City Council Agenda Packet 09-10-1990AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 10, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan
Blonlgen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 27,
1990.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow expansion
of an outdoor rental use in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
Applicant, General Rental.
5. Consideration of a simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted residential lot into two residential lots.
Applicant, Michael Robinson.
6. Consideration of approving site plan calling for establishment
of prairie grass in lieu of sod at an industrial site.
Applicant, Tapper's Inc.
7. Consideration of award of bid for garbage/refuse pickup and
hauling services.
R. Consideration of final payment on Project 90-03, The Meadows
Second Addition Phase II.
9. Review of six-month liquor store financial report.
10. Consideration of a resolution pursuing acquisition of
Outlot A, Country Club Manor, in lieu of delinquent taxes and
assessments.
11. Consideration of replacing driveway culvert at 1505 West River
Street.
12. Consideration of ordinance amendment adjusting Mayor and
Council compensation.
13. Consideration of gambling license application --Joyner Lanes.
14. Adjournment.
l
MI NUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 27, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson,
and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held August 13, 1990.
3. Citizens comments/oetitio-ns. requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
4. Consideration of Council proclamation proclaiminq
September 9-15 as Local Cable Proqramminq Week.
Mayor Maus read a proclamation outlining the benefits to the '
community brought about by cable programming.
�.' After the proclamation was read, a motion was made by Dan
Blonigon, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously
carried proclaiming September 9-15 as Local Cable Programming
Week.
C
5. Consideration of resolution approving glans and specifications
and authorizing advertiaement for bids for the extension of
utilities to the Sandberg East development.
Staff informed Council that in order to keep the Sandberg East
project on schedule fox the fall, the plans should be
officially approved. The plans were reviewed by City staff
during the week of August 20 and authorization was given to
have the first advert.ieement for bids placed in the
Construction Bulletin August 24, 1990. This project must be
advertised for three weeks, and the bids will be returnable by
Friday, September 14, 1990. The public hearing scheduled for
September 17, 1990, will allow the Council and affected
property owners a chance to review the actual construction bid
prices to determine whether we are still on schedule with our
estimates. If the project is still feasible at this point, a
contract could be awarded that evening allowing for
construction to occur th 3a fall.
1
0
Council Minutes - 8/27/90
Allen Rundle of Monticello Township was present to voice his
concerns on what he perceived to be the installation of City
utilities primarily in the township. Mr. Rundle was informed
by Mayor Maus that except for the Halliger property, the
utilities are not being extended into the township areas and
that all adjoining property owners are aware of the project
and have participated in the development of the project
finance plan.
Bob Krautbauer informed the Council that he is willing to
provide the easement along Highway 39 if the project utilities
follow this course; however, he is not willing to provide
utilities for both the Highway 39 route and the potential
alternate route which calls for utilities extending along the
eastern boundary of his property. Mayor Maus noted that it
may be imperative that the City obtain all the requested
easements, as the granting of the easements by Krautbauer to
the City is needed to justify the retroactive deferral of
assessments against the Krautbauer project associated with the
1988 County Road 39 project. Dan Blonigen noted that
Mr. Krautbauer, during previous discussions, had agreed to
provide the City with the easements the City requested in
exchange for a reduction in the assessments against the
Krautbauer property. If the easements are not going to be
provided by Mr. Krautbauer, then the City may have no
alternative but to maintain the assessments against the
Krautbauer property at the original level. As the discussion
came to a close, Mr. Krautbauer noted to the Council that he
will give the City the easements.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to approve plans and specifications and
authorize advertisements for bids for the extension of
utilities to the Sandberg East development.
SEE RESOLUTION 90-31.
Review of bids for oarbaoe/rofuse collection and hauling.
Administrator Wolfsteller reviewed the bids for garbage/refuse
collection and hauling. Wolfsteller recommended that the City
Council review these bids carefully and make a decision
regarding this item at a future Council meeting. The
following summarizes the low bids received for each method of
collection:
Method A: Utilizing a private contractor to pick up garbage
once per week using existing non -automated collection
technique. Low Bidder: Vasko, $ 93,964 annual cost.
Council Minutes - 8/27/90
Method B: Utilizing a private contractor to pick up garbage
once per week using automated collection technique. Low
Bidder: Corrow Sanitation, $105,498 annual cost.
Method C: Utilizing City -operated service to pick up garbage
once per week using automated collection technique. City Bid:
$76,139 annual cost.
It was noted by Wolfsteller that the figures show that the
City can operate a garbage collection system cheaper than a
private operator. Wolfsteller went on to review the budget
outlining City expenses with automated garbage collection and
noted that he is comfortable that the numbers are conservative
and actually reflect what it would cost the City to operate
the automated garbage collection. Ken Maus asked if other
cities are doing their own hauling. Wolfsteller noted that
cities in northern Minnesota commonly provide garbage
collection service. Shirley Anderson asked why every city
isn't hauling garbage if it's cheaper for cities to do so.
Wolfsteller noted that before automation of garbage collection
was possible, the price for public employees to haul garbage
was more expensive because the strength of the unions tended
to control the method of garbage collection. It was difficult
to keep the cost of the public garbage hauling down because at
least two public employees manned each sanitation truck. With
automated garbage collection, however, the City is able to
limit the number of employees necessary to haul the garbage to
one per truck. In addition, the City bid is lower due to the
fact that there is no profit motive for the City. It was the
consensus of the Council to schedule this item for an upcoming
meeting for further review and discussion.
Consideration of ratifyinq union contract renewal,.
Administrator Wolfstoller reviewed the amendments to the
previous contract and noted that the contract calls for a
salary increase in the neighborhood of 5% for the first year
and 48 in the second year of the two-year contract. Council
reviewed the following proposed changes to the existing labor
agreement:
1. Condition of groundskeeper/maintenance worker position to
the bargaining unit.
2. Requirement of three days advance notice rather than
seven days if the City changes any assignment of
regularly scheduled work hours.
Council Minutes - 8/27/90
3. Clarification indicating that sick leave benefits would
only be paid to equalize the pay scale if he was
receiving health insurance disability benefits.
4. Reduction in the time period from 12 months to 6 months
when an employee could be placed on inactive status and
be discharged for medical reasons unless a certified
statement from a doctor is submitted indicating that the
employee would be able to resume duties within a
reasonable time period.
5. Increase City contribution toward health insurance
coverage by an additional $15 per month plus 504 of any
increase over the $15.
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded
by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to ratify the contract
as proposed.
8. Consideration of resolution adootinq a proposed preliminary
1991 budqet and setting a proposed tax levy.
Administrator Wolfsteller outlined the two options for
development of a preliminary 1991 budget. Wolfsteller noted
that the City could propose a levy of 108; however, he went on
to note that a 108 increase is not justified given the
expected need for property tax revenue in 1991. Ren Maus
noted that the City does have the right to go for a 108
increase and fall back to a lesser levy once the budget
process is complete; however, since it appears that the 104
increase is not going to be necessary despite cutbacks in
federal and local aid, Maus proposed that the City establish
a preliminary levy of 7t. Dan Blonigen concurred that there
appears to be no significant reason to increase the
preliminary levy to 104; therefore, he agreed that option two,
which proposes a 74 increase, is the better option.
Wolfstellor also noted that he anticipated that there should
be an increase in the other sources of revenue available to
the City outside the property tax revenue which would
eventually result in a reduction in the tax levy when the
final budget is adopted. As a result, Wolfsteller felt
comfortable that the City could develop a budget to meet the
tax levy proposed under a 74 increase; and, in fact, the final
budget would likely call for an increase of less than 74.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded
by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to adopt a
resolution setting a proposed tax levy of $2,752,778.
SEE RESOLUTION 90-32.
Council Minutes - 8/27/90
Consideration of resolution approving 1991 MN/DOT transit
assistance application.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the
Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee requests that
Council review the 1991 transit assistance application and
consider approval of the resolution outlining the City's
commitment to pay 406 of operations cost and 206 of total
capital equipment cost. O'Neill noted that the transit
assistance application consists of management plan associated
budget and includes an assortment of compliance forms. He
went on to state that the application is very similar to the
application approved in 1990.
In reviewing the budget for 1991, O'Neill informed Council
that the ridership is at the expected levels; however, fare
revenue is not keeping pace because more people than expected
are obtaining reduced fares through purchase of the $25 ticket
books. This situation has created the need to increase the
City's portion of the budget from $16,000/year to
$19,000/year, which represents a 15% increase to the City's
share of the operations budget. It was the consensus of
Council that the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee
should investigate strategy for increasing the fare revenues.
A motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair,
and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution approving
Monticello's 1991 MN/DOT transportation assistance
application. SEE RESOLUTION 90-33.
10. Consideration of authorizinq Monticello Heartland Express
JMHE) to beqin service 1.5 hours earlier on a pilot program
basis.
