r� �+ /t�
�`..'
0 r�j' `:/
- _ b. pC`,(``�"~,'+�'�l r� �• �• �1"� �^ i+�a¢ 1 `"'i :/� J ti.�'Sp'�,�° �^.an � '� ��
.. l� •!�1 rr,y.�1��'1 �+.�j9.g1i f � o �'� � � `..��„'� +'j@@//`'',1��''•����f�� �� `3
•� S ' r "' Jj `i /ice+..
"• i "_ "t 1 t:t ""��YI.'tr ,/��i J�J�`,'� i!'J \ - a � .. \. ..\°� /'-'ti��� �,,,��� � o R
- (�; :! IL v , ! 'IJP � ,� •: -,, ,, 'J'�/'y/��`'"
T '� /r O' er `'4--,'•• Y •'� -1 CL
i ..�� • • •+-Z=7C'�.r�orr'`t�/ \•�fv�• • J - • "�• M � �"��r � � . `'`^ti.., - iIk
_ �i►. »,mit i« y '•i�jA..•-tie` .: .. �.. '..+t ,' a� _ rI'M'l�.�y
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 24 August 1989
TO: Jeff0'Neill
FROM: GJohn Uban
RE: 7th Street Alignment
We have studied the various conditions affecting two choices of alignments for 71h Street
with the City'swnsultingen&eers,OSM. Lincoln Properties is proposing the addition of
K•Mart to the west of the existing shopping center which necessitates the extension of 7th
Street for access.
The extension of 7th Street with the building of K•Mart will act as a catalyst for
additional development in the area specifically to the uest adjacent to the interstate. We
believe the addition of K•Mart in this area willcreate o strong market for new
development and the impact of the alignment on the property adjacent to the interstate
should be looked at at this time.
Alternate Routes
Alternate f is the twisting proposed route which curves around existing single-family
properties leaving a curving and undulating frontage road which narrows at the property
adjacent to 1.94 and limits development opportunities in sone areas adjacent to the
interstate. Alternate I has lwcn used forplanning purposes for other atljncentptopertics
as development has been approved, thus looking in certain access relationships and grade
restrictions along 7th Street.
Alternate 2 is more direct route that necessitates the removal of two residential
prnpertie_a, however, it opens up more land along the inter state to allow greater depth of
property and thus, more flexibility for future development. Alternate 2 alignment follows
o natural ridge line in the area, offering the opportunity to create separation between
commercial and residential uses through the use of grade separation.
08
Jeff O'Neill, 24 August 1484 Page 2
l_
Proposed Development
Lincoln Properties is proposing the addition of a K -Mart which would require a parking lot
of approximately 450 parking stalls. The K -Mart would back against the interstate with
its main parking to the north and west facing out toward the future 7th Street, K -Mart
parking lot can be stoped at four percent grade allowing it to match into either alignment.
We anticipate that additional commercial development could range in size from 120,000 and
175,000 square feet. The probable uses might be a grocery store, building supply, auto
dealership, restaurants, and other freestanding retail. All of these uses will want visibility
from the interstate.
City Traffic Circulation
OSM has reviewed the probable traffic load at the intersection of 7th Street and Highway
25 and have confirmed with the Highway Department that future development will not
overload this intersection. Presently, the mall and other interstate commercial is
connected to the downtown commercial area by way of Walnut Street and Highway 25.
As commercial expands to the west and 7th Street is extended to the west, additional
north -south connectors need to be strengthened. At present, Locust Street and Lynn Saect
do not cross the railroad trac'-s and cannot provide this linkage, Maple Street crosses the
tracks but cannot connect to 71h Street because of Monticello Apartments. Minnesota
Street can connect to 71h Street but does not cross the tracks. Vine Street also does not
cross the tracks. Pim Street to the far west does connect through. We recommend that
some combination of a tied together alignment between Minnesota and Maple Street be
explored to provide the north -south linkage to the downtown area.
Alternate I
Alternate I is the alignment of 7th Street that has been approved by the City Council
and reviewed by the affected landowners. This alignment gives access both to K -Mart and
Lucas Johnson multiple family development but skirts around the Monticello Apartments and
the Christensen property along Minnesota Street, By avoiding the Christensen property and
the next residential property on the west side of Minnesota Sucet, the 7th Street
alignment comes within 190 feet of the interstate, creating an irregular shaped and shallow
commercial lots. 'Ihc alignment then connects to I:Im Street and creates deeper lots
adjacent to Elm Street. This alignment would allow sonic medium sized development
adjacent to K•Mart possibly using a shared parking arrangement. The shallower lots would
attract smaller businesses such as restaurants, muffler strops, etc. The far western end of
7th Street adjacent to Elm Street would support larger development because of tite added
depth to the interstate right-of-way.
On the north side of ram Street, the Comprehensive flan calls for apartments but
additionnl commercial could be developed in this area for double frontage on 7th Street.
It would be anticipated that all of 71h Street be dedicated by the affected property
owners as development progresses.
09
Jeff O'Neill, 24 August 1989 Page 3
Alternate 2
Alternate 2 provides an alignment that moves 7th Street farther from the interstate
R.O.W. to provide lot depths in the 400 foot range. This lot depth will create the
opportunities for larger developments and businesses to be located adjacent to the
interstate. This alignment also follows the natural bluffline providing an opportunity for
separation of a dissimilar use of residential by virtue of topography. Alternate 2 provides
the same anticipated access to the Johnson property, but would necessitate the purchase of
the Christenson property and the next residential property to the west for the purpose of
completing the road alignment.
We would anticipate development potential of 170,000 square feet which would be about
50,000 square feet more than the potential for Alternate 1. The added costs of this
alignment might be in the range of $200,000 for the developer or City to add to the cost
of 71h Street.
Conclusions
1. To maintain commercial linkage to downtown a strong north -south connector
to 7th Street via M innesota/Maple Street and via Elm Street should be developed.
2. Alternate 1 will encourage smaller businesses adjacent to the interstate where
Alternate 2 will encourage larger regionally oriented businesses adjacent to the
f interstate. Alternate would be less circuitous and more convenient for cross
traffic along the interstate.
3. Based on planning for the extension of commercial from the K•Mart area, Alternate
2 would provide for the best access and encourage more typical development
patterns along the interstate. Alternate I is already approved and accepted and
would not need additional expenditures of money for riglu-of-way but would force
some small lot development along the interstate and would prnvide some large lot
development to the far west.
4. Since the Alternate 2 alignment would offer greater potential for spin-off
development from K -Mart, we believe it is in the hest interest of the developer to
weigh the costs of the acquisition of additional property against the potential for his
expanded development. City expenditures at this time for additional properties may
undermine the idea of dedication of 7th Street between Minnesota Sueet and Elm
Street.
OJO
�u
(TOTAL
S(JMMARY OF I COST
FOUR ALTERNATIVE
I
ALT. 2A -COUNCIL REC-9/111$604,400
I
ALT. 1 -LINCOLN PROPOSAL 1$588,300
1
ALT. 2-CCMPROMISE 1$588.300
1
ALT. 3-CURVED,NO TIF 1$335.400
TIF ACTUAL LINCOLN
ASSISTANCECITY COMPANIES
$239,250 $63,065 $181,900
$452,300 $81,414 $45.500
$306,463 $55,163 $183,525
$0 $20,125 $223.900
u
CALTERNATIVE 2A - FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING - 9/11/89
°BASIS FOR NEGOTIATIONS"
STRAIGHT ROUTE
I
(%AMt As P►av1e44rf
TOTAL ITIF
USES
!
SEVENTH STREET
I
$151,000
LAND VALUE
$0 1
EXCESS LAND
50 I $0
PRATT
$61,000 1 $30,500
HOLTHAUS
$56,000 $28,000
HRAMER
$197,000 1$127,000
SAN/ST SEWER
$84,000 I
ON-SITE PONDING $39,400
OEMO/RELOCATICN $16,000 $16,000
TOTAL_ COST $604,400 1$239,250
SOURCES
ALTERNATIVE. 1 - LINCOLN COMPANIES FORMAL PROPWAL. A3 OF 9/21/89
(%AMt As P►av1e44rf
STRAIGHT ROUTE I
LINCOLN
LINCOLN
HORNIG
HOLTHOUSLAND CITY
TOTAL
ASSESS
ASSESS
ASSESS SALE ASSESS
PROCEEDS
TOTAL ITIF
$0
$75, Soo
$31,740
$0
SO $151,ODO
s0
ASSESS
ASSESS ASSESS
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0
$30,500
$0
$0
$0
$0 $61,000
$28,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $56,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $70,000
$0 $197,000
$84,000
$0
$0
SO
$0 $84,000
$39.400
$0
s0
50
$0 $39,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $16,000
$181,900 $75,500 $37,750 $0 $70,000 $0 $604,400
ACTUAL CITY CST (18%) $43,065
ACTUAL. LINCOLN COMPANIES COST $257,400
4 14,44 IY wf* 4-14
&Y
ALTERNATIVE. 1 - LINCOLN COMPANIES FORMAL PROPWAL. A3 OF 9/21/89
(%AMt As P►av1e44rf
STRAIGHT ROUTE I
tea t
I SOURCES
TOTAL ITIF
LINCOLN
LINCOLN
HORNIG HOLTHCRISLAND CITY
TOTAL,
USES
ASSESS
ASSESS ASSESS
SALE A5SM
I
PROD. EED3
�J4
£ihVENTH STkkET 5191,000 14130,500
SO
�.
- $Op
$20,600
$O
$O $151,000
Umn VA: Wl SO $0
$0
$0
So
$0 $0
EAT10 L -ANO so J $0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0 $0
PRATT $61,000 $35.500
$25,500
$0
30
$0
s0 $61,000
HOLTHAUS $49.900 1 5:9,900
$20,000
so
s0
$0
$0 $49.900
NRAME.R $187,000 1$117,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 $70,000
$0 $187,000
,AN/ST SEWER $14.000 1 $94.000
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0 $H4,000
ON-SITE, PONDING $39,400 I $39.400
s0
$0
s0
$0
$0 $39,400
DEMP/RELOCATION 516.000 I $16.000
$0
$0
s0
So
50 $16.Pro
TOTAL_ 1'MT $588,300 1 $452.100
$45,500
$0
$:0.500
$0 $70.000
$O $588.400
"W, CITY LAST (18%) $81,414
MTIIAL L INCON CCMPANIE9 COST
$45,500
.. 1 1.,'1 1 h ***-40 440.#4.0
r,.' 1'1...1:1',1' wr11.MM+1n1M
VM.:1'1 / I.:.'1^I'
MI.1oMr'1�1^1 rn"w.I''1'I / /1'M
♦ 1'M r . M v rr 1' Y . 1
&Y
r
ALTERNATIVE 2 - IF COUNCIL CONVINCED OF FINANCIAL NEED, THE FOLLOWING
STRAIGHT ROUTE IS A COMPROMISE ALTEF44ATIVE Tu IKE LINCOLN COMPANY REQUEST
(SOURCES
TOTAL ITIF
USES I
i
(
SEVENTH STREET $151,000 I $66,063
LAND VALUE $0
EXCESS LAND $0 I $0
PRATT $61,000 ( $35,500
HOLTHAUS $49,900 ( $29,900
KRAMER $187,000 1$117,000
SAN/ST SEWER $84,000 ( $42,000
ON• -SITE PONDING $39.43C I
DEMO/RELOCATION $16,000 I $16,000
TOTAL COST $588.'x;.