O'Neill reminded Council that the transportation contract with
Hoglund Transportation requires that the City contract for a
minimum of 2,500 hours annually. In order to fully use the
minimum number of hours, the system must operate 10 hours per
day. The current program has been operating at a rate of 9.5
hours per day, which has allowed the Heartland Express to bank
enough service hours to allow the system to add 1.5 hours of
service to every day through the rest of the year. O'Neill
asked that the Council consider allowing those hours to be
placed at the front-ond of the service day, thereby allowing
the City to evaluate to what extent the citizens will use the
bus to get to work.
Council Minutes - 8/27/90
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to direct
the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee to adjust the
service hours in a manner that will make highest and best use
of available hours.
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded
by Fran Fair, to authorize City staff and the Monticello
Transportation Advisory Committee to utilize available surplus
hours with the goal of scheduling surplus hours during times
that allow for the most cost efficient use of available
surplus hours. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Consideration of review and aporoval of Richt of First Refusal
Aqreement between the City of Monticello and the H -window.
Company.
011ie Koropchak informed the Council that Steve Lemme, General
Manager for the H -Window Company, informed her that NAWCO may
be considering an expansion of the development at some point
in the next two to three years. In order to accommodate this
expansion, NAWCO will need additional property, specifically,
Block 1, Lots 1, 2, or 3 of the Oakwood Industrial Park Second
Addition. This property is now owned by the City. Koropchak
asked Council if it would consider entering into a Right of
First Refusal Agreement between the City of Monticello and the
H -Window Company, thereby protecting the H -Window Company's
ability to purchase this land.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to enter
into a Right of First Refusal Agreement between the City of
Monticello and the H -Window Company.
12. Consideration of counter-offer on ourchase aqreement for
oroaerty adjacent to city hall.
Rick wolfstoller noted that at the last Council meeting
authorization was granted to the staff to prepare a purchase
agreement offering $50,000 for the pur_hase of a 122' x 165'
residential parcel adjacent to the city hall property.
wolfstellor noted that the bank made a countor-offer of
$53,000. Council reviewed this matter and elected to take no
action; therefore, the latest proposal of $50,000 per previous
Council action stands.
a
Council Minutes - 8/27/90
13. Consideration of garbage/refuse ordinance amendment.
Administrator Wolfsteller informed Council that our current
ordinance relating to garbage/refuse service rates w►as
established in 1989. As a result of our recycling program,
the ordinance established a service charge similar to the
penalty system in effect for sewer and water billings, which
indicated a penalty of $1.00 plus 1% per month would be added
to the billing for those property owners who receive just a
special processing fee billing if they did not recycle.
Wolfsteller went on to note that with our recent conversion to
the Business Records Corporation (BRC) utility system, the
present system of adding a 31.00 base charge plus 18 per month
for unpaid delinquent bill is very cumbersome to maintain on
our new system. Therefore, Wolfsteller recommended that the
City utilize a basic flat fee or percentage of the unpaid bill
as a penalty which would accomplish the same goal and be lass
cumbersome.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt the
ordinance amendment as proposed eliminating the specific of a
$1.00 charge plus 1% per month and replacing it with a charge
of 4%, which will be added to the amount due on any bill if
`L not paid within 30 days after the billing date.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 195.
14. Consideration of bills for the month of Auqust.
A motion was made by Warren Smith, and seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to approve the bills as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
Jeff `O' Neill
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
Consideration of a conditional use request to allow expansion
of an outdoor rental use in a H-3 (highway business) zone.
Applicant, General Rental. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission reviewed the following request for a
conditional use permit and recommended approval subject to
conditions noted under alternative #i. The applicant supports
the decision of the Planning Commission and is willing to
comply with conditions noted.
Carol and Ron Chihos, owners of General Rental Center of
Monticello, are proposing an expansion of the existing General
Rental store site. The proposed expansion is an expansion in
land area only and calls for General Rental acquisition of a
strip of land 25 feet wide and 207 feet long running along the
northern perimeter of the property. The development calls for
removal of an existing curb line and installation of a new
curb line into the 25 -foot strip that is being purchased from
the owner of the adjoining land. The land area purchased will
allow General Rental to park more of their rental items on a
bituminous surface and will give them more flexibility in
utilization of their existing property. The site plan
proposed complies with elements of the City ordinance with
regard to proper setback between curb line and side lot line.
All in all, the proposal appears positive and will allow the
development to improve its overall appearance and
functionality.
Up to this date, there has been a problem with outside storage
of items for rent along the property line that abuts
Highway 25. In fact, materials have been actually stored on
the Highway 25 right-of-way. Much of the green area between
the bituminous surface and the Highway 25 right-of-way has
also been used for rental equipment storage. It is proposed
that this conditional use permit include a stipulation that
eliminates the use of the 5 -foot green area along the
Highway 25 right-of-way display area.
City staff and Planning Commission see no problem with
approval of the conditional use permit as requested.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the conditional use pormit allowing
expansion of an outdoor rental use in a 8-3 (highway
business) zone subject to the following conditions:
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
Outside services, sales, and equipment rental
connected with the principal uses is limited to
thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use, which in this case is 720 square
feet. This percentage may be increased as a
condition of the conditional use permit.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from
view of neighboring residential uses or abutting
"R" District in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. (N/A)
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [H], of this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
5. The display or sales area shall not take up parking
spaces required for conformity to this ordinance. ,
6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met. (N/A)
Additional condition not noted by ordinance
Rental items for display may not be placed in the
Highway 25 right-of-way or within 5 feet of the
Highway 25/property boundary line.
Bituminous surface and curb shall be installed
along the eastern boundary of the parking area up
Lo the 5 -foot setback lino. All outside display of
goods shall bo confined to bituminous surface
areas.
A minimum of five overstory treos shall bo planted
along tho northern porimotor of the property.
2. Notion to deny conditional use permit request.
The conditional use permit should not be approved if the
applicant is unwilling to adhere to conditions set forth
by tho Planning Commission.
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council approve the conditional use
request with the stipulations noted. In addition, Council may
wish to add other conditions it deems appropriate. The
conditions as noted are acceptable to the applicant and will
result in a business operating in a manner consistent with the
zoning ordinance.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan.
pR�P�RAD
I
i
.^0��
`
ry
41,
C°�'`�Q
�i�
f C`C' St
La
2�eaGr Cas
O tRC.+-:old&. LX:Sf :n 4'
4�t�d 1
rns.d
41
i
C
V� �
o
�
pR�P�RAD
I
i
� I �r��S T4 - y f � ' ��.�
.....-..4_ ....--------- --------
L)
A Conditional Use MrUeot to 8110W
expansion of an outdoor rental use in
a0-3 (highvay business) zone. Location
1.BI 1ock p&an rt of Lots 3 and 4. Sandberg
South Addition in the city of Monticello.
APPLICANT: General Rental
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
Consideration of simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existinq unplatted residential lot into two residential lots.
Applicant, Michael Robinson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Michael Robinson is proposing to subdivide his existing
residential unplatted tract of land into two residential lots
with the existing house and garage staying on what is known as
Parcel B, and the lot known as Parcel A to be sold as a
residential lot. As noted on the enclosed site plan, drainage
and utility easements are shown on the side, front, and rear
of the property lines. Both Parcel A and Parcel B meet the
minimum 12,000 sq ft lot size requirement; and Parcel B does
meet the minimum lot width requirement, but Parcel A does not
meet the minimum lot width requirement of 80 feet. If a house
was constructed on Parcel A with the minimum setback at the
same setback line as the existing house on Parcel B, there
would be 68 feet of lot frontage. When the lots were platted
within the inner city, they were platted with a 66 -foot lot
width. The Planning Commission recognized that the newly
created lot, Parcel A, would have less than the minimum lot
width of 80 feet that is required but would have 68 feet of
total lot width, which would still be larger than what the
original platted city lots had at 66 feet. Also, they
recognized that the lots have substantial lot depth and
additional square footage (18,000 sq ft), more than sufficient
square footage than what is required by ordinance today, which
is 12,000 sq ft.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the simple subdivision request to
subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two
residential lots.
2. Motion to deny the simple subdivision request to
subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two
residential lots.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted residential lot into two residential
lots with the following conditions:
a. The simple subdivieion request ba recorded within
30 days from the September 10, 1990, City Council
meeting.
b. The drainage and utility easements be recorded
within 30 days from the September 10, 1990, City
Council mooting.
A
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
C. A document be recorded indicating that Parcel A 1)
is not served by city water and sewer service, and
the City is not responsible for putting one in;
2) if a house is built on this lot, it will meet
all the minimum setback requirements; and 3) within
30 days upon sale of this lot, the existing shed
located on this lot will be removed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the simple
subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted
residential lot into two residential lots with the conditions
listed under i3 above. Planning Commission recommends
alternative #3, which would allow the subdivision to occur
despite the fact that the lot does not meet the standard width
requirement. Planning Commission granted a variance to the
80 -foot lot width requirement (proposed 68 feet) due to the
fact that the property encompasses 18,000 sq ft of usable
space, which is 308 larger than the existing lot minimum of
12,000 sq ft. It was the view of the Planning Commission that
the large size of the lot made it a unique situation, thereby
diminishing the precedent created.
CD. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the simple subdivision request; Copy
of the alto plan.
5
w
�N''\\ A variance request to allow a subdivided lot
1 r» \l to have less than the minimum lot width
requirement. Location is S 290.89 ft. of the
hest 150 ft-.. NE} of NO, Section 4.
1; nplatted Property in the city of Monticello.
__---.__--_. \
simple subdivision request to subdivide an
xisting unplatted residential lot into two
` sidential lots. Location is S 290.89 ft.,
�\ tion 4.Unplatted Property in the city
onticello.
Applicant: Michael Robinson
--------------------i
✓r
,
Lor
,
.+....,.
N.
74
C P
•r, rr sw
�t• J 'A �. Vii»
i
I
1 �
C.,
c
DESCRIPTION AS ruANi5Y60:
Th• SoYth 110.8g free of ... ...t 150.00 feat of to. toliowing
doCKloed tract:
starting a2 8 point on Lh. wlet llne Of the ROrih•*at OVirtet Of ah•
Nortnaeet Ou.Kcer OL Section a. Te+nantp 131. A.ng• 35. Yr agn: County.
f ntnneeo[a. +heKe the ho[ah CignC-of -reY line of Taunt Rlgnv.y Num.[
753 tntarsetI said line: td; .outn.aata[ly 364 f•ec to Lne canter
of . ttontice1 to LGwnanlp ro.d: Chante eda[ .1 Ong • aen[!i'ltne oL
.id --htp c..d 356.1 last to the point of pegtnntng: LSNc! ton-
tinue e.eL along ;ne C.nt•t of *.sa to+nantp a..d. 388.5 telt: tOenC.
�0 Oeflecc 06 deg [eea al mi ncue* lett 560.7 INc: :sent• +eat pe C.1lal
wtan the south a 388.5 feet; In I—
eou:s p.reit:i +tth Ln! Nat
V line 560.70 feet •4o the point of wginni ng.
A.measured along the went and *outs lin.. of tn. A— demortued }L{
rr+nt. ' I
00_._ We w« i
p ... e
1 1
J A 1
t .
fins
1
^ � R
h 1 ~
R. PARtiZ. A P.oRCI'[. B
r era eeJe /MOO r re•+a -Ie '"Ref
re.sr. atA rJ's. •e7>e,rnr.rr. 3
6 +we
0 /elle r 3e• 4T`. � '
0 r L'e�
r4 3 e H
N i lb
C 1
' a • a
J1•.e t
14
J
• r..r+rJlr � .
I
- �+ � „Je,rww c•ardr✓>'/l ,/r:re er7'r+I..+! u -_-
_� .1 _ ••_ fS0. 00 -•.
` "� CJF.+.C'*•✓.rd ei .rvr .a,rA it w
J
6. Consideration of approving site plan calling for establishment
of prairie grass in lieu of sod at an industrial site.
Applicant, Tapper's, Inc. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Tapper's, Inc., site plan proposes development of prairie
grass in the areas disturbed during building construction. In
addition, it is proposed that undisturbed areas be maintained
in their natural state. The prairie grass will be planted and
maintained for one year by a company that specializes in
establishment of prairie grass.
The name of the company is Prairie Restorations, Inc. Prairie
Restorations, Inc., has successfully established numerous
prairie grass sites in communities such as St. Paul, Plymouth,
Minnetonka, Maple Grove, and others.
The zoning ordinance requires that the City Council and the
Planning Commission review landscape plans that call for
establishment of prairie grass or call for maintenance of
existing viable natural vegetation which can be maintained
free of foreign and noxious plant materials. The Planning
Commission reviewed the site plan and recommends that the City
allow establishment of prairie grasses as proposed.
Staff has been informed that proper maintenance of the prairie
grass will require a periodic "burn" of the prairie grass
area. Ron Bowen of Prairie Restorations indicated that the
Tapper's site will need to be burned about once every three
years. The burn process includes first obtaining a permit.
The actual burn takes about an hour to complete. Prairie
Restorations completes about 60 burns annually and is equipped
to manage the burn process without assistance from the fire
department. It is common to conduct burns in urban or
suburban areas. For instance, a 3 -acro site kitty-corner from
the State Capitol was recently burned without problems.
obviously, Council approval of this proposal moans that the
City will not enforce sections of the ordinance that limit
grass height to 6 Inches.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve site plan proposing establishment of
prairie grass and maintenance of existing vegetation in
lieu of establishment of sod.
The Tapper's, Inc., development landscaping plan and its
use of prairie grass and natural grasses appears to be a
legitimate proposal and not a strategy for avoiding
maintenance associated with grass cutting. If Council is
concerned that establishment of prairie grass will not
work and the site will become an overgrown weed patch, a
motion to approve the site plan could include a
stipulation that sod be applied if the prairie grass does
not become properly established. It does not appear
that the controlled burn of the prairie grass once every
three years will create a problem.
Motion to deny approval of site plan proposing
establishment of prairie grass and maintenance of
existing vegetation in lieu of establishment of sod.
There are some problems that might stem from allowing the
prairie grass concept to bloom. Prairie grass in the
industrial park is a pioneer concept. The proposal is
not consistent with the conventional method of lawn
establishment; therefore, the Tapper's project may not
blend in with the existing and future development in the
area. On the other hand, much of the area near the
Tapper site is relatively undeveloped, including the
drainage swale. Future developments may end up following
Tapper's lead if the prairie grass concept ends up
working well.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the
prairie grass concept with the stipulation that sod must be
applied to disturbed areas if the prairie grass does not
become established. In addition, undisturbed areas containing
natural vegetation should be allowed to grow wild as long as
such areas are maintained free of foreign and noxious plant
materials. In addition, burning of prairie grass to be done
by permit only and conducted by a firm capable of executing a
safe prairie grass burn.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of landscaping plan; literature on prairie grass
establishment.
C
No�
A variance request'to allow to
curbing in a certain area of •
parking lot. A rm4uest to allow
less than the minidium required tree
planting site. Lofstion to Block 2
Lot 4, Oakwood Indystrial Park
Addition in the city of Monticello.
:+yr�.r.a � � I t '� ws�013370.tS06 •'•,� I
Ire • A'� / / , ..ry...• I � All i AoocWet IeQrr,
fa•. ate. / / 1 i 1 .N
:Y �f
111741di
Ak
:1� •gyp r �" E. 1 � ; ::
��r IIYb '♦
• G r Y/
"e
" e1~ •w _ e
n-6 LIlPan: %en
Arca
PLANT LEGEND:
A. -4 .b-
vp N pw -X4'nJ- -wdp V—Im e"
W vlmlpjml--b>I 1pj—fI
1-0
IY ju-hrYf 04-J.— Wdq—'juw-f4
cbwj
2M_
FR
A
of
-r.e.-I ;etee 5, lq "'JL'q 9;2e-lp
Ci &6 t ou ia .2- 1
6. SCCD::,C XM GdCUND COVE—R: u1 areas not
ocher+isa improved in accordance with approved
site plana shall be sodded. Exceptions
to this criterion may be recommanded by
the planning Commission and approved by
the Cit•/ Council as follows:
(a) Seeding of future expansion areas as
shown on approved plana.
(b) -
dist-'Zd areae containing existing
viable natural vogetatian which can
be maintained fraa of foreign and ea:ioua
plant satnrials.
(c) Arses desigmted as open space or future
a�cpam ion areas properly planted and
mnlntained with prairie grass.
(d) Una of mulch materials such as bark.
rock mulch over a mil poly and wood
chips in support of shrubs and foundation
plantingo.
C:
Grow
Your
Own
Backyard
Prairie
t ookifig for off alternative
hl a traditional iawn?
Plant a patelt of prairie.
By Ain► Bratans
lin a n: You're Brod al your
T
denturetoweekend mowing.u've changed your aesthetic
nd your philosophy to prefer
the subtle colors and (fee -form of
native prairie to the manicured green
of city lawn. Environmentally, you
can no longer tolerate the chemical
culture of urban turf: fertilizer runoff
that touts streams and groundwater
and creates oxygenvdepletin algae
blooms in a Complex pfacese nown
as lake eutrophication, What you
need Is a piece of the prairie.
LN
Crowing, prairie In the city or sub
urbs b easier than you might think.
according to those who have pio-
neered urban prairie husbandry in
such unlikely spots as south Minne-
apolis; suburban Newport, Fagan.
and 0urnsviile; and the more countri-
fied venues throughout the state.