LINCOLN LINCOLN HORNIG HOLTHCUSLAND CITY TOTAL
ASSESS ASSESS ASSESS SALE ASSESS
PROCEEDS
$0 $56,625 $28,319 $0 $0 $151.000
$0 s0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$25,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61.000
$20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,90n
$0 $0 $0 $0 $70.000 $0 $187,000
$42.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84.000
$39,400 $I: $C s0 $0 $39.400
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16.000
$0 $70,900 $0 $588.300
ACTUAL CITY COST (18'x) $55,163
ACTUAL LINCOLN COMPANIES COST $163,525
1'141cc:1 i.1.i i 144' V.4 1.*4MY'\:MiI.Mil=kI'1'i.:1.*ih1.�V:k+kh.�iMYY I.i Vi.i.I.MM YY.A.!
ALTERNATIVE 3 DENIAL OF CITY PARTICIPATION IN TIF - USE (.$IRVED ROUTE
CURVED ROUTE ISOURCES
NO TIF I
TOTAL )TIF LINCOLN LINOCILN HOFCUIG HCLTH0U5LANO CITY TOTAL
USES I ASSESS ASSESS ASSESS SALE A55ESS
I PROCEFOS
,EVENTH '3TRtET $161,000 I $0 $0 $80.500 $40,250 $20,125 $0 $20.1254$161,000
LAND VALUE $43,000 ( $20,000 $0 $0 s0 30 s0 s20,000
F1(C.ESS I AND $8.000 I Sn $0 SO $0 $0 $8,000 $0 $8,001)
PRAT_ s0 ! $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WX.THAUS s0 j $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0
KRAMFR s0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 s0
,;AN/ST SEWER $84,000 I $0 $04.opn $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $84.000
()N�SITE PONDING $39,400 ! $0 $39.400 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $39.400
N:M( VRf I I VAT ION s0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0
TOTAL- C(ISTM M $335,400 �- So $143,400 560,500 $40.250 $20,125 ^$8,000 $20.125 $312.400
ACTitAl, CITY COST (18%) $20.125
Af"TUAL LIWlXN COMPANIES COST $223,900
Lit{i{fit♦{�1'ti.{.4{{t"i1'{.t{i{t41"i{,tmi♦.Y4 tY*i1iii{4t{Y•i{{{'/{*i'i1f'i•{{ii*{iR161{4fi4�f 41 V'V IV. ♦Rri4�♦
Sep 13,99 11:07 THE LINCCOLN COMPANIES P.03/U3
c10111CILL8IIP S4U1C11966 ANILIIIS
M CI$ 1,1310611 001PI9163 101111 Tit WIND SALE C111 10111,
C011111UT101 P@OC16DS
TN ST1E1T
IS1,161.00
0.00
11,116.10 110,614.44
0.00
0,00
IS1,111.00
Plitt
61,100.00
16,500.00
0.04
16,640.00
0.00
0.01
11,640.00
101T1AOS
61,100.00
10,000.00
4.00
16,000.00
0.00
0.00
16,000.00'
111411
141,000.00
0.00
0.04la1,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
191,000.00
3111TAIY SIIII I
11,000.00
0.00
0.00
60,000.00
0.00
0.00
11,000.00
1016ECT1011
1NP01A1Y P010110
3!,640.60
0.00
1.00
19,600.04
0.00
4.04
19,600.00
YOU
611,100.00
41,100.00
IO,6f6.10
663,100.00
10,100.00
0.10
611,000.00
19111" LII106I
C01PA1191 0031
Vitus of coutributcf 11,100.00
Ind
Led pord4le 01,100.00
hta I 101,100.00
fit CITY COST
Tit 1.11 11,111.00
�3 ,
The
Lincoln
Companies
810 E. lake titrrvl. Suite 21X1
Wayzata. Minn(,,)tn'.6a:11
V121 d71'�1MMM)
Rx: (r 12) 471; IM1911
September 21, 1989
Mr. Jeff O'Neill BY FAX
Assistant City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Monticello Mall/K Mart
Dear Jeff:
enjoyed the opportunity to address the Monticello Planning Commission
regarding several important Issues pertaining to the K Mart development.
Their support was very encouraging. That's the type of support that
makes an owner such as myself want to keep fighting the fight to make the
Monticello Mall/K Mart project work.
The numbers 1 would like you to provide the city council regarding the
public improvements and purchase of additional land for future
developments are the numbers enclosed with Chuck's September 13th
letter. In addition to our strong belief that these are public purpose
Improvements, our project cannot withstand any additional costs. The
project's feasibility would become doubtful, due to modifications in plans
and final pricing with additional project costa. This project cannot even
support a development fee to our company which is the first time this has
ever happened. The existing mall continues to lose money each month
which puts further strain on the project.
We feel very strongly that the costs In question, in which we have agreed
to participate, are of o public purpose nature extending beyond the scope
of our project. 1 would like to recommend that the council approve the
financing structure as we proposed subject to staff working with us to
verify the project's Inability to absorb additional costa.
e-
C_
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
September 21, 1989
page two
The K Mart is an opportunity for everyone if it is built. Should it be
built, the success of the mail remains a risk for us. I look forward to
attending the upcoming city coucil meeting and working with all concerned
so a project that should happen can happen.
ery truly yours,
Thomas P. DuFresne
President
TPD a e ko
34Y
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
6. Consideration of requirements for Star City recertification. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The objective of this agenda item is three fold: One, is to inform
Council of a brief overview of the Star City Program; second, to inform
Council of the Star City recertification requirements; and third, to seek
Council approval or denial for Monticello to continue participation in
the Star City Program.
The Star City Program is a guideline to assist cities develop and
maintain an organized economic development program through a Star City
Commission (a commission established by a city ordinance). Monticello
was certified as a Star City in 1982, second in line to Montevideo.
Today, Minnesota has some ninety Star Cities, which gives an idea of the
number of competitive cities with organized economic development
programs.
The Star City Program explores ways a commminity can reach economic
development objectives by organizing. It outlines reasons for organizing
and provides practical ways to establish an organizational structure.
Key steps in the process include: Assessing community strengths and
development constraints; Identifying leadership and selecting members;
Creating a common purpose, focal point, and community theme, and creating
an organizational structure best suited for that community.
There are three primary reasons why communities are willing to organize
for economic development: benefits; combined force; and common purpose.
Most members of a commnunity benefit from increased economic development,
usually linked to the area's growth, and the accompanying increase in
retail sales, bank transactions, expenditures, jobs, and tax revenues.
The increase in jobs and economic factors often translate into additional
households, population, school age children and school enrollments,
retail establishments, and personal and community income.
Organizing creates a collective force of all the members, enabling the
organization to better respond to various economic development needs. By
combining forces, an organization will have more 1) ideas and
alternatives --more members generate more ideas and a greater variety of
alternatives; and 2) resources --the organized input of time, talent, and
financial resources results in greater likelihood of achieving goals.
Members of an organization will be more willing to participate if they
perceive a common and ongoing purpose and theme to the economic
development effort. In some cases, the common purpose is directly
related to current benefits, but it can also relate to an individual's
expectation to satisfy a vented interest. Benefits and expectations are
not always tied to monetary rewards, however, personal satisfaction and
y commnunity pride can often become the strongest motivating factors.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
The procedure required for annual Star City recertification consists of
seven steps:
1. Affirmation of Participation.
A response is requested from each Star City indicating its intention
to continue with or be dropped from the program. The letter must be
signed by your mayor and returned to MN/DTED by February 15, 1990.
2. Bi -Annual Presentation.
Minnesota Star Cities seeking recertification must biannually
schedule a meeting with MN DTED to overview the previous year's work
program. Since your city was visited and recertified last year, it
will not be scheduled a site visit until 1990. However, it must
comply with all annual recertification procedures and timelines.
3. Annual Report.
Recognizing that membership in an economic developtnent organization
changes over time and that the community is hopefully progressing
toward its goals, an annual report must also be coupleted and
submitted to the Development Resources Office of MN DT®. The annual
report must contain the following information:
a. A 1990 Work Program describing the organization's plan for the
upcoming calendar year including a list of project priorities,
related costs, methods of financing, time schedules, individuals
responsible for carrying out each task, and technical assistance
required. (Refer to 1 Year Work Plan contained in the Star
Cities Manual for recommanended forret.)
b. A current five-year economic development plan and a description
of changes in the conaunity's long range goals described in the
original economic development plan.
c. A description or the changes in the responsibilities and
xemmbership of the economic development organization.
d. A summary of organizational activities during 1989 such as the
number of meetings held and important matters discussed.
e. A description of the changes that have occurred in the
community's econotrry, including industries or businesses currently
operating and newly opened, establishment or expansion of
industrial parks, construction or expansion of existing
industrial and cornmercLal businesses, and closings of existing
buslnessea and reductions in employment.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
f. A description of the forias of assistance the organization has
provided to business and industry and assistance the organization
has received, including financial and technical from federal,
regional, state, and private organizations which relates to
economic development.
The annual report imist be submitted to the Development Resources
Office before February 15, 1990. If a community fails to meet
the time requirements for either the presentation or the annual
report, representatives of the community will be requested to
meet with DIED staff to determine whether the community should
continue in the program or withdraw. If extenuating or unusual
circumstances beyond the coimrninity's control are shown to be the
reason for its inability to comply with the deadlines, the
Business Promotion Division, at its discretion, may approve an
extension.
4. Community Profile.
Minnesota Star Cities for Economic Development must couplete a
Community Profile on an annual basis in the format prescribed by the
Development Resources Office. The deadline for coirpleting the
profile is February 15 of each calendar year. Following its
coirpletion, the profile is submitted to the Development Resources
Office for official printing and distribution.
5. Business Retention. (Should be coirpleted by 11/15/89)
Minnesota Star Cities must contact all area manufacturers and major
employers to determine (1) coirpany plane for expansion -relocation and
(2) concerns of the business community which can be addressed through
legislative or administrative action. This is accoirplished by
surveying companies with the Business Retention Survey provided to
the community by DIED. Completed surveys must be returned to MN OTED
by the 70th of November to be included in the aggregate statewide
Business Retention Report.
6. Continuing Education.
A training session will be conducted quarterly to provide continuing
education for all Star City Coordinators and committee chairpersons.
Changes in laws affecting business and industry, new techniques in
the field of economic dovelopmsnt, and other vitally important topics
will be covered. Representatives from officially designated Star
Cities are required to attend.
7. Failure to Comply.
If no unusual circumstances prevent completion of the annual report
and the other requirements for recertification, a decision will be
trade to place the cotrnmunity in reassessment status. Cities which
retain this status for more than two years will be dropped from the
Star City Program.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
As you read, the first requirement of the Star City recertification
procedure is the Affirmation of Participation which indicates a city's
intention to continue or drop the Star City Program. Prior to the
organization or the Business Retention Survey and visit, which is to be
completed by November 15, staff requests City Council to consider whether
the City of Monticello will continue or withdraw from the Star City
Program. Your Star City Coordinator will visit and survey 17 industrial
businesses again this year and for the first time will be accompanied by
an Industrial Development Committee member. This is one of the positive
1989 IDC goals.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The City of Monticello will continue participation in the Minnesota
Star City Program.