SaysGordon ilaiteyaprairie enthu-
siast from Newport, a suburb about
15 minutes east of St. Paul: "I've been
very pleased. 1 slatted out wanting
to provide nesting cover and feed for
quail, but the beauty of the prairie has
taken over the need for providing for
the quail. It's been an exciting little
ams"
A nurseryman by trade, Dailey has
beentendinghis l acreprairi ,plotfer
about cix yeam, inaddillon to his lawn
and flower ganders. While the prai-
fio dohs Owl new lite constant mow -
Ing and watering flan the lawn .rad
Ilowcr9 squire. it dery have one little
requirement that its gentrified kin du
not: 11 needs to bo bumed periodically.
just as In its natural stateon the plains,
p=anted prairie parcels need fire to
bum off thatch accumulation and re
lease nutrients back to the soil.
However, smaller prairie plots In
urban center will aline for a run -over
with the town mower in the fall or
spring to take off dead veyletatlon.
Experts recommend leaving some of
the finely chopped residue on the sur•
face to add organic matter to the thick
prairie thatch.
In Newport, galley says, burnt"
isn'1 the problem it might seam ---but
then his lot is larger than city tots, so
tis Mammals tbusta to
q
500 -square -toot prairie
patch 12 years ago in
West Lakeland township
l in Washington County.
'it just seemed like a
1 good idea." he prairie "1'd
1 seen a tot of prairie plant
remnants here and there,
n addgian to Ma fawn drat sower gardens.
Jordon sassy lands t•aan patch of pm=ts,
neighbors aren't as clo3e, "Not very
many people are aware of it,' Bailey
says, 'except the fire chief," who is.
sues burn permits,
Howard Krosch, a manager In the
t)epanment of Natural RetourcesSa+
lion of Ecological Servites, planted a
Ann l ralUs it a silence writer for the
Sr. Pond Pioneer pen+, she b currently
finishing a most r'%drRree In environ.
mental science tram Mtamt University.
0%ford, Ohio, Ihnnigh (nurse work at
the Valversity of h: "Mme
.Lar -Amon trip
IVM and Ithink 1 just always
liked the looks of big
bluestem gross. I always
figured it would be nice
to have a clump of that
growing.'
Krosch's neighbors are
not as close at they would
be in the city, no truming
hit prairie b not a pmb-
lem,hesays. it gets done
periodically when wind
and weather condition
are right. Krosdi in xu
pleased with his prairie
111.11 he plans to expand d
this year.
Corporate grounds and
municipal parks also
benefit from prairie. In Burnsville,
two parks have been seeded with
native prairie grassm and flowers, for
both pragmatic and philosophical
reason$.
'We wanted to educate people
about our environmental past' says
Randy Oppeit, director of Burnsville
perks end recreation. 'gut there's a
practical site too. We don't want to
weed it, and we don 1 want to mow
it, so In the long rm, this will be
cheaper'
The t CM Fuller Co. has also felt the
Out`- eairie Heritage
pull of the prairie. About seven years
ago, the'company decided to plant
prairie on a few acres of its Willow
Lake Research Facility north of St.
Paul in Vadnais Heights.
"For us, Ira more philosophical. It's
environmental --it's a different kind
of thinking" says tab services man-
ager David Massey, who maintains
the grounds. He notes that the front
of the building has traditional land-
scaping of lawn and flower beds
'primarily because everybody else
has that kind of landscaping around
here in the neighborhoods, and as a
corporate citizen, you want to fit (n"
Bluegrass Brainwash. But with the
prairie plantings, the Willow lab is
hoping to achieve at least two envi-
ronmental goals: Because the prairie
does not require fertilizer, the com-
pany is hoping tostow eutrophicattoo
of nearby lakes by reducing Its eon.
tribution to the nutrient toad In the
runoff. And by planting prairie, It Is
preserving thegenetkdiversityof no -
livestock as well as providing habi•
tat for a variety of birds and Insects.
Massey says: 'There's an aesthetic
difference. We get brainwashed to
thinking thatblucgmss 19whatshould
be on the ground. Out prairie is dif-
ferent; it's always changing. and ire
always intenesttng,"
Ron Bowen runs Prairie Restora-
tions Nursery north of the Ruin Cit -
les near Princeton. He says the exile•
riences that Hailey, Krosch, Burnsville,
and H.B. Fuller Co, have had with
urban prairie are typical, The Initial
LEI
N]
Impulse to plant prairie may come
from an environmental ethic, but once
the prairie establishes itself, a new
aesthetic takes over and people sppre•
elate the prairie for the sheer beauty
and bounty of native plants.
'Prairie Is an option that makes a
whole lot of sense to people these
days, and as a result it has become
popular," Bowen says. "It could be
thedrought,or they could realize how
futile It is in some situations to have
huge amounts of lawn—not fust the
watering, but it brings to light the
whole question of reswtrceuseand re,
source balance. How much water and
how much time are we going tudedi.
cote to lawn? I'm not anil-lawn, but
the question is one of balance.'
Lawns, In fact, do possess attribu let
prairies do not. Chiefiy,they provide
a user-friendly surface. 'You can't
throw a Frisbee very well on a prat.
He,' Bowen notes. 'They Iprairle
grassed aro taller, and they grab you
by the ankle a little bit, Croquet, foot.
ball, whatever—there are good, prat
tical reasons for a lawn."
The second sttraanngg point of lawns is
that they provide Instant greenery:
Add water and watch them grow.
Prairies, by contrast, require patience.
It takes them about three years to
emerge from a kind of scraggly ado.
tescenro that often strikes the unedu•
cated eye—one blind to the nuance of
prairie— st a weed patch. But aft"
those Initial years, the profusion of
blooms and grasses distinguishes the
prairie land as the highly specialized
and purposeful community it is.
US 11"asora ibWanto
Getting Help in Planting Prairie
inoupn prakte ours atretdred Iran Irn6
ton to horitaa without our hep, ganhp it
10 take root in your yard is arwther men",
requhlrrg datteme end apodal prate^
the fallowing sauces.
Rooming W00 read
Yellow Pages, garden
Alsemenis of he man•
by the Minmeota State HOrticvtmo So.
Bary. 1970 fohve9 Ave.. St. Pau, MN
65108. Remember to aqure about the
(anti iginnt me txeale stock.e seed Most
end de Uro
ends should be cultivated by the =a•
cry—rad harvested from the wed—end
that they should lune ham indl"noua
stock net from pralr a piams adbNating
hundreds of miles sway. This pgmeen
helpa lo mamam the gametic we" of
wild ala" and flowers: aro a reazes
the dont" of mmoduft InvoHa non.
Native plants have been used In city
lawn designs for decades. But the
Idea of an urban prairie has become
viableonly lnIbelasi fewyenm. Plant
specialists attribute this delay to two
factors; lack of awareness about prat•
rle as a distinct botanical community
and, as a result, lack of seed stock.
Wild Stock. in the pasti those dedI.
sated to growing prairie plants col-
lected seeds from natural prairie, Col•
lecting wild seeds to now discouraged
because it stresses an already endan•
gered community, end it Is unneces.
sary because many nurseries now
offer seeds cultivated from wild stock.
.htv-CAU wt 1N0
native spades that could one day done.
Mia or disdane the native ptatd&
uadscapinp for WA01e by Carrot L.
Henderson. ONR nonan tie waAtle wW-
vhxx, ahohas b for ntoco oarott" pants
and seed sources, 0 is avallable for 98.95
pals a genera state sates tax and S2
handerq ham Ukumotas Bookstore, is 7
University Ave., SL Pau), MN 55155,
PtwM:11*297.3000. Rrs•b"inlikhm.
sae; M652-9747 (ask to Minn®ots's
BM*stae).
The ANnnesata Nature Plard Sadat' can
answer your questions about native
plants. You may also Inquire about
mambmahp, monthly meetbgs, and field
mos. To Order MNPS Clads to Spring
W ldfloweie In tae Twin Cities Region
IAsa. sod coach or massy a" for 5'
to: Minnesota Native Pam Socially, Um•
vanity of Minnesota. 220 Biological SCI.
enceaCOW, 1445 Gather Ave, tie Paul.
MN 55108.
Bowens nursery, for example, has
60 acres of big bluestem, a popular
native prairie grass. tt also has a few
acres of rare prairie plants such as
Turk's cap lily. The nursery special.
izes In regional seed stock, as do some
others, such as Prairie Moon Nursery
In Winona,
Seeding a prairie can be done in
eitherepring or autumn. And, as with
any otheryard or garden projett, there
Is a range of expense. Bowen esti.
mates that enough seed to plant an
acre with about 20 kinds of native
gtasses and wildflowers will cast SM
to POO, Or If you want others to do
the work and you want three or four
M.
Our Prairie Heritage
times as many kinds of plants, you
may need to spend $7,000 an acre.
This compares to about $200 an acre
for Redinggrassard about SSAW per
ane to sod a lawn.
prairie lanciers have different opin-
Ionsabout the most environmentally
appropriate seed stock to use. Prairie
purists believe that a prairie must be
seeded with stark that grows natu-
rally within a 30• to So -mile radius of
the planting site to reflect the original
germ pool. There are two reasons for
this. The first is that this approach
helps to malntainthe genetic integrity
of wild grasses and flowers. The sec-
ond Is that It reduces the chances of
Introducing Invrarlve non-native spe-
des that could one day dominate or
displace the native plants. Others
think It's fine to plant prairie seeds
from the Dekous, Nebraska, or Kan.
w in Minnesota.
Pure Seed. Among the pure -seed
advocatessre DNR Division of Parka
and Recreation resource specialists
who have been working on prairie
restorations for 10 to 15 years. They
operate the only state-owned native
6caa nursery, which has been open
for nine years and provides much of
the seed for state parks and wildlife
area. They do not provide seed to
(heppuublk.
i 'Our approach Is different than
what others do,* says Kathy Bolin,
DNR resource specialist In Rochester.
'Our seed sources are more restric-
tive to
estrictiveto preserve local genetic varlelles,
and we strive In the long run for
J
diversity of hundreds of species."
Bolin also partidpates in Lt. Gov.
Marlene Johnson's Roadside Wild.
flowers Task Force. This pm)mt was
begun in 1987 to restore Minnesota's
native wildflowers to roadsides once
planted with turlgrasses that require
herbicides and mowing. The DNR
and the Department of Ma nsportation
are creating native wildflower routes
along highways throrghoaat the state.
The tint of lheseofficial Wildflower
Routes has been Identified Wthsdgns.
It is In Mower CountyalongHighway
56 near Le Roy. later this summer
others will be designated.
While prairie restoration maynolbe
the answer for every homeowner's
sunny yard or every acre of public
roadside or park, it is a viable alter•
native to traditional [owns, and one
that is Increasingly popular:
So if you truly have hit the lawn
wall—for whatever reason, be It as
pragmatic as having no lima to mow
or as spiritual as wanting a deeper
connection to the land as It was be•
(ore the plow—plant a pre i ria on your
block and see what Mpperm As your
new "lawn' takes root, you may be
amazed by the axial resporw as well
as the environmtntal changes, In fact,
Bowen predicts these fernarla from
the neighbors:
Year 1: 'My Cod, the neighborhood
is going to the dogs. Lei's trove out,'
Year 2: 'You know, what they have
over there is rel, not artificial.'
Year 3 and beyond when them sit
flowers and butterflies: "My gosh,
that makes sense.' U
To Vmnsora %Luarara
rl •f, _
f �.} 1-}. .r,�trr� 4� `� G_ J 3 �3kT .Y _���rar"r� < 1 _` ',,,, •�.• 7
�+ �r� o ..� � r��>r d� .rfi• f r��. lir . q�1."-lFf: :r� nr� r. n _. r y �..y�.
�• ,� - �' i' !T 'Si rkLr` ^'./'� S,. J + ti' :�L � y r � r � G
11 I f' Ih t���+j,•;1! 'Ki ...i.�?��r` �y� •��•�C��� :\ilri�'✓ ��,�C�'ry►�� '��i�r�r �`i+4:�"j•� t�'�.
, a., g
,�`li �': �r,.c� '1��•,��ty�1� ►C�'. t , ^f°i�'fi{'�imN;
�Yi��j. ,•il � y,�',i�itil'
'r ftp •�•`''e';`�r�� •
IL
:� ,•• /+�• �•y•, Wit'
Statement of Purpose
m we begin this new decade ii seems appropriate to
re-evaluate our purpose. Just what is the mission of
Prairie Restorations. Inc.? Vt"here Ia%e we hs -en. where
are we going and why? Those questions get asked often by
all of us here at PRI and as the yuan ha% a flowed one into
the next, the answers have became more clear. The
following information u meant to provide some of thane
answers for you.
So where has Prairie Restorations, Inc. heen during its
frftecn year history? One answer could be Out we have
been through a period of restoration intermhip. We have
1wen learning a great deal about the re_storuion process.
The procedures, materials, equipment and public mind -set
have all presented challenges which needed to be mec
Although many unknowns remain, a gnrai deal of progress
has been made. This is especially we regarding materials.
Both the diversity and quantity of seed and plants have
increased dramatically. We can now construct a prairie that
has nearly 40 percent of the vascular species which may
have grown there 200 years ago. Certainly that leaves room
for improvement but it also represents a gnat deal of
success,
We want to move into the future by nuking even more
seeds and plants available, and by Improving the quality
and kinds of available services. This is nca easy work. it
takes time, patience, capital and a serious effort, However,
we realize that most of our clients rely on us for these
things and consequently we must remain committed to
serving their needs. We pledge to do luv than during the
decade ahead.
But why? For one thing it is ,simply goal business to
offer quality produces and services. Ve know that in he
successful we must serve our customer well and as cost
effectively as possible, That is common sense and must
never he- forgotten. Beyond than lies another reason for
moving into this decade w ith a renew cd commitiment. This
reason relates to the higger, more general issue of
environmental health ... what might be called the health of
the total land organism. At PRI we helieve that the health
of this organum is failing. There un: problems with tate
soils. the water, the air, the plants and the animals that we
read and hear about everyday. We hope and I)clic%c that
plant community restoration will help to soh c some of
these problems and are strongly driven by that pu>sihilky.
It is a big pan of our answer to the question w by Prairie
Restorations, Inc. exists,
The information that follows will protide details on our
environmental services and products. Although we continue
to design, plant and restore a variety of plant community
types, we also produce and sell high quality seed, more
than 125 species of nursery produced seedlings, offer
consultation services and an increasing numher of
management services. Please read on to learn more.
Prairie Rase hips (Rosa artnnsana) in the fall.
Defining Natural
To nnnt people the word natural conjures up vision,
of pristine wilderness, _• areas untouched by humans and the
influences of civilization. Upon further analysis, however.
this 'wild- definition of natural appears to to seriously
flawed because it specifically separates humans and human
influences from nature.
At Prairie Restorations. Inc. we know that people
cannot be separated from nature and believe that all things
are natural and interconnected. Our definition of what is
natural includes animals and people, plants. soil, water and
the atmosphere because they all have an individual
influence on the whole. These are all pans of one large.
living natural organism that. like all organisms• needs
nurturing and care. Our products and services are designed
to achieve that end.
As you go through this br Lhure there are likely to he
a number of terms which may be new to you. Hopefully
the definitions given below will help to clear the air.
Prairie Terminology
Prairie - A North American grassland dominated by
Indigenous grasses and forb-s. and having less than one
mature tree: per acre.
Savanna - A grassland covered by more than one
nature tree per acre but having less than 50 percent tree
canopy cover. Savannas arc the transition communities
between open grassland and forest and can be dominated
by herbaceous prairie vegetation on the ground Layer.
Calcareous fen - An arta of wet, often sloped, peaty
unl that is supplied by internally flowing, spring fed
calcareous water. These areas have many unusual, specialty
adapted plant .specie,.
Cakarcous - Refecting to a sod type which 6 alkaline
or rich in calcium, usually to the form of calcium ofbonates.
Flom • The entire complement of plant species which
grows spnnaneou,ly In a partavular area,
Forb - A general term used to describe any none grassy,
herbate us plant, For, is cumittunly used to ckacnle the
hntad•leat,ed plants (mostly w ddflowen) of prime,,
Indigenous species - Any ,levies grow mg on or near a
>pmtf td sue prior to settlement by, European immigrants or
that ha, not been intnxluccd to that site by hunun acth try.
Nativv - An mdigenou, species
Natural- F.vcnihing
Naturalized- A speue, cvhith has been tntnoduced «t a
RCN arca and which ha, c+tahli,hed awlf by suuctidully
reprttdaatrip for at Ica,t urn genemtton
Mesic - Imermedlire lets urn do (xeric) and ito
(hydriotondiuun,, mttdcratcly nuns or moderately dry.
Remnant - An arca whwh ha, pcta,ted to a relausdy
unahcml umdmam, is wmh a t trgm loroa ur unplowed prairie
Aero - 43.560 square feet.
Antral - A plant that completes its life cycle in one
growing season and then dies. Reproduces by seed only.
Blennlal - A plant that completes its life cycle in two
years, usually flowering and producing fruit during the
second year and then dies. Reproduces by seed only.
Perennial - A plant that lives three or more years and
normally has the capability to reproduce both vegetatively
(asexually) or by seed (sexually).
PIB - Pure Live Seed: A unit of measure used in the seed
industry to define the amount of viable seed in a seed la. R
is determined by multiplying the germination rate by the
purity and dividing them by 100. (Germ, x Purity)] 100 a P45.
A PIS pound of grass seed may often have an actual bulk
weight of 13 pounds or more because of the non-vuh!e
components of the individual need Int. ( stems, chaff,
immature.seeds, etc,), When buying prairie grass seed you
should know if you are paying by the PLS pound or bulk
pound,
Bulk weight - The actual and total weight of all viable
and non-viab!c seed, chaff, stems, sand or other debris in a
seed I(a. Hccause flower seed is normally sold by bulk
weight ),nu should he concerned about the degree of purity
of the lot.