2. The City of Monticello will withdraw from the Minnesota Star City
Program.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends the City Council authorize the City of Monticello
to continue participation in the Minnesota Star City Program, as it is a
couwunity effort to maintain Monticello's organized economic development
program.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Monticello's industrial businesses, Copy of the business
retention surveys Copy of Monticello's 1989 Community Profile.
t
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIES
Fulfillment Systems, Inc.
Rainbow Enterprises
Jack Peach
Andy Anderson
406 Lauring Lane
108 Chelsea Road
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295-2929
295-1100
Fingerhut Corporation
Automatic Garage Door Company
Dan Jackson
Greg Tobias
PO Box 10
1281 South Cedar St.
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295-4599
295-4343
Electro Industries, Inc.
ABR, Inc.
William and Merrilyn Seefeldt
Jerry Andrusko
2150 West River Street
PO Box 657
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295•-4138
295-2133
Clow Stairping Company
Sunny Fresh Foods
Rick Clow
Doug Luthanen
218 Chelsea Road
206 West 4th St., PO Box 428
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295-5050
295-5666
Bondhus Corporation
Northern States Power
John Bondhus
Harvey Rendall
1349 Hart Blvd.
Box 600
PO Box 660
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295-5151
295-2162
SMA Elevator Construction
Larson Mfg. Coupany
Arlan Wille
Mr. Gale Simon
113 Chelsea Road
201 Chelsea Road
Oakwood Industrial Park
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295-3850
295-4367
M 6 P Transports, Inc.
Jones Mfg.
Jay Morrell
Alvin Jones
1401 Fallon Avenue
PO Box 126
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295-3122
295-3246
Erik Fjerdingstad
Bob Novak
NAWCO Minnesota, Inc.
Titan Recreational Products, Inc.
1324 Oakwood Drive
114 Thomas Park Drive
PO Box 206
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticello, MN 55362
295-3683
295-5305
WED Precision Machining Inc.
Wally Dunning
1248 Fast Oakwood Drive
Monticello, MN 55362
August 1, 1989
IMINESS RETENTION AID
EXPANSION SURYEY
PARi ONE
Business Name
Address
Zip Code Telephone
BUSINESS HISTORY
Year business established
Year present ownership/management assumed control
Is this location the company headquarters? Yes_ No_
if no, what is the location of the company headquarters?
Cite State
Legal entity type (Check only one.)
1. Corporation _
2. Partnership _
3. Sole Proprietor _
4. Non-profit Corporation _
S. Cooperative _
6. Other _
Primary Business Type: (Check only one)
1. Agriculture/ Fore stry/Fishing _
2. Mining _
3. Construction _
4. Manufacturing _
5. Transportation/Utilities _
6. Wholesale Trade _
7. Retail Trade _
8. Finance/Insurance/Real Estate _
9. Services _
�D
ILI
SIC Codes or Major Commodities, Products or Services
(Be as specific as possible.)
Principal Market Area: (Enter this as a percentage of sales for
each of the following categories. The total should equal 100 percent.)
Local - - -
State - - -
National _ _ _
International _ _ _
EMPLOYMENT
How many persons do you currently employ at this facility?
Estimate the number of:
full-time permanent (year round)
(ft)
- - _ -
part-time seasonal peak
(pt)
_ _ - _
(P)
----
(s)
- - - —
How many employees one year ago?
Return
How many of your employees (full time ea 'v n ) are in each of
the following categories:
Number Annual Salary
No.
Salary
Professional
Managerial
Commercial Sales
Retail Sales
Clerical
Services
Machine Operatives
Precision Production
Technical
Handler/Laborer
Return
NOTE: Convert Hourly Wage to Annual
Salary (hourly wage x 2080) -2-
What benefits do you offer your employees?
Single Health Care Yes
No
Family Health Care Yes
No _
Dental Insurance Yes
No _
Retirement Plan Yes
No _
How many vacation days after one year employment?
How many sick days afer one year employment?
1
Have you had difficulty recruiting or retaining employees in
the following skills categories? (Circle the appropriate code
number and only answer for those occupations answered above.)
1. No Problem
2. Moderate Problem
3. Severe Problem
.3-
V
Recruiting
Retaining Recruit Retain
Professional
1 2 3
1
2
3
Managerial
1 2 3
1
2
3
Commercial Sales
1 2 3
1
2
3
Retail Sales
1 2 3
1
2
3
Clerical
1 2 3
1
2
3
Services
1 2 3
1
2
3
Machine Operatives
1 2 3
1
2
3
Precision Production
1 2 3
1
2
3 _
Technical
1 2 3
1
2
3
Handler/Laborer
1 2 3
1
2
3
.3-
V
-4-
0
Has your
business ever participated in job training programs?
,f
i—
yes
no
Which ones? (P7ease specify.) Were
they successful?
Program No. Result
(I)Successful
(2)Unsuccessful
(1)Successful
(2)Unsuccessful
OPTIONS
1.
NEED - MN Employment and Economic Development Act
2.
Job Training OJT
3.
Job Skills Partnership
4.
Community College/Technical
Institute
S.
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit
6.
Veterans OJT
7.
Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA)
8.
Private Training Program
`
9.
Other
-4-
0
BUSINESS REM100 NO EXPANSION
PART TU
Survey Number
city --
legislative District
Region
County
Interviewer Name
Date Interviewed
Name of the Business
CEO or Manager's Name
Title
LOCATION FACTORS
What factors do you currently regard as most advantageous or
favorable to remaining, expanding or relocating within this
community? (Specify up to four factors. Be as specific
as possible.)
1.
2.
3. _
4.
What factors currently discourage you from expanding or
remaining in this community? (Specify up to four factors.
Be as specific as possible.)
1.
2.
3.
( 4. --
S-
turn
C
What importance do you give the following factors in considering
remaining, expanding or relocating? (Please circle appropriate
number below.)
Ratino Key
1 -Very Important 3 -Somewhat important
2 -important 4 -Not Important
FACTORS
01
Labor Skill (cost, skill, availability)
1 2
3
4 _
02
Labor Availability
1 2
3
4
03
Roads (highways, local roads)
1 2
3
4
04
Other Transportation (rail, air, water)
1 2
3
4 _
05
Land (cost, availability, location)
1 2
3
4
06
Permit Processes (zoning, building, environmental)
1 2
3
4 _
Ol
Public Services (water, sewer, police)
1 2
3
4 _
08
Utilities (electric, natural gas)
1 2
3
4 _
09
finance (equity, debt, venture, stocks)
1 2
3
4
10
Government Programs (assistance, incentives, job training)
1 2
3
4 _
11
Business Services (legal, tinanctai, etc.)
i 2
3
4
12
Market Access (local, regional, international)
1 2
3
4 _
13
Supply Access (raw materials, components)
1 2
3
4 _
14
Quality of Life (environment, recreation, culture)
1 2
3
4
15
State Income/Sales Taxes
1 2
3
4
16
Other Imposed State Costs (workers compensation,
unemployment insurance)
1 2
3
4
17
Property Taxes
1 2
3
4
18
Local Education (K-12)
1 2
3
4
19
Nigher Education (universities, colleges, ATI's)
1 2
3
4 _
20
Other (please specify)
1 2
3
4
M
0
PUBLIC SERVICES
Are the services and the facilities within our community,
as 1 isted below, adequate for your current or future
business needs? (Please circle the appropriate number below.)
Rating Kev
1 -Adequate
2 -Inadequate
3 -Do not know
1.
Roads
1 2
3 _
2.
Sewers
1 2
3 _
3.
Water
1 2
3 _
4.
Police Protection
1 2
3 _
S.
Fire Protection
1 2
3 _
6.
Solid Waste Disposal
1 2
3 _
7.
Emergency Medical Services
1 2
3 _
8.
Electric/Natural Gas Services
1 2
3 _
- 9.
School System
1 2
3 _
10.
Facility Space Availability
1 2
3 _
11.
Land Availability
1 2
3 _
12.
Rail Service
1 2
3 _
13.
Air Service
1 2
3 _
If you indicated that one or more of the community services
were inadequate, have you contacted the city/county about
the problem?
Yes_ 110_ _
Did officials make a satisfactory effort to solve the problem?
Yes_ No_ _
Was the problem solved? Yes_ No_ _
7- 0
BUSINESS CHANGES
p In the past three years have you:
1. Changed your mix of goods and services
Yes_
No_ _
2. Expanded your facility in this community?
Yes_
No_ _
3. Expanded elsewhere?
Yes_
No_ _
4. Increased employment?
Yes_
No_ _
5. Decreased employment?
Yes_
No_ _
6. Added production lines?
Yes_
No_ _
7. Modernized production technology?
Yes_
No_ _
8. Made other capital improvements?
Yes_
No_ _
Which of the following changes do you plan for the next two years?
1.
Change your mix of goods and services.
Yes_
No_ _
2.
Expand plant facilities.
Yes_
No_ _
3.
Relocate.
Yes_
No_ _
4.
Add employees.
Yes_
No_ _
5.
Keouce employees.
Yes_
No_ _
`
6.
Add production lines.
Yes_
No_ _
7.
Modernize production technology.
Yes_
No_ _
B.
Make other capital improvements.
Yes_
No_ _
if you indicated plans to relocate, where would you move? (Check only
one.) _
1. Within this city
2. Within this county
3. Within Minnesota
4. Other
When would you relocate? (Check only one.) _
1. Within six months
2. Six months to one year
3. One to•three years
C 4. Other
040
What are your principal reasons for relocating outside of the city?
(Check as many as apply.)
1. Labor supply/cost
Yes_,
No_ _
2. City services
Yes—
No_ _
3. Inadequacy of land/facilities
Yes—
No, _
4. Incentives from other cities/states
Yes—
No_ _
5. Minnesota business climate
Yes
No -
o _
6.
fi. Other
Yes
tio^
Do you have current needs for or rant additional information on:
(Check as many as apply.)
I. Business plan assistance
2. Financing assistance
3. Management assistance
4. Marketing assistance
5. Job training assistance
6. Government Procurement
7. Exporting Workshops
B. Export Financing
9. Assistance in Responding to
Export Leads
10. Assistance in selecting foreign
distributors
9-
Yes_
No—
Yes—
tio_ _
Yes—
No_
Yes—
No, _
Yes^
No—
o—Yesi
Yes—
No_ _
Yes_,
No— _
Yes_
No— _
Yes_ No— _
Yes_ No_ _
The Minnesota D"rmxnt off Trade and Economic Devekrpnxnt
City of Monticello
8611
County: Wright Distance from Minneapolis/St. Paul: 45 miles NW
Region: 7W Distance from Duluth: 200 miles SW
Papulation
Source of Estimate: State Demographer
Year City
County
1960 Census 1,231
29.935
1970 Census 1,477
38,933
1980 Census 2,830
58,681
1987 Estimate 4,054
65,839
Industry
x in
Major £mpioyers
product3l5ervice
Enrp;ojeeS v,iun Jnic;
Northern States Power Company
Nuclear Power
269 NEW 48
Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc.
Egg Processing
150
Finggerhut Corporation
Direct Mail
90
Fulfillment Systems, Inc.
Premium Redemptions
87
Bondhus Corporation
Hand Tools
55
ABK, Inc.
Custom Draperies
52 AC d T 75
M 8 P Transports, Inc.
Bulk Cement
42
Electro Industries
Load Management
28
Janes Manufacturing
Jewelry Manufacture
25
Automatic Garage Door Company
Garage Door Products
18
Nawco Minnesota, Inc.
Window Production
11
Clow Stamping Company
Metal Stamping
9
SMA Elevators
Seed Elevator Const.
8
Employment
Labor Survey Date: Business Retention Survey, January 1989
Type of Employment Number Employed
Manufacturing 859 Available in Labor Force: 33,400
Non -Manufacturing 2,185 Annual Average Unemployment: 5.0 %
Total Employment 3,044
Notes: Labor force available figure is 1988 county annual average.
0
8611
Manufacturing Occupations in Area (Production and Clerical)
Occupation or Job Title Median Mage
Sales
$
14.42
/hr.
Managerial
f
8.40
/hr.
Cleri cal
$
6.73
/hr.
Preci cion Production
S
6.00
/hr.
Technical
$
5.50
/hr.
Handl er/Laborer
S
4.75
/hr.
Source of Data: Median wage rates without fringe benefits
Transportation
Rail Lines: Burlington Northern Inc.
Frequency: On demand
Reciprocal Switching: no Distance to Main Line: on main line
Piggy -back Service: no Passenger Service: no
Truck Lines: Consolidated, Hyman, Liefert, Morrell Transfer, American, Yellow Freight
Terminals: 1
Airports: 1 Commercial Service: no Charter Service: no Jet Service: no
Nearest: Commercial at Minneapolis, 50 miles
Airlines: no
Navigation Aids: runway lights
Runway: 2,500 feet sed DistAnro to r;Rn: 1 mild
Bus - Inter City: no
Intra City: no
Navigable Mater: no Depth: - feet
Highways Interstate: 1.94 borders City
Federal: - State: Trunk 125
Load Limits: 9 tons
Commercial/Industrial Taxes Payable- 1989
Minnesota real estate tares are based on market value, construed to be the price
that a w 11 ing buyer would pay to a will ing seller in a free market. A two-step
formula is used: 1. The first 5100,000 of market value times 3.3% plus the remaining
market value times 5.25%equal s tax capacity. 2. Tax capacity times the total
tax capacity equals property taxes payable.
Municipal Rate 14.283% Tax Capacity
County Rate 20.619% Tax capacity
School Rate 44.175% Tax Capacity
Misc . Rate 3.014% Tax Capacity
Total Rate 82.091% Tax Capacity
Government
Organization: mayor council
Department Regular Employees: Part Time Employees:
Fire Department 0 25 volunteers
POT i ee 0 0
Sheriff 1 0
City 24 0
Refuse Service: public Master Plan: yes
Insurance Rating: 6 Annual Budget: S 5, 766,000
Industrial Piens Approved by: Zoning Administrator /-
8611
Utilities
Municipal Water Source: wells Storage Capacity: 1,600,000 gallons
` Pumping Capacity: 2,400 G/M Total Tapwater Hardness: 342 PPM
Average Demand: 500,000 G/O Peak Demand: 1,200,000 G/D
Industrial Water Rate: $6.00 min. to 500 c.f.; S.50/100 c.f. next 3,500 c.f.;
S.30/100 c.f. next 71M c.f.: S.20 per 100 thereafter.
Sewer Service: -
Capacity of sewage treatment plant: 910,000 G/D
Average demand: 450,000 G/D Peak demand: 700,000 G/O
Sewer Use Charge: $10.00 minimum to 500 cu. ft.; $1.33 per 100 cubic feet
thereafter.
Electric Service: Northern States Power Company
Telephone: 800/892-0343
Gas Service: North Central Services
Telephone: 612/755-4000
Telephone Service: Bridgewater Telephone Company 612/295-2874
Community Services
Hotels: - Hotel Rooms: - Motels: 3 Motel Units: 132
Hospital Beds: 39 Nursing Home Beds: 90
Doctors: 95 Dent sts: 5
Nearest Hospital: -
Churches: Protestant: 8 Catholic: I Jewish: 0 Other: 0
Main Cultural Attractions 6 Festivals:
'Little Mountain Village,' authentic European Village; host Syttende Mai
fpctival
Newspapers: 0 daily 1 weekly Radio stations: 1 AM 1 FM
Meeting Facilities; 3 Capacity of 3 largest: 1,000
Retail Sales: County: $272,027,314 (1987 City: 138,724,256 (1987)
Per capita income: County: 1 12,615 (1980
Financial Institutions and Deposits:
Wright County State Bank $39 million
Security FederalSavings and Loan $250 million
First National Bank 828 million
Post Office: first class Express Mail Service: yes
Service Organizations:
Chamber, Rotary, Lions, Lioness, Jaycees
Education
Schools (lumber Enrollment Grades Included
Elementary 1 1,575 K-6
Junior high 1 600 7-9
Senior high 1 580 10.12
Parochial 1 44 K-12
Private 0 0 0
Pupil to Teachor Ratio: Elementary: 22.0/1 High school: 19.0/1
%High school going to college: 43 % %College graduates: - %
Nearest Aroa Vocational Training institute: St. Cloud Technical institute
TI training spDecialty:
Water and Waste Treatment, Heating and Air Conditioning Distance 30 miles
Nearest Community College: North Hennepin at Brooklyn Park Distance 45 miles��
Nearest University: St. Cloud State University Distance 30 mile y; 1
r
L
Climate
Coldest Month: January
Mean Daily Max: 20 degrees F
Mean Daily Min: 2 degrees F
No. of Days Between Killing frosts: 178
Average Annual Snowfall: 65 inches
Industrial Sites
Site: Oakwood Industrial Dark
Acres Avail able: 69 acres
Site Owner: Oakwood Corporation
Option Held by Development. Group: no
Site Zoned: yes In City Limits: yes
If not in city, - miles from city
Services at Site:
electricity sanitary sewer
treated water paved roads
Location Services
Local Development Corporation:
Chamber of Commerce Manager: Yes
Community Contacts
Rick Wolfsteller
City Admin istrator
250 East Broadway
Monticello , MN 55362
612/295-27 11
8611
Hottest Month: July
Mean Daily Max: 83 degrees F
Mean Daily Min: 63 degrees F
No, of Days Above 90 Degrees: 15
Average Annual Preci p.: 26 inches
Site: Laurin g Hillside Terrace
Acres Available: 25 acres
Site Owner: Roy Lauring
Option Held by Development Group: no
Site Zoned: yesIn City Limits: yes
If not in city, - miles from city
Services At Site:
electricity sanitary sewer
gas paved roads
treated water
Olive M. Koropchak P
director of Economic Deveiopment
250 East Broadwa5S362
Monticello, MN 5
612/295.2711
Incentives :
Additional industrial sites: Hoglunds Si to - 72.5 acres and Boyles Site - 50+
acres.
Remarks:
Contracts through the county for police protection.
Sixty-six consul ting physicians available and 29 emergency staff.
Minnesota Department of Trade 8 Economic Development Senate district: 22
Business Promotion Division House district: 22a
900 American Center Building
150 EasL ne.l;,;g ec_levarn
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296.5022 Prepared: ubji5iiyo-5
J
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
1�
7. Consideration of Town of Monticello ordinance prohibiting the use of
sewage sludge within the Town of Monticello. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you all are aware, Monticello Township passed an ordinance on
September 5 prohibiting the use of sewage sludge from our municipal waste
water treatment plant anywhere in the township. In addition, we are
prohibited from transporting sludge across any township roads and further
from depositing sludge in any waste facility located in Monticello
Township, which would include a co -composting facility Cor garbage. The
Township did not notify the City of the passage of the ordinance, which
took effect on its publication date of September 14. we found out about
the ordinance from the Monticello Times on the afternoon of September 12
when they called to ask if we had any commnents.
We immediately called the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and spoke
with Ann Bidwell of the Division of Water Quality, Landspreading
Section. She informed us that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency was
extremely concerned about this ordinance, as they had received word that
a couple of other townships had pursued a similar type of ordinance
prohibiting sludge or placing unreasonable restrictions on the use of
sludge. She informed us that the PCA would immediately draft a memo to
the State Attorney General's Office asking for an opinion as to the
a validity of such ordinances.
Rick Wolfsteller and myself discussed this situation at length with the
Mayor to determine a course of action, as it was imperative that the City
begin hauling sludge within the next few weeks or our plant may not be
able to continue meeting NPDES permit limitations of its discharge to the
Mississippi River when heavily laden with sludge. I then drafted a
letter approved by Rick and City Attorney, Tom Hayes, to the County
Attorney asking for his support and assistance. we also asked for the
same support and assistance from County Board Chairperson, Arlyn Nelson)
the County Board member from our district, Basil Schillawaert1 Senator
Betty Adkinsr and Representative Bob McEachern. We sent copies of the
ordinance and our letter to all parties involved.
From the 13th to the 15th, Kelsie McGuire and I extensively researched
our alternatives. All of our existing permitted sites are located in
Monticello Township and, therefore, we have nowhere else to go. We had
been dealing with farmers who were interested in taking sludge from Maple
Lake Township and Silver Creek Township. Those negotiations were stymied
due to unsuitable soil pH's on the farm fields, the need for extensive
liming, and the doubt as to whether the farmer or farmers would be able
to plant a crop in the coring. The permitting process through the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a now site, even if rushed, would
probably take four to six weeks. With no other alternatives present, we
decided to continue pursuing those far distant cites and are resampling
some of the fields for pH and have tentative agreements with farmers.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
Another alternative looked at was the possibility of dewatering our
sludge and storing it at the waste water treatment plant site. This
could be done, but is extreirely costly on a temporary basis, and we were
informed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that prior to their
approval, they would require an application for an amended NPDES permit
for the waste water treatirent plant, as well as preparation of a storage
site, which could take months.
we briefly discussed incineration of our sludge, which we understand is
done at the Pigseye Plant in St. Paul and the Western Lakes Sanitary
Sewer District in Duluth. Even if we were able to have our sludge
incinerated, it may ultimately have to be dewatered prior to those cities
accepting it; dnd it would be extremely expensive fromn an incineration
standpoint as well as a transportation standpoint.
A third option we looked at was the possibility of working with another
city nearby. The City of Big Lake has been utilizing some property in
the airport but is currently investigating purchasing their own
property. The City of Buffalo is currently short of land space
themselves and has no extra space for us even though they own some land.
Additionally, it is likely that we would require special Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency perinits to utilize our sludge on other fields
which were not permitted for us. Even though the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency mnay approve, we would again be faring mnany weeks to months
for the public notices to obtain such permits.
By Friday, September 15, our options were looking extremely dim. Based
upon Franklin Denn's stateirent in the Monticello Times that the Township
Board inay have been thinking of exemmmpting the City's existing permitted
eites from their ordinance, I drafted a letter to the Monticello Town
Board and Chair requesting that they amend their ordinance to allow us to
use their existing Sites and that they set up a committee to work with us
in finding a site for possible purchase by the City which would be
located on a county or state highway and which would be more pleasing to
the Township. I sent copies of the letter to all parties involved and
dismissed it with Tom Hayes. On Monday, September 18, Jeff O'Neill
received word from Darlene Sawatzke that the Township Board would not
discuss the letter at their Monday evening meeting, as it was not an
official request of the City Council. After learning this, Jeff and I
discussed possible options with the Mayor. One possible option was to
inform the paper that the City Counci 1 would attend the Board meeting on
Monday evening the 18th. Ken suggested that he talk with Charles
Ilolthaue regarding the ordinance and would get back to us.