RLN - Re -invest in Minnewna: A state run program ser
up o) prewrie and restoreMtnnesoda's water, .soil, fish,
w ildlile and native plants, Somewhat analogous to the
federal CRP pn)gram.
CRP- Gmsenation Rexene Program: A federally
funded program ok,tgned to encourage land (miles to
remove highly cnxhhle ulkd acmage from production by
porn Wing money fur seed, planting and annual rental. The
program requires the use od long-lived cover types but nod
rices„only native plants. G)
Statement of Service
Services available
Prairie Restorations. Inc. has an ever expanding
collection of services available which have been designed
to address the needs of a wide range of natural
ecosystems. if you have further questions about what
should be done with your special parcel of land to make it
or keep it ecologically rat, please call so we can schedule a
time to meet and discuss options.
Ecological advice and planning are offered to those
who are considering a natural landscape and wish to have
schooled advice on how to improve and care for their
land. This advice might be directed towards prairie area,
a woodland, your secret back 40 up north, or whatever
you might have. For most sites the cast to have this service
provided is a Rat $175 fee. This includes an inspection of
the site, a written outline of suggested procedures, seed
and plant mix recommendations, follow up management
suggestions and estimated costs to Implement proposed
plans, You will also receive a copy of ,Vanblaxd
WddJloums, a guide to Minnesota's prairie and woodland
Rower species. In other words, we will took at your land
with our 'ecological eyes'. and scheme with you to make
your pmpeny healthier.
Spring or Pall burning is probably the singlemost
Important tool available to establish and maintain it quality
prairie, when done in the spring, fire stimulates gmwih of
most or the warm season perennial plants, It does this by
warming the ground earlier than normal, opening up the
growing sites to allow for more moisture and sunshine to
reach the new shoots and ronts, and discourages the
growth of most cool season exotics. It also ass as a natural
fertilizing system, returning traw nutrients contained in
dead leaves and stems to the sod,
Fall hums are also effective for,the suppression of cool
season exotic grasses. When burned during their peak
growth period exusic cool season grasses are vulnerable to
fire and can he reduced very effectively. This leaves more
norm for prairie plants to come up in the spnng The ant
to have burning conduced at your site can depend on
many factors Please give us a call so we can determine a
enc fox you based on the size and difficulty, of your burn,
Spring a awing often gives a prime planting i break
fnxn burning. cove suggest dtfng this in late Minh or early
April Aluwmg has a much ddferent elfin on a prairie than
Spot weed control.
does burning because it encourages flower development and
restrains the grasses from becoming too dominant. In order
to represent awe picture of what the prairie used to he it is
important to keep an equilibrium between the grass
component and the flower component. Mowing should be
done with a Rad or sickle type mower to a height of 10
Inches. if you would like to have Prairie Restorations, Inc.
provide this service, please give us a call so we can schedule
a time in late winter or early spring to get the job done.
Special bled maintenance service is recommended to
the customer who already has a unique and desirable plant
community in place and wishes to have specialized care In
order to keep It healthy. Due to the large number of plant
species found in the wild and or installed by Prairie
Restorations, Inc., it is important to have them cared for by
-someone with a trained eye and knowledge of a variety of
plant communities and individual plant needs. If you choose
this this type of care we will come in to evaluate the health
of your plant community and then conduct mcc% ary
procedures to cornea any problems, Neces+ary tasks might
include spot spraying of noxious weed colonies, selective
mowing or weed whipping of annual weeds to pm%eni their
pnxiumon of seed, over -seeding of hire areas caused by
animal disturhancu or lack of germination, or control of
unwanted woody imaokn
Maintenance can he heti up on an annual contract where
our crews would monitor your property and conduct work
2
5 the need arises or it can he x1 Up on an tin call basis If
you wish to learn moue als ut OiN unique senke please call
and ask for our sen ice manager.
Thr cont no have this work come wall he determined by
the price sheet ora the following page After our first
inspection of your site we can then esunate the time
nececwry for annual maintenance. Once the estimate has
been given and an agreement has been made to do the
with, this amount cal time will rum he exceeded withon
prpxapproval 9),
1990 maintenance Prices
Equipilleoll ("Tkls�
Said
'T v 41-
I" IZ t•rjg -
Equipilleoll ("Tkls�
Practical Environmentalism
s There are many reasons to resture native plant
unnnaunitus, F_stheties, icsuumv conseisation, economics and
the welfare of what Aldo Leopold called -the total biotic
community' . Although this last motive drive+ Prairie
Reauratinns, Inc. more than any tither (and we believe that it
trah c(mstiously and unconwiutnie cctttstitui s much of tite
drive of out customers) we must also s flue our products and
service, in such a way that we can maintain ourselves within
the traditional dollar hased economy. Ccroseyuently a brief
explanation of cues seems. appropriate.
Generally the costs of restoration can be aaureiawd with
the level of diversity heing sought. Put supply, the more
diversity. the more the expense<7he reasons are ohvious..As
the diversity of planting increases the more unusual, rare, or
drf0cuh to propagate species come in to play. Many of these
must he planted onto the she as plants rather than sled
Krause send is not available or is simply very difficult to
work with. For muss projects,a combination of setid and
plains are. uud.
Although there are many v5dable5 that can affect prices
we do have a general guide which has leen included here to
give you snore perspective on what your pmjcct could cost.
Suhurlsan prairie.
1990 Prairie cost estimates
Planting
Cusuucre'
Level
Description
0-1 acre
1.3 acres
3.10 acres
101 aero+
I
Single grass species seeded
No wildflower seeded or planted
1450
900
625
350
2
34 grasses seeded
No wildflower seeded or planted
1450
900
625
550
3
34 grasses and 4.6 wildflower seeded
No plants
1525
975
100
625
4
44) grasses and 8. IS w•ildnowers sceded
No plants
1550
1000
'725
61+6
S
4.6 grasses and 11.15 wildnower seeded
S00 seedlings plantedfacre (10.15 added species)
2500
1900
1600
12e'+0
6
44) grasses and &IS wildflower seeded
1000 seedlings plamedfacre (15.20 added species)
3400
3700
2400
IRM
7
4.6 grasses and P,15 wildflowers seeded
1500 seedlings plamed/acre (20-2S added species)
4400
3GW
:900
2500
R
4.6 grasses and 6815 wildflower seeded
2000 seecnittgs planted/acre (20.30 added species)
51(10
4200
3S(X)
32M
9
4.6 grasses and 6-15 wildflower seeded
3000 seedlings planted acre adcletl species
6000
5200
440)
41 (11)
10
4-6 grasses and 8.15 wildflowers seeded
4000 seedlings planted,'acre added species
,1200
6200
5100
SWO
• The fines given rcilm comp:ete site preparation
VQao tan vat) drpmd+p urian me (amdhtn d the cxcinp tax it an o:afuehcd rm Tr.U1
luie ortnm2y t:e>\vtt d — etas
ry_a}i.,,i tin
0..s�cA
h_7tc(ida u a:nnr� a:o ay+ tpa d'ae1 f WL1, . tush wcrr tn¢;nd the tire, t,w, )rat 4cc;r:_a M -d 111:! or
n, ( rura:h I A :slur [- .rs
v ah.: ry a mal ovary "+ air Criara:ty toot dxtrua and cxlx=w than I jet
undy errs.
ordering inf6rmation
--14,1..4; "1.117ap,f•, .IF. „I Lrn,q=•,n
1»yrrt '- •1-Ii•ut•`h,•1r 1-)!...,s 1lt.,r .�q, .}1. �•d.t 1,11•.,1
! ,n, •a1 u1 1v�t .I •L,1t1,11t1 !, ..I fF,.l,...�. I np n d„•n ,.
wl ..I• I -q J'I•nlrp l• I'.1 Ilht, 111",. .•. flti ", It,,.pV •� \\, .L.
n,a \:,•',,aa.h J •.,-! I✓[Hk9 Id,.,.`t ri. h,�. .1 r.,.' + � l\ 1111
r ..,1r„• iia' 1u , tl, ..= 111 in 41 hu.11a.u,,. m•, -n u, _L. .,...rlt1
11`d'•1•,Ilhl }.,; qa„1--d da•+ni.,a \..II .lino 1.1 .11111c:1,1
1w, •,11 tt. •PI`
li tu!11un•tl.y,\l' •� P_ICr,I�hs.t •.p .1 gYylR'1h t•,u
�Ilr ndJ ,Ily1 1.111 \Cv •,ty la•n la.anl •rl 'nn \u1m•�,1,1
+n,tzat _-1 , lilt laky I„ qp Idt s• .Iml ,fimll nrdgF, a 1-•r jha•
phk wt, M, rl t, ,hlppa, 1111 my \LIr, It ,11'11 uIC1
my .11,In.d;lnc drl dnvywcpl- t„ tnsu ko 1. -Ili -pt1
lilt) Ida III Ili,' p11a.1^ fill''1101-+f Ivjil ill, •'ull', 1111111' Ia Ill
I glr,..l ta•d It -I, Ih:r+l x'1••1 • i fd.nq- ut41 tt.ull I,. ..i',
v'nrndl Ills 61%.” ,. 1,1111t.+ .1, ,-•1r,h•a,lal..111. nil ..III, ir p,
.vl da, namv, mol 1'. ql” - ,•.. Ills•,.• q,pI-41vr1
1—twill 111.1111 nl ,,it .1.1.111 Ila, I11,tln pi"wo, dt1
s nuAl I',a-ur11 hral wu .uh p r I'hl, t- vy,y, 1.111% Illlt• II a
.n+ hnttl, Luttla .q,r an leu•✓, I.wd plannyt, 1a.1r1,
nult.l:;c•1+,utsl lghyt L, 1111 Ip„•Illw 11114111. 11
Im nn I rh.1 nt•vd, 'y Iv u1,1'., U•,I 1.1.1••11• ,, plol , Irl Iv
an _.usln^i 1tlttl,v I+•t•1 !q•v I„ Itnluni- , hu y;111}I,wl
IIt5,tla111u1'Ivv I, Il -fln.,11t , ILII_+•sl 1- ,0. {nJ pl.11ttil4
Roos ,,'fiv,15Ip-tJ,,ahrinull t, •'I••pp Ill 2Ja,,t ail.)
pl.11Jltnla I'll 'Ip 1. "I, , I`da4a, h a '4• ar Ivl,ul, f =l ,1141 I
11111t11Cn,1,11 I II \,'+titmivlll I,h y4' f', IIIJ11111119 ,a•r, 1• ,. Ill•
m it mall% IlIt t, "I'll to Ilhvnl . Uaicv
Project list
l r,u nuci I t%mll 1,1 a1,u ..11v vl •Ilv pa ars I, h,Ird
K hyla u1 I,wIIvr atv,vlml1 t,.UII .gtpnv latt,•n L it 11:`1,gr.l
miliII I Iantixalh•, I'Iti ,ar, lu„gwki u1y, nu p1milunt
1,6411ttnc .sal nl Ilw: .11a'1a-ol ,4_11! flicv' holt—,
All, u1 `I.11, PAI'k.
•..VlxmLvyRt',1 \rya,Mal n,I1
• , ari,s•ntcl \.lout• t.ctucr 11 L1,tat•tiu
• t r.1\ Rv i1, It Lime I LII, ,w•I
• 1.1111 v1, it.1 tG.lvv.0
• lwtivn•II \1111,t'llulm.lt 111
• I I.l tdont• \.tl p il.[I 14 ,11 1 lull r t'It.1,I,.1 I
• Ib,itlnt 1'uu ,nvlhrtl:
�.Ilnrny 1•ILllllltt•111.1111 I,.nnl ,Ly,1yu1'
•
IL III ,FI11yl \.I1111v (xIl11•I I \11,11ll
•I�MrrKclh I�.nn,'\hall I-1 „1 wa i
• 111nr1a•y q.l \,Illy\ 111 t'filta4.111t 1'1 ynit'1 'I `I�\\,+
• I'h114p, 1!1.1•11, • t , rtp 'ly, it
• Ii"d \\ Ills Il, p: 1 wulluln
M luhn, I niw• m ,1'•!IIb•I:vadL•,
.Nursery directions
\\c .nc In .1ytl :Iplarn,nn,lU•h r 111111•, �,rulli , q
I'nm,cttnt.11t1 I ! nnh• ttv,l +d Ilaaa Irl, .0 Ihrluvl,l,!I„t+
, d `h.•rbl n-nv 1 , Its 1, -^I .11111 yr
Where to from here
Il,q%gkill\ lilt nit,nlu.Iu,rn ns lilt- I'l'alnur 11.1, kvil
IwIplld bill iltvly I, ,uta .n, 111,1k, Ihat -l') to !vun,•tl 1•,
lrpk -d turlhyr Th' -w .uy nl.u)6I”
l Ak: 111,1 lt,inlitl 11'illltd 11 4.11 1%,II II1'tl I,Lull , 1111111111nn1,',
1,,11111'),1 ,IIH •IY, Illnt'+,1.11,14.01 \1-1 .4 %litlll,'•,r ,1.1, `1.111•
I'dik, t u111.y1 It'ilV1.l Ill, Ill •Irl' k111+1 ,,1" .quuln•I 11wI • •,1,
"'I\t' -,• t461a111v t•,an7ldr• ,•I +)hat ar,., ni"lil as .Irl pl
+:,1,11,11`11 1'la.l.y 1 It1;, f mol, III,- \11111" la l itvp wilwn1 „I
\a11,bd lis vvnn,• II -I .1 6.1114 uql I- X" li-,•l IIk- )1„-
.,tad,dOr i m1 11will r,lpuldp,du•Il vnnlb,l I f„ndyf"
1(telrnp'•l,r l'!'ru!tI •` 1111, 1, •'•I\Iy'tk••.,Idv••„gn,•I'I
\lum,--• q.t , hnr,i r}�nul.utl, .nal p,• •.Irl. • ul,q„ .. • t, •s, , pi:
Imil Ih,•pI \n. ill, I e • yl ,,snu- •d It •n11jill y,.n1j•h •, ,jk
lilt, Iplitlnis•••I Ill,. \anul I.nlv,4 yl', I'h:.1 `: ,••11Jth1
t L'vu \IIIl14y IlN .11..,1111.: 1.. ,ltq I „qw .q'lu,n \lulhl .. .1,1
Iiu „•Pay x,1111,
1'hy111a1,ltIIIv 'ill 1,•t1rn.Illy.411,1^++IKI \1111,I.iLU
Np,doun„11 In•hY`\,•111,11 naPltdl I,I,nit,••mll."Ilow,,dtl
!tl nnnnatyh ,s1 \,au Laul,,al i..nal dyl Ill klrl,uls Iht.
Lilt l nlu 1111,11:
11OMW ata", 11111,1 laka Iht .le urn ,nal cul
as 111 P,a'1,4NIy t1h• Iq'it, 11fit) t\ Ir ,a"(\a• ,••Ill 11'.1'61,
Prairie Restorations, Inc.
P.0.1k)x 32' • Princeton—li inner qia 5331
61:1389-+342MPcc t 61:!389-S'33 nunen'
Cnr1,.a;Drv','I•r' ttytilhrrauhOlaud (Du
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
7. Consideration of award of bid for garbage/refuse Pickup and
hauling services. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting, the City Council received a
tabulation for the six bids received from contractors for
garbage services. In addition, staff presented the City
Council with two proposals from the public works department,
one proposal for doing all the residential property and the
City properties, and a second proposal for doing only the
single family through tri-plex and the City properties. Both
of these proposals utilized automated pickup.
After a careful analysis of the bids, City staff feels that we
currently have five options. The first option would be to
continue with our existing contract with Corrow Sanitation and
twice -a -week pickup for all properties.
The second proposal would be to go with the low contractor bid
for automated pickup. Single family through tri-plex would be
picked up once a week, and 4-plex and above multiple units
would be picked up twice a week. After discussion with
several haulers and recommendations from our own hauler, it
was determined that most of the apartments should continue on
twice a week pickup due to storage limitations. Therefore,
all of the options presented in the supplement include twice -
a -week pickup of apartments.
Our third option would be to go with Vasko for once -a -week
pickup using the existing container system. Again, this
Option would include twice -a -week pickup for the apartments.
Vasko has been in business for many years in the St. Paul area
as a commercial hauler. They moved into the St. Cloud area
and began doing residential pickup approximately one year ago.
They have approximately 800 pickups in Waite Park and
approximately 300 pickups in Foley, bringing their total
residential customers to about 1,100. Because their bid was
so low (approximately 24% below the next bidder, BFI), City
staff is concerned that they may not be able to perform the
work over the next throe years of the contract at the price
proposed, and we may be faced with contract increases, as the
contract has a six-month cancellation clause without cause
should the contractor fail to make a profit. City staff
discussed the proposal with Vasko. They indicated that their
numbers are correct and that they looked into the amount of
garbage to be picked up very thoroughly and fool confident
that they can continuo with the price as proposed for the
throe years of the contract. They have three now Heil rear
packers on International chassis, which aro more than adequate
to do the job in Monticello. Their prices even include
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
two men on the truck for single family pickup versus our
present contractor who uses a single man on the truck. In
addition, Vasko provided numerous letters of recommendation
from current clients. A follow-up call to Waite Park verified
that city's satisfaction with Vasko.
The fourth option would be for the City to perform automated
pickup once a week of the single family through tri-plex
units, including miscellaneous City properties, but to
contract out twice -a -week pickup of the apartments. This
would allow for significant growth in the community prior to
any change in the scope of services by the City. In addition,
in the interim it would allow a joint venture with the City of
Buffalo to further reduce costs and to assist the public works
department with a manpower shortage during the busy times.