Ken called us back a short time later and informed us that Charles
Holthaus had chaired the September 5 Board meeting at which the ordinance
was passed, and that it was his interpretation that the Town Board meant
to exempt the City for as long as the permits are in effect.
Mr. Ilolthaue gave the Mayor verbal permission for us to utilize those
sites even though the ordinance forbtds it. Ken suggested we have Robert
Shierts (the farmer in eastern Monticello Township whose land we will
utilize this fall) place a call to Charles Holthaue if there were any
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
doubts as to whether we could haul sludge. Mr. Shierts declined the
offer, indicating that he did not care to do so and we were welcome to
use his fields.
I discussed the verbal authorization from Charles Holthaus with the City
Attorney, Tom Hayes. While not totally comfortable with a verbal
authorization, it would make an excellent defense if we were charged with
violation of the ordinance and appeared to be our only alternative at
this time. Tom indicated he had been in touch with a representative from
the State Attorney General's Office who was working on the opinion.
Although it would be a while before the Attorney General's Office would
render an opinion, which may be based on one of the other township
ordinances and not specifically Monticello's situation, this individual
recommended that we pursue a hearing before the Waste Management Board as
allowed by State Statute. Tom Hayes indicated this would be a distinct
possibility, as well as d move to declare the ordinance unconstitutional.
As of the drafting of this agenda item, we are continuing working with
the farmers in Silver Creek Township and Maple lake Township and are
making preparations to haul on our existing sites in Monticello Township
where the permits are in effect for at least three years and are
renewable. As far as our future plans, it is still best for the City to
continue trying to obtain a piece of land in Monticello Township as
previously outlined.
We currently do not have enough land permitted and are totally controlled
by the farmers' likes and dislikes and the weather. As stated at prior
meetings, this is unsatisfactory. We will be expending monies to lime
existing permitted fields as well as new sites. Although the City has
expressed an interest in supplying 300,000 gallons of sludge on an annual
basis to the co -composting facility for Wright County, we have not
received any word, and may not for some time, as to whether or not the
County will be able to make it cost effective for us to do so, as well as
whether or not they will be able to overturn the Township ordinance when
the time comes necessary for them to do so. We need at this time to
again reaffirm our plans for sewage sludge reuse from our waste water
r treatment plant as an agricultural product for fern land and inform the
Township of that official action.
NI -I-,) 'I\ B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to officially request the Township of
Monticello to revoke, rescind, or modify their ordinance in such a
\ \ C9' way as to allow us legal use our existing permitted sites and appoint
�. 11 a committee to work with the City to locate a single site in
Monticello Township for the intended purchase by the City of.
Monticello with continued agricultural use by area farmers. Failure
`( of the Township Board to respond within a reasonable length of time
t ��•y�er would have the City continue legal means to overturn this ordinance.
2. The second alternative would be option I1 above but to also consider
sanctions against the Township if they do not respond to our request
in a timely fashion.
��
Counci 1 Agenda - 9/25/89
3. The third alternative would be to offer a withdrawal from the
County's co -composting project to the Township as an enticement for
them to reconsider. This may have no affect whatsoever, as I
understand the City of Buffalo is still interested, even if the City
of Monticello is not.
4. The fourth alternative would be just to continue utilizing our
existing sites and acquiring other sites in other nearby townships.
This will be costly for the City of Monticello in the long run and
has not been dependable in the past. In addition, if Monticello
Township's ordinance is not overturned, any township might feel the
right to pass such ordinances, and we could be totally prohibited
from depositing sludge anyplace outside the city.
5. The fifth alternative would be to purchase land within the city of
Monticello at an extremely high cost for the purpose of reuse of
sludge and continued agricultural use of such property. This does
not appear to tie appropriate, as it would be the most costly option
and it may not be conducive to city growth to have a major
agricultural use in the heart of a couamrnity.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recownends alternative 11. we have requested that the City
1/ Attorney alta be pr:scrL aL Rminy evenings meeting.
`— D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the ordinances Copy of the letter to County Attorneys Copy of the
letter to Township Board members.
Mvafk
ae 1 r
n -n,
IlO,lm e l L t
wa,ntrne, 1 • '
TOWN OF MONTICELLO
ORDINANCE PROIIIAITING TIIE USE
OF SEWAGE, SLUDGE WITHIN THE
TOWN OF MONTICELLO
It is hereby ordhined by the Town Board of Supervisors of
the Town of Monticello. County of Wright, State of Minnesota as
follows: -•
SssLgaD l= IDLSt1t_4Dd�uLUR35 ' This Ordinance is adopted for
the purpose of protecting the public health. Safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of
Monticello ns well as for conserving natural resources and
preventing pollution within' the Town.
5nL1au.2- IleflnlLLout ' The following worde and terms, whenever
they occur in this ordinance are defined as defined In Minn.
Stat. 115A.03, which is herein incorporated by reference. A copy
of Minn. Stet, 115A.03 Is available for public Inspection at the
Monticello Town !tall.
A) "Person' means any human being, any munlelpaitty or other
governmeiiU of political subdivision or other public agency, any publle
or private corporation, anv partnership, film, association• or otler•,
orgAntzntion, any receiver, truster., assignee, agent, or other legal
representative of any of the foregolug, or any other legal entity, but
does not include the pollution control agency.
B) "5Sxppe-gigtlp9" means the antid and Aft—la,wd it -gid. in
municipal wastewater w1itch are encomstered and coneeutrnted by
a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Sewnne sludge does not
Include incinerator residues aim) grit, scum or screenings removed
from other solids during treatment.
C) "Idol LILteilLUX" means all property, reel or personalIncluding
uegattve and los Live easements and writer and air -rights, which t% or
mny be needed or useful for the processing or dioposal of waste, except
property for the collection of the wAste and property used primarily
for the manufacture of scrap metal or paper. Waste fatuity Includes
but In not limited to transfer statlons, processing facilities, and
disposal sites and facilities.
U) "Wspty' means solid waste, sewage sludge, and hazardous waste.
E) "ClastieIlug" means the treatment of waste after collection and
before disposal. Processing Includes but is not limited to reduction,
storage, separation, exchango, resource. recovery, physical chemical,
or biological modification, ani transfer from one waste flie ity to
another.
F) "Ola{{>oani" or "disposn" means the discharge, deposit, injection,
dssmping, TVrIlTi'S, leaking, or placing of any waste Into or on an land
or water ao that the waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
m+viroianent or be emitted fn the air, or discharged Into any waters,
Including ground waters.
RSMsL9n j • Uofl 9LSluds9.ftahlb1Lpd ' Prom the date of onattment of
ttsia Or s�litalic* forward no sewage sludge shalt be applied to land, treated
or dumpewithin the Town of HonLfcello. This prohiblLlon Includes any
WARLO facility which has prior approval from the Hinnesota Environmental
Protection Agenty. Sewnge sludge shall not be applied to farm land nor
rdsall It be utilized in Any waste facility or any other facility which
Involves the disposing or pprocessing of waste, I—tudin composting
foci I'tlea. This Prot bit! on does not Included
the armpLng and ::rending
of waste from Individual septic systems located within the TOM I
upon tho property Oil which that Individual septic system is located or
Is thin the Townshlp..
SISLICU !J 2FOQAaatlOt Of�0g_SlYdg6
-Amy person who transports, or
causes to be tronaporte n the Tom of Monticello, upon and over
Monticello Towns Roads sewage sludge shall 8100 be In violation of this
Ordinance.
6"Llou.,5 '.Yr4y4LajjLUj. ' Th* positions of this Ordinance era severable
In accordance with the followings 0
•rel,
A) if AnyCourt of competent Jurisdiction sisal l ad)udge any
nrovi at of this to be Invalid, such Judgment shall not affett any '"•-
w,sma.w r tithe^ provislons of title Ord mance not specifically included in said
mw. s Judgment. r
—www m
B) if any Court of competent jurisdiction shall Judie invalid the
application of any portion of title ordhmance to a particular person,
[( property, twiiding or other ltructnro,, +uch Judgment shall not effe-=t
"�^�•-- the application of sold provision to any other person, property, building,
or structure not specifically included in said Judgment.
5rtC14A_� - %OCl1Y " Any person violating any provislon of this ordinance
shall be guilty of a atademeatter, and upon cony etlon thereof shall
be punished by a fine of not more than seven huml red dot lore (4700.00)
orimprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or both, plus the
costo of prosecution.
at%tkattj ' loJWni;tjyr_Bslis.t ' in the event of a Violation of this
Ordin»nce, the Tow may institute appropriate nctiorss or proceedings,
Including application for lo)%inctive relief in order to prevent,
restrain, correct or abate such violations. The vtointor +hall be per-
serially
erserially liable for the coats to the Tow, tncludistg attorney's fees,
for the correction or abatement of the violation.
S$>:•tillil_i ' WuLle -Unta - This ordinance shall become effective
from and after Its passage and publication.
RepeaterSectlpn�9_-_All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, insofar
ase they or; ddirect conflict vitt+ this ordinance, are hereby repeated.
Passed this 5th day of September, 1989, by the Town Board of
Supervisors o the Town of Monticello, Wright Cmmntry, ttinuesots.
gt
h & jttti,itlClj$, YjSES[V t RMNI
tuNi CEU.O TOWN BOARD OV SUPER_
ATTESTt VISORS.
...1iAg6EliE SAwaT7rp. ?!+!^,y,y;,;:.
Publish on Sept. ib, 1989 6 September 210t, 1989.
September 13, 1989
NIONMCELLO
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Mei 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Merro: (612) 333.5739
Mr. William S. MacPhail
Wright County Attorney
Wright County Courthouse
Buffalo, MN 55313
Re: Town of Monticello Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Sewage Sludge
within the Town of Monticello passed September 5, 1989
Dear Mr. MacPhail:
The City of Monticello learned the afternoon of September 12 that
,lonticello To-wnship had passed an ordinance prehititing the :.ce of sewaga
sludge within the Township on September 5. Based upon the ordinance, it
takes effect after publication in the Monticello Times which will occur
Thursday in the September 14 addition. This ordinance appears to prohibit
the City of Monticello from transporting sludge on any Township roads and
depositing or land spreading of any sludge on any property within the
Township. In addition, the ordinance prohibits the County's new
composting facility from accepting sewage sludge. Also, it appears that
septic type of sludge is prohibited from deposition in the Township unless
it is from individual septic systeirs located within the Township.
The City of Monticello's only sites permitted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency for sewage sludge application are located in eastern
Monticello Township. We have no other sites available to us. This comes
at a most inopportune time, as the City of Monticello Treatment Plant is
very near its capacity for holding sludge, and we were to begin our land
application on the Robert Shierts farm in eastern Monticello Township
within the next few weeks. The inability of the City to purge sludge from
its waste water treatment plant could endanger the waters of the
Mississippi River, as the waste water treatment plant facility my not be
able to meet its design paraineters when heavily laden with sludge.
It is itnperative that the City obtain the legal right to use its MPGA
permitted sites. We have been in touch with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Division of Water Quality, and have spoken with Ms. Ann
// Bidwell of the Land Spreading Section. She has informed us that
0
Mr. William MacPhail
September 13, 1989
Page 2
she is preparing a metro for the State Attorney General's Office to render
an opinion as to the legality of such ordinances as the one passed by
Monticello Township. We have also spoken with Arlyn Nelson and Basil
Schillewaert regarding the inappropriateness of the Township's ordinance
and have their support. We ask your assistance in asking the Attorney
General to render a speedy opinion and in assisting the City Attorney, Tom
Hayes, in obtaining an injunction in District Court to allow continued use
of our permitted sites in Monticello Township.
It is our intention to contact our senator and representative regarding
this matter, as well as the Attorney General. If you have any questions,
or if we may be of any assistance in this matter, please contact us.
Respectfully,
C2TY 0 MONT�0
John E. Simla
Public Works Director
mS!ka
Enclosure
cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
Ren Maus, Mayor
Relsie McGuire, Manager, WWPP, PSG
Tom Hayes, City Attorney
Basil Schillewaert, County Counnissioner
Arlyn Nelson, Chair, Wright County Board
Brian Aslesen, County Attorney's Representative to
Project Management Team
Tom Salkowski, County Planning fi Zoning Office
Chuck Davis, Wright County Health Officer
Ann Bidwell, hTpCA, Division of water Quality,
Land Spreading Section
Skip Humphrey, State Attorney General
JS
File ✓
V
*mm September 15, 1989
MON710ELLO
250 East Broadway
Monticello, M\ 553b7-9245
Phone: (612) 295•2i11
Llerro: (6122) 353.51-39
Mr. Franklin Denn
Route 3, Box 253
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Town of Monticello ordinance prohibiting the use of sewage sludge
within the Town of Monticello as passed September 5, 1989
Dear Mr. Denn:
The above referenced ordinance which the Township passed on September 5,
1989, and which took effect on its first publication September 14, 1989,
will have a devastating effect on the City of Monticello which could
ultimately affect the water quality of the Mississippi River. The use of
sewage sludge in either liquid or cake form as a fertilizer and soil
amendment in the agricultural industry has long been recognized as a safe,
viable reuse of the material by the Environmental protection Agency and
the Minnesota pollution Control Agency when applied in accordance with the
regulations of those agencies. This is especially true for the City of
Monticello's sewage sludge, as it is very low in heavy metal
concentrations and high in nitrogen. The use of this material on farm
land is the only viable alternative for the City of Monticello. Although
these materials are sometimes incinerated by such wtmminities as the
western Lake Sanitary Sewer District in Duluth and the Metropolitan Plant
at Pigseye in the Twin Cities, this is not a practical or viable
alternative for the City of Monticello.
The City needs between 100 and 225 acres of farm land to have a
comprehensive, well run sewage sludge reuse program. The atmunt of land
needed depends upon the topography, the soil types, distance to ground
water, access, buffer areas, and the type of crops grown. The City is not
opposed to purchasing land at a reasonable rate for this purpose. we
prefer such a site on a county or state road within a reasonable haul
distance to the City of Monticello and would lease or rent the land back
to a Partner or fanners for the purpose of continued agricultural use.
Such sites are not easily found. There does not appear to be such acreage
within tho city boundaries which is suitable. The extremely sandy soils
found in and about Monticello are not always suitable for land spread
application of sewage sludge. We have been working with the SCS office in
Z Buffalo and the MPCA in an attetVt to locate such a site.
Mr . Franklin Denn
September 1.5, 1989
Page 2
When the City of Monticello, on June 21, 1989, expressed an interest in
hauling a portion of our sludge (300,000 gallons) to the County's new
co-couyoosting facility, it was made clear to the County that it would not
be practical for the City to use the facility if the final tipping fees
were in excess of 2.4 cents per gallon. It is doubtful whether or not the
County will be able to use sludge as a nitrogen source in a co -composting
operation with a tipping fee of 2.4 cents per gallon or less.
Consequently, that use may ultimately fall through and the City has not
incorporated such a use into its final plans.
The City of Monticello's waste water treatment plant is currently full of
sludge. We have a holding capacity of approx£rrately 600,000 gallons and
need to begin hauling sludge within the next two to three weeks. If the
City is unable to purge the waste water treatment plant of this digested
sludge, it will re-enter the process system, and the plant will not be
able to function as designed, and it is possible that it will not meet its
permit limitations of water quality being discharged to the Mississippi
River. At the current time, the City has not been able to work out any
viable alternative other than using our existing Minnesota pollution
Control Agency approved sites on the eastern part of Monticello Township.
We, therefore, ask the Monticello Town Board to consider the following.
i . Tndt tae Munticellu Torte BoarJ iamadiately rescind, rasa�e, ;.�
its ordinance to allow the City use of its existing pernnitted sites'
in Monticello Township.
2. That the Town Hoard appoint a cotmoittee to work with City staff, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the SCS office, and farvers in
the Township to locate a site or sites in an agricultural zone on a
state or county highway for the purpose of utilizing municipal
sewage sludge to continue the agricultural use with the
understanding that the City may ultimately purchase the property.
Current regulations would allow us to use such a site for 60+ years
without reaching cutoff levels for any known contaminants,
I know there have been past problem with land spreading of sludge in the
Township and its transportation over Township roads. I would also like to
remind you, however, that in irony of those instances a representative of
our contractor who operates the waste water treatment plant or another
representative of the City has come to the Town Board to discuss our
plans. In addition, when the City has been notified of mud or sludge on
the road, we have dispatched personnel iinnediately to take care of the
problem. We believe that our operations in the spring of 1989 on the
Robert Shierts farm caused no problems that we are aware of. If you or
any one of your residents have a cOirPlaint about such an operation, one
merely has to phone City Hall and register such a eoupiaint. The
couplaints will be transcribed into written fore and dispatched
inaadiately so that the appropriate body ,nay take action. Ail of these
ti
complaints are then filed for future reference.
Mr. Franklin Denn
September 15, 1989
Page 3
We ask that the Township Board work with us in solving this problem. We
want to be a good neighbor. It is not necessary for you to put out your
neighbor's light to let yours shine. If you have any questions, or if we
can be of any assistance by attending any meeting, please contact us.
Respectfully,
C1- OF MONTICELLO
John E. Simla
Public Works Director
JESAd
cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
Ken Maus, Mayor
City Council Members
Tom Bayes, City Attorney
Kelsie McGuire, Manager, WWPP, PSG
Ann Bidwell, MPCA, Division of Water Quality,
JS Land Application Section
File .%
V
Council Agenda - 9/25/69
s. Consideration of mnaintaining old water tower as a backup and Monticello
landmark. UT .S.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City's new 800,000 gallon above ground tank will go on line toward the
end of September. At that time we will empty our existing elevated tank and
remove it from service. We have talked in the past about the pros and cons
of removing the tank or letting it stay. Removal of the tank could cost
easily between $10,000 to $15,000. In order to leave the tank in place the
interior wax coating should be removed and the interior sandblasted and
painted with an epoxy paint. This would coat $9,200.00 . In addition,
we would have to upgrade the ladder to the top of the tank with a fall safe
mechanism utilizing a rail or cable system. The cost of such an frprovement
is unknown at this time, but is estimated to cost at least a couple thousand
dollars. Finally, we would have to look at the outside coating on the tank.
It has been several years since the tank was repainted in alurninum and would
need repainting in the next couple of years. We could continue to use the
aluminum paint or could look at removing the existing coating system and go
with a urethane system that would last 10 to 15 years utilizing some colors
and possibly the City logo.
From a public works standpoint I don't think there is any doubt in ny mind or
the water superintendent's mind that we would like to see the existing tower
remain in standby service. we had at one tune felt that we could do without
the old tower if our new control system had been built in such a way to run
automatically without the new tank. It is doubtful right now that we will get
satisfactory service out of our new system to run for any length of time on a
standby basis without the old tower.
The benefits of removing the tank would be to lessen the liability on the
City for nuisance problems it has caused during the winter time when it
overflows and also to lessen the probability of any serious accidents such as
two incidents that occured in the last ten yeare. Another benefit would be
maintenance cost. There would be some ongoing maintenance costs even though
the coatings today could easily last 10 to 15 years.
In preparation for funding this issue, the C ity placed $20,000 into the bond
fund which is amriple amrount for the demolition of the tower or would also
cover "much" of the cost of painting the ins ido and outside of the tank with
epoxy an�rethane.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Tho first alternative would be to keep the existing tower as a standby
unit and for a Monticello landmark and authorize City staff to have the
interior of the tank painted at a cost of $9,200.00 and obtain
��. estimates for fitting the ladder with a safety fall device. we would
\�� then obtain bids or quotes next year for the painting of the exterior
`, of the tank at the Council's direction.
Iry 2. The second alternative would be to demolish the tank at an estimated cost
of $10,000 to $15,000.
Council Agenda - 9/25/89
C. STAFF RECOMMMATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the public works director and water
superintendent that the Council authorize us to proceed and keep the existing
water tower as outlined in alternative A1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 2 quotes for painting the interior of the water tower.
H&H
T®OeVF
Phone (507) 794.3237
R.R. Box 58 528 2nd Ave., N.W.
Scotland, SD 57059 Sleepy Eye, MN 56085
CO1NT1iAC'I�
This Contract made and entered into this 25th iay of September
19_A_, by and between the Citv of Monticello herein-
after called the "Owner" &ad the . H a N Watertower, Inc., a South Dakota
corporation with its principal office locet:ed in Scotland, South Dakota,
duly registered with the Secretary of State of Minnesota , hereinafter
called the "Contractor" for and in consideration of the mutual covenants
and promises hereinafter contained.
WITNESSETH: Contractor agrees to sake the following repairs and improve-
ments On the owner's sn.nnn r..,l Inn Flnvarn(' Wprnr Tnmr
and to furnish the necessary equipment, labor, material, as well as
Workmen's Compensation and Insurance and Contractor's Liability Insur-
ance, and to do the work hereinafter stated in good and workmanlike
manner.
INTERIOR SERVICES
Contractor agrees to thoroughly clean Owner's tank interior and
remove all sediment. To then sandblast the complete tank interior
and vet riser,(tube) pursuant to a near white blast cleaning,
(SSPC-SP10). After all blasting residues are removed, two coats
of TNEMECSerios 20 Pota Pox shall be applied to all blast cleaned
areas to a combined dry film thickness of not less than 10 mils.
[ UAWWA-D-102-78 Sec. 3 . 2 )
Cost of tho above services
N1.,` 4wo k-_J�.d della�z
Z
Owner will • inspect the work as it progresses and upon eomplotion and
acceptance by owner of Pas nhnon
the sus of
shell become immediately due and Payable in full.
twecute Contract on Reverse Side
Owner agrees to furnish 110►voh eNcuic centric to tM work woos at no drape to ccnuaaor. Conuacwr Cost supply ag
service connections to power source.
An water and electricity uu'Gsed by the contractor for the
purposes of fulfdlirtp this Conuaa will be considered an inci-
dental
rtc►dental on the put of the Owner mW will be provided the Contractor at no Cost.
Owner and the autMrised aggro signing this contract as such agents do hweuy expressly warrant that Owner has aw
thorny, to make and anter this contract and that it Dacorros a party hereto pursuant to a lawful resolution duly and repo.
lady adopted by the gnverning board of said Owner pursuant to the applicable statutes of this state.
This constitutes the entire contract. No verbal epreernents or additions will be honored. Any amendments or additions
hereto must be in writing tad executed by the duly authorised agents and otficera of the parties hereto.
city of Monticello
Signature H S H watertow , Inc.
Signature By I
Robert J. Hille, President
WATERTOWER PAINT & REPAIR CO., INC.
'rhr wk rrirh the lld R.0 w.lss u+
® woe mem. ar ti
r.oe.n tuutwa:oYoe
CONTRACT
City O!_MonLIGOIlo, Minnesota _ _ , w.w.rw,r.erowltw
aatim'N ,.,/Yo1WlL•aaq[OO wxaa6rWtlx lNE rawul■NEw1r0Klal,eM
Contractor hereby agrees to furnish Labor, insurance, material and use of equipment to
perform the fo Llorinq work,
Interior surfaces cf the 50,000 gallon elevator! water tank, inGLuding the riser Interior,
to be sandblasted, using No. Lo Slat to Near -White Metal, and than painted two (1)
complete Croats of 4nemeo Series 20 Pota-Pox epoxy paint, applied to a total combined dry
the thickness of at least B-10 mils.
Interior of water tank to be disinfected.
Contractor guarantees all wrk performed under this contract for a period of two years
Itos the date of acceptance by the Owner and in the event any faulty materials or workmanship
are found within this period, Contractor shall pLace in a satisfactory Condition all such
work when notified by the owner rLthOut expense to the Owner.
er .rrer,r�rrarrer or,r rise erw rrrrrr�rr.F� r.rw/rwrr. cora
w'i�Yo +�+w� +..�wlr:ErE1�«�wr a:Z �lriir i.4..rw.~e.~o•7ww�ri. ro+..�i.°r �+�i. sloes
irwow.rrerr...Y.r.r. rrrrr.r:iwYwrw�e r.r«wr �wrrwe.enw war ow.wrrw.rw
eril =««r rr.. rr+wrrr w.«wmw+r rrwr r.w.rw,r.r w./r «�«
wow r+
w.wr...l r rrr w rorrw w carer • ew. rr.. rr.�wr r,wrr e..a. r r+w. r.rrr ow. saa� i
(anuclM w w ew wr.r a arr.rr was war, rrewr «war r ww«w,wwr.e w r rw r war «.wow w r r «www
. tre.«n.w.wm.wwr
rnlYr+ar w...rlr.r. rrrw a «rm... www werr..r.errw e.errrrr rw e w ow. wr.e r r.rw..e rrrw
,rw.rrrowuw
aware rw rnw r rr. rwrr wmnrcmr r rr+w w. w rw wawa wmnrcrnw....ti werw/, rrr r®r, w errw«r
�Mw«r�iw•,wl,�w wr,r.wY.wwlObr rerw rwNY w erle rtrp• rwrr M er rqw w wen r,.re M r wnw
ramie Wwwwr tiwrwwrwrrerlerrrrealr,tiM twrfw«wow w...•.warww•wwrrway.r«www
,n.aw ar,.e w rr raewwp r« ire eVwe. r errw rYwrr wawa M rrrrr, r now w rem a r war. w r w/.ww www
r ererr.w r war ewaw waw
rawew ser saw r,w war / r werw war!wr / osrrwwrow r wrn.wrwwcaenucrar Y rse wwre.e re rwe•
p aAwe rr Cawlr[rY ry rrrw r.r rwewewwwMrr.we/ceraYr tpllwKfaweewlree r.r+we+wr rrM
w rf. r rrww r rir W rr r rwwwr.re war eerrrr w ware w /rwr e,«� M r 4aa r ewyrr • carr r wrr
"—
.rr (�•�ertY awes resew fJr lr rrw rwr+rlrr�wwrerrrwlacrY nes gYe..ww ,rrlW res e.,.
w www wr\w carr w r wow r.rw w,rw.e wwYe
wransa eoe/.le rr.w roQrlrwKrnerwwrrr Orgwww rrrWerLo
Nlwr Nine ThoVsen4 SIM MuMQred Beyenty-li.................. ----------------- ...... ar
\�IByw
.F,^w. r«rwwwwrrrwwr wwwr rr..e.rrw
..rr w arca awn. rwr r.. r r a w conarrw «,www � w r res w. rEEn rr eee.w.e
EM�.r.M.rl.�i ew«ew«wr rErrrlwE.•«w
rw...r alght r«w rr.arrrrrrrwwrrrwwore
+owns •.war r./r r e.\I+won en/rarr w ewrr r r rr \. w.rwrrrr r r wwew w r war w rerr r
rrrw..w e„eeiw r n.ue res aerlwKprrwrer ewrrww w. rer r Ose+r[nnr www, /w. wp.Irr two• e.arr+r arwrr+
wNrr.w erlr.+wwrwrrr rrrrYww,rwwrwwrwrrerarrK+er w,rrwrrrw.rr
YnrtrYseeN�• r
Iwo •www sir r.a...r res r.r rr w a eewr.w wwruw. www rrw. / e.rr r r r rrr rw.rr
errw .er w «r+w. w«w war
w1eYa/wweer h er r•,wr r I�1\w,r/MwIJM/y/row
w ue � a4aN/ /Es.n. a.e•.f/ � .
un iwYirwenawtitr w« Cut OF MQWICStrIA, MIMMSSOra
«www /.ew
war Yew -we ra
was m,1
w wrY..a rmr
srirnr re rme -
/seer�e.e►Yt
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK N,
CASH DISBURSEMENTS --- SEPTEMBER --- 1989
U.S. Postmaster -.Postage
406.99
28416
Automatic Garage Door Co. - Repairs
48.60
28417
Gould Brothers Chev Co. - Parts
33.60
28418
Newton Manufacturing Co. - Supplies - Fire Dept.
147.52
28419
The Glass Hut = Window repair at Rental House
80.10
28420
Rick Wolfsteller - Expense reimbursements
115.92
28421
I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll deductions
568.88
28422
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll deductions
70.04
28423
Dept. of Nautural Resources - Watercraft 6 ATV
49.00
28424
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H - Payroll
809.16
28425
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H
5,088.95
28426
PERA - Payroll W/H
1,575.45
28427
Caldwell Tanks, Inc. - Payment ;4 - 80,000 Gal. Standpipe b appt. work
134,805.00
28428
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
11,986.67
28429
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial Services - Library
227.50
28430
Monticello Firemen's Relief Association - State Contribution
31,816.00
28431
U.S. Postmaster - Postage
500.00
28432
Adopt -A -Pet, Inc. - Animal control services
200.00
28433
Patty Salzwedel - Animal control contract
497.00
28434
U.S. Postmaster - Postage
23.64
28435
Preusse Cleaning - Cleaning contract - City Hall b Fire Hall
450.00
28436
Larry Pratt - Option on house - 7th St. alignment
50.00
28437
Debra Pratt - Option on house - 7th St. alignment
50.00
28438
Y.M.C.A. of mpis - nunthl y contract payment -
o25.UU
28439
iraun Engineering - Professional services
3,271.85
28440
Polka Dot Recycling - Recycling charges
1,120.97
28441
General Rental - Hoist Rental - Water Dept.
13.52
28442
Jerome Bradford - Recycling prize
25.00
28443
Martie's Farm Service - Fertilizer
155.10
28444
Unocal - Gas
102.16
28445
Ruff Auto Parts - Radio
35.00
28446
Janette Leerssen - Info Center Salary
123.50
28447
Wilma Haves - Info Center Salary
131.95
28448
Government Training Service - Reg. Fee - G. Anderson
35.00
28449
Board of Assessors - Reg. Fee - C. Anderson
30.00
28450
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft 6 ASV
174.00
28451
Prime Learning International - Seminar Reg. Fee - K. Doty
79.00
28452
Quintin Lanners - Land Purchase
22,000.00
28453
Monticello Township - 1/2 OAA Payment
13,750.00
28454
Monte Club - Prize for Survey - NRA (Reimbursed)
50.00
28455
River inn - Prize for Survey - HRA (Reimbursed)
50.00
28456
Professional Services Group, Inc. - WWfP Contract payment
22,083.35
28457
NSP - Utilities
8,239.23
28458
Bridgewater Telephone - Phone charges
1.188.17
28459
Norwest investment Services - Computer payment for September
2,407.61
28460
John C. Falenchek b Vicki Leerhoff - Refund on recycling containers
4.66
28461
Wright County Recorder - Recording Deed fees
20.00
28462
Wright County Treasurer - Recording fees
82.55
28463
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll Deductions
210.16
28464
'.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll deductions
568.88
28465
Mate Capitol Credit Union - Payroll deductions
70.04
28466
PERA - Insurance premium
27.00
28467
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK N-,
CASH DISBURSEMENTS --- SEPTEMBER --- 1989
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage allowance
300.00
28468
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft b Snowmobile reg.
50.00
28469
Monticello Fire Dept. - Firemen's Wages
1 ,783.06
28470
PERA - Payroll deductions
1 ,551.73
28471
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal d Medicare W/H
5,048.62
28472
Patty Salzwedel - Animal control contract d Adoptions
515.00
28473
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services - Library
227.50
28474
Petty Cash - Petty Cash
53.52
28475
Doug Miller - Recycling prize
100.00
28476
Edna Grief now - Recycling prize
25.00
28477
Marlene Hellman - 6 desk lamps S mileage expense
160.94
28478
MN. Rural Water Assoc. - Membership dues - Water Dept.
100.00
28479
!�C!. Animal Control Assoc. - Reg. Fees - Patty Salzwcdcl
30.00
28480
Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities
107.64
28481
Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Insurance premium
6,853.20
28482
American National Bank 6 Trust Co. - Fees 6 expenses - G.O. Bonds
1,640.25
28483
AME Ready Mix Co. - Supplies
297.74
28484
Flicker's T.V. 6 Repair - Repairs - City Hall Council Chambers
275.78
28485
Monticello Vacuum Center - Bag L Belts - Library
22.40
28486
Primrose Oil Co. - Grease - Street Dept.
140.21
28487
Unitog Rental Service - Uniform rental
141.35
28488
Coast to Coast - Supplies
557.36
28489
Reed's Sales d Service, Inc. - Parts
35.67
28490
MusLLeellu Tlmed - Legal Publications
11112.20
2840:
Road Rescue, Inc. - Supplies - Fire Dept.
409.56
2: /
Earl F. Anderson 6 Assoc. - Signs - Street Dept.
469.01
28.3
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
265.53
28494
P 6 H Warehouse Sales, Inc. - Parts
89.13
28495
Moon Motors - Parts - Tree Dept.
34.61
28496
Purcell's Plumbery - Parts
104.25
28497
Harry's Auto Supply - Parte
163.42
28498
National Bushing 6 Parts - Parts 6 Supplies
14.17
28499
Eull Concrete Products, Inc. - Adjustment Ring - Street Dept.
74.00
28500
Simonson Lumber Co. - Supplies
1,154.97
28501
Hoglund Bus Co. - Parte
114.05
28502
Scherer Sanitation - Latrine rentals
62.00
28503
Sentry Systems - Lease. payment - Water Dept.
90.00
28504
Northern Oxygen Service - Supplies - Fire Dept.
12.30
28505
Team Choice - Pitching rubbers
227.97
28506
Remmele Engineering, Inc. - Spacer - Water Dept.
764.00
28507
Monticello Printing - Printing supplies
18.75
28508
Maus Foods - Supplies
99.70
28509
Wright County Treasuror/Auditor - Sheriff's Contract payment
12,049.14
28510
fnpher State One Call, Inc. - Pro fessionnl services
65.00
28511
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Towels - Library
36.08
28512
Automation Supply Co. - Computer ribbons
70.04
28513
Little Mountain Flowers - Hansen funeral
26.95
28514
A T 6 T Info Systems - Fire phone charges
3.96
28515
Copy Duplicating Products - Copy machine maintenance - Library
40.20
28516
Local #49 - Union Dues
144.00
2'
Communication Auditors - Repairs - Fire Dapt.
114.97
2, .d
American National Bank 6 Trust Co. - 1960 G.O. BOnds
26,075.00
28519
D
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK N,
CASH DISBURSEMENTS ---- SEPTEMBER --- 1989
Reliance Data, Inc. - Repair Fax Machine
114.40
28520
Feedrite Controls - Supplies - Water Dept.
2,176.00
28521
Water Products - Meters - Water Dept.
428.33
28522
Mobil 011 Co. - Cas
211.40
28523
Flexible Pipe 6 Tool Co. - Sewer Rod
565.64
28524
Bauerly Bros, Inc. - Sand - Street d Park Depts.
91.43
28525
Phillips 66 Co. - Gas
34.61
28526
Gerald Johnson - Labor for Library Sign
300.00
28527
Cruys, Johnson b Assoc. - Computer charges for August
290.00
28528
Shelton Co. - Recycling
1,520.00
28529
Process Systems Corp. - Gas Alarm w/charger - Sewer Dept.
1,741.00
28530
Tr -State, Inc. - Alarm System - Pump House Project
2,860.00
28531
Curb Masters, Inc. - Curb 6 Gutter at Library
323.00
28532
Nu -Tech Environmental Corp. - Supplies - WWTP
68.84
28533
MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft 6 Snowmobile reg.
89.00
28534
Smith b Hayes - Legal Fees
918.15
28535
J.M. Oil Co. - Gas
667.50
28536
Olson, Usset, Agan b Weingarden - OAA Legal Fees
997.00
28537
Emergency One, Inc.
26,148.56
28538
Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Property Taxes - 2nd half
1,364.68
28539
Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Professional services
2,175.75
28540
Auto Owners Ins. - Insurance premium - City Halt renrnl hese
120.00
2854i
Commissioner of Transportation - Celebrate MN. Sign
170.00
28542
Robert Cyr - Replace doors, skylights, etc. at City Hall
1,050.00
28543
George Poach - Replace doors, skylights, etc. at Clth Hall
900.00
28544
011ie Koropchak - Mileage expense
29.20
28545
Olson d Sons Electric - Repairs 6 parts
189.49
28546
Payroll for August
48,185.85
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER
423,345.48
LIQUOR FVMD
CASH DISBURSEMENTS --- SEPTEMBER --- 1989
AMOUNT
CI_CK
NO.
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
3.480.36
14637
Quality Wine b Spirits - Liquor
365.06
14638
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
250.00
14639
Commissioner of Revenue - Payroll Deductions
112.62
14640
PERA - Payroll Deductions
193.13
14641
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H
594.73
14642
Granite City Cash Register - Paper
70.13
14643
Johnson Wholesale Liquor Co. - Liquor
1.009.32
14644
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor
527.36
14645
Griggs, Cooper 6 CO. - Liquor
3.732.14
14646
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
446.95
14647
Dahlheimer Dist . Co. - Beer, etc.
21 ,016.60
14648
Ron's Ice Co. - Ice
884.75
14649
Twin Cities Flag Source - Repair flag
31.80
14650
Coast to Coast - Supplies
7.18
14651
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
7.85
14652
Gruys, Johnson 6 Associates -August Computer charges
110.00
14653
Bernick's Pepsi Cola Co. -Pop
516.30
14654
Thorpe Diet. Co. - Beer
19,776.70
14655
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco Co. - Miec. supplies
751.98
14656
Seven -Up Bottling Co. - Pop
228.30
14657
Day Distributing Co. - Beer 6 mise. supplies
726.65
14659
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
Viking Bottling Co. - Pop
1.719.95
676.95
14659
14660
Liefert Trucking - Freight Charges
511.90
14661
Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Phone charges
70.46
14662
Kolles Sanitation - Garbage services
181.70
14663
Monticello Times - Advertising
60.00
14664
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for August
9,713.72
14665
NSP - Utilities
977.22
14666
City of Monticello - Sewer and water charges
58.09
14667
Midwest Gas - Utilities
10.86
14668
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
250.00
14669
PERA - Insurance premium
9.00
14670
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Mise. supplies
130.63
14671
Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer, etc.
20,483.57
14672
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,719.81
14673
Ed Phillips 4 Sons - Liquor
1,954.69
14674
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H
594,93
14675
PERA - Payroll. Deductions
190.51
14676
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
34.24
14677
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,98 2.80
14678
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor
967.58
14679
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor Co. - Liquor
1,768.75.
14680
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
2,366.83
14681
Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Insurance premium
775.07
14682
Payroll for August
6.006.42
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER
110.055.59
CITY OP M011TICF.LW
Monthly
sullning Deportment
Report
Month
of AUGUST
1989
j
PERMTS ACID USES
r
Lent
ThlI
Same Month Leel Year
This Y. -
1...T. ISSUED
-nth JULY
Non th AUGUST
Leet Yoe. To
Date
To Det,
RESIDENTIAL
Rumber
9
17
14
87
75
veluetlon
S 726,200.00
5 166,700.00
5 360,700.00 $2,162,000.00
$2,028.300.00
Pose
4.679.49
1,454.06
2,677.61
21,275.10
17,447.240
Surcharge.
761.60
81.65
178.90
1,074.10
1,206.90
MMMF.RC I A1.
Numbs
3
2
3
16
IS
veluetlon
47,000.00
12,000.00
244,100.00
967,100.00
1,507,400.00
Fos.
443.00
176.50
2,057.78
7,254.82
9,801.50
Surcharge.
21.50
6.25
122.05
481.55
750.95
INDUSTRIAL
Mum ber
I
veluetlon
4.600.00
Fees
4e.0U
Surcharge.
2.00
PLUMD IIB
Number
1
2
5
27
26
Pa es
154.00
46.00
128.00
851.00
854.00
„urcharyve
.50
1.00
2.50
13.50
13.00
OT11C11S
Number
7
7
Ve luetl on
.00
.00
Pees
20.00
70.00
Ou.eh.ruee
1.00
3.50
,
TOTAL 110. PERMITS
13
73
22
127
126
{�
I TOTAL VALUATION
769,200.00
176,]00.00
fi01,400.00 ],129,700.00
3,931,700.00
TOTAL 1F..ES
5,276.49
1,656.56
I 4,863.02
29.426.92
20,172.74
TOTAI. SUR CIIARG P.s
I
383.60
80.90
303.45
1,571.45
1,974.35
lURRF.NT MUNTII
mlmner
1. uau I
PF.IIMIT 11AnIRI:
Number PERMIT
DIl 11 L71ARG Y. Velua llnn
lhle year'
I.es1 yea.
single Peelly
2 S
079.06 356.55
$113,100.00
17
IB
on" 11•
01
MuILI-Iemlly
2
1
Commercl el
0
5
InAue tr lel
0
1
Pao. Ge toga•
1
99.00 4.00
6,000.00
4
6
Signs
0
0
Public nullningo
0
7
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
Dv.1llnue
II
103.00 17.45
37,900.00
12
49
Coeval tial
7
136.50 5.75
12,000.00
I119
Innu,lrl nl
0
0
PWMDIIID
All Types
2
46.00 1.00
.00
26
27
ACCESSORY OTRUCTUREO
O+lselno Poo is
0
0
124 cAe
3
73.00 3.15
7.300.00
10
6
TEMPORARI PrANIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
2
20.00 1.00
.00
7
O
TOTALS
23 1,656.56
88.90
176,300.00
126
127
PERMIT DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
89-13(11 Houae Cable and residing
119 307 prase Do.
09-13:3 Reeldln9
09-1701 Houee realding
89-1385 OIn91e lemlly dvallllp
89138G Ge re's
89-- 1387 Garage re2111n91e
89-1390 Decks
89-1391Riding c wind- 1.,I-mant
119-1392 Deeol I.h noes"
89-1380 'Ingle family dwelling
89-1393DaCk
09-1391 Win tlow, installation
89-1395 Deck, V1Mov, c door
89-139fi G.[age addl tion
89-1397 Nouse r*aid Ing
89-7399 Reroof Ing
89-1398 Gera'e addition
89-1389 Da uchad garage
89-1400 Ga rape, deck, bases-nt finish
89-1401 Basement flnlen
PLAN REVII.
89-1]05 RIn91e family dw,elll ng
09-1]:8 Rl n'1e fully dw,elling
INDIVIDUAL PBUIIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month o: AUGUST , 1989
TYPEI
NAME/UICATION
VALUATION
rCE. -
PERMIT
UA
SCIWIGC
PLUMBING SURCHARGE
AD
Dennis Heath/700 Fen R1 Var Bt.
! I, 4(10.00
! 15.00
A[
Ibnt lc -1 to Public BInool a/306 Nashington BI. 10,500.00
_
171.50
5.21
All
Rlck c Tootle of lsoN104 Craig Ln.
1,500.00
13.00
.50
AD
Lt..c L.. Pick/3 6-ndtrap Circl-
1,300.00
1].00
2.15
Rr
OLH Build.../2041 Oakvl ev ln.
55, 200.00
391.11
77.60
77.00 .50
AD
Clifford Olson/400 Highway 25
.00
10.00
.!0
73.00 .50
AD
Gerald c Msrl-ne xallmert/417 N, 3r0 Sc.
1,500.00
1l. 00
.50
AD
Pete c Bally Bouk y/7780 Meadow, Ln.
1,500.00
15.00
.50
AC
Montt collo Dental Cmtar/100! C. Broadway
1,500.00
15.00
.50
AC
Cil" Lord Olson/100 [. 4th St.
0.00
10.00
.50
Br
Qulntln Lam-re/110! Ba nay Lana
57,900.00
105.01
28.95
AD
Troy Ouckandahl -1.1 He L. E1wOd Rd.
1,500.00
15.00
.50
AD
Francis Dubey/614 Minnesota Rt.
1,900.00
11.00
.50
AD
Gocdon 09Ma rs/825 W. River Bt.
1,300.00
4].00
7.15
AD
Cheri as Chrlatfanson/524 W. River St.
5,500.00
51. 00
7.15
AD
Mothl Ids Blalke/516 Maple St.
6,500.00
85.00
1.75
AD
Paul 7:111-/107 Nlllcr-st Rd.
1,900.00
11.00
.10
AD
Oanlal Aalles/100] r, R1 Ver Rt.
1,600.00
16.00
7.70
RCJmy
11hlu/
lr175 C. 11- f9t.
0,000.00
99.00
1.00
AD
Pet Fa It-ruck/1005 M-ednw Oak Dr.
0,000.00
99.00
1.00
AD
Tim c Gwen Carrigan/779 Acorn Circle
1,500.00
15.00
,50
710TAL3
1110,300.00
81,530.65
5 87.90
Sas. 00 $1.00
Br
BIN B" Id -1,211.1 0-AVlaw 1-
339.11
Or
Quintin Lam es•/+Int a -nay Lana
.0.50
TOTAL PLAN Review
379.91