A fifth and final option would be for the City to perform
automated pickup of all residential property and City
properties. This option currently results in the lowest cost
but does not allow room for significant growth without the
possibility of some type of contracting at least on a limited
basis and would not allow a joint venture with the City of
Buffalo to further reduce costs, possibly as much as 209 for
the first few years until significant growth occurs.
It should be noted that any of the automated pickups would
require the purchase of 1,300 60-90 gallon containers at an
estimated cost of $75,000 (approximately $58 each). There are
significant savings with several of the options. Depending
upon the option, over the course of the next three years, the
City could save between $118,506 to $206,582.16 by making a
change in the way we currently pick up and haul waste. This
is more than enough to pay for a portion or all of the
containers. An option sheet follows detailing the individual
cost and savings for each one of the options.
C
Q �
GARBAGE/REFUSE PICKUP AND HAULING OPTIONS
OPTION
CONTRACTOR
Option I
Corrow
Option
Corrow
Option 3
Vasko
o Option 4 City/single tam.
ContraCtor/apts
Option 5 City
• Existing System
weekly/
apts bl-weekly
Automated $76,139.28 $228,417.84 $206,582.16
weekly/
apts bi-weekly
3 -YR SAVINGS
TYPE
ANNUAL COST
3 -YR COST
OVER EXISTING
Reg.cans
$145.000.00
$435,000.00
$0.00
bi-weekly
Automated
$105,498.00
$316,494.00
$118,508.00
weekly/
opts bi-weekly
Reg.cans
$93,584.00
$280,692.00
$154,308.00
weekly/
apts bi-weekly
Automated
$88.263.97
$264,791.91
$170,208.09
weekly/
apts bl-weekly
Automated $76,139.28 $228,417.84 $206,582.16
weekly/
apts bi-weekly
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
It is not imperative that the City reach a decision at this
meeting, as we still have the special or regular second
meeting in September at which to exercise our option to award
to any of the proposed contractors.
To aid in the Council's decision, it was suggested by the
Mayor that City staff perform a survey of residents in the
community to obtain opinions about the proposed changes.
After a random selection by the computer, approximately 50
residences were contacted to determine their opinions. A copy
of the question sheet is included for your review. Due to
bulk, the individual survey sheets are available at City Hall.
The following is a summary of the survey.
GARBAGE COLLECTION SURVEY SUMMARY
On September 5 and 6, 50 residents were selected at random for
the purpose of a garbage collection survey centered around 9
questions regarding various aspects. One question, f5,
regarding City operation of a garbage collection service, was
discontinued early in the survey due to long and lengthy
questions by residents concerning details of City -operated
garbage collection of which the individual collecting the
survey information had limited knowledge. In addition, a
ninth question concerning the awareness of residents as to the
method used to finance garbage collection was not totally
understood. Bearing this in mind, the following information
is presented.
Ninety-four percent (948) of the individuals surveyed owned
their own home. The households ranged in size from one to
five people with an average of 2.8 persons par household. Of
the people surveyed, 868 were in favor of a once -a -week
garbage collection; 148 Indicated a preference to stay with
the twice -a -week service.
Eighty-two percent (828) of those people surveyed indicated
they could limit the garbage from their household to three
cans or less per week. The remaining 189 said they would have
difficulty with the three -can limit. Of this group, 49 were
currently generating less than three cans per weak but still
had a problem with the limit. Soma families In this group had
as high as six, eight, or ton cans of garbage per week.
Should the City decide to go to automated pickup, 289 said the
City should purchase and provide the containers; 606 indicated
the homeowner and City should share the expense; 28 indicated
that the homeowner or renter should purchase the containers;
while 89 preferred to only rant the containers for a monthly
or quarterly charge.
in
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
It was interesting to note that 17% of the people suggested
that the City and property owner share the expenses and that
the containers be rented through a reasonable monthly or
quarterly charge.
Eighty-six percent (868) of the people surveyed strongly
favored the City's recycling and garbage collection programs;
128 favor the programs but would like to see more recycling
such as plastics; 28 of the people were unsure of what should
be recycled and would like to see recycling limited to once a
month. No one surveyed was in opposition to the City's
programs regarding recycling and garbage collection.
Fifty-four percent (548) of the people surveyed believe that
most cities in Minnesota finance their garbage collection
through ad valorem taxes; 34% of the people believe that it is
the homeowner who pays for the garbage services in most
communities; and 128 were unsure and had no opinion. The
question that yielded this Information was not totally clear,
and the individual conducting the survey had some difficulty
in obtaining answers.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to continue garbage
services as they currently exist with Corrow Sanitation
at an estimated annual cost of $145,000.
2. The second alternative would be to switch to once -a -week
automated service with Corvow Sanitation at an annual
cost of $105,498.
3. The third alternative would be to switch to onco-a-week
service using the existing container system and award the
bid to Vasko, Inc., at an annual cost of 393,564.
4. The fourth alternative would be to have the City perform
automated pickup of single family through tri-plex and
miscellaneous City properties and have a contractor
continuo with twice -a -week pickup of the apartments. The
estimated annual cost of this proposal would be
$88,263.97. This option would leave significant room for
growth in the community and would also allow for a joint
venture with the City of Buffalo to further reduce costs.
5. The fifth alternative would be to have the City perform
automated pickup of all residential property and
mlecollanoous City property in the community at an
ostlmatod annual cost of $76,139.28. This option
12
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
provides the lowest annual cost but does not allow room
for significant growth in the community without some type
of additional contracting in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends that the City Council look first at
whether or not automated pickup using the 60 or 90 -gallon
containers would benefit the City as a whole in the long run.
If not, the decision probably should be alternative Y3, once
per week with regular cans by Vasko.
Utilizing alternatives A2 or A3 for contract operation of
garbage services, there is less than $12,000 difference on an
annual basis. This was a surprise to the City staff as well
as all contractors proposing, as it is generally accepted that
automated pickup is more economical than rear loaders using
garbage cans. In this case, the costs are backwards when
considering Vasko's bid against other contractors.
The benefits of using the 60 to 90 -gallon containers can be
two -fold. A community using this system generally projects
the image of a cleaner community and garbage is kept in the
container at all times, and the containers are only placed on
curb during pickup day. Animals and rodents are less likely
to enter the garbage container and spread garbage around the
yard. The incorporation of a non -removable cover allows the
container to be kept closed to prohibit rodent entrance. As
a second benefit, the 60 or 90 -gallon containers protect
against entry of rainwater. During periods of wet weather as
we've had this year, significant amounts of rain can enter the
garbage; and after a period of a few years, conventional
garbage can lids are lost and are no longer used. Haulers
such as Vasko and BFI have reported increases as much as 20%
in the weight of the garbage during rainy periods. At current
costs of $45 per ton for landfilling and expected costs near
$70 in the near future for disposal, this can be an important
factor. Expected landfill or disposal costs for 1991 are
estimated at $75,000.
If automated pickup is to be s tartod, it may be best to be
started at the same time we switch to onto -a -week service, as
switching to once-a-wook service with the existing can system
may require several residents who currently only use bags and
boxes to purchase standard 30 -gallon to 33 -gallon garbage
cans. A switch to automated service within a year or so could
be looked upon with disfavor by these residents who have
recently purchased now cans for the previous change.
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
If the City Council opts to do automated pickup, it is
recommended that the City go with alternative 82 rather than
alternatives #4 and Y5. Even though the City of Monticello's
proposals were prepared with great care and diligence after
Lhurough investigation of other communities with city -owned
and operated garbage services, there is some inherent risk in
start-up problems due solely to a switch to automated pickup,
which could occur with any contractor, and may be blamed
solely on the City and its option to start City pickup of
garbage. The bids are close enough that it may be best to let
a contractor such as Corrow, start automated pickup and
evaluate it after a period of one year. By then the best
routes will be established, a time frame for pickup will be
established, and the City can have verification whether or not
its numbers or estimates were correct.
If automated services is chosen, it appears that it would be
best to rent the containers to the property owner for
approximately $1.50 per month placed on the quarterly utility
billing.
SUPPORTING DATA:
CCopy of survey questions.
C
14
RESULTS
CarbneeL'Co I lect I 6h " Survdv
would" ,-yo'iii'blc,-in'Ya(,O,r'<of,'once n week, gailiage,callocilon to. control'
co , I le-cilod' 6osts?
yes no,
43/,50 or 86.2 7150 or 141,
2. Approximately how many standard'afte garbage cons do you fill each week
(standard garbage can - 33 gallons)
Yes Less than 11- 6 lim 3 3. 7 5- 1 No 11- 1 4. 1 6- 1 10- 1
1- 12 ii 4. 3 2- it S. 1 8- 1
3. If more than three garbage cans. do you feel you -could limit this. amount
It you needed tog
yes no
0/9 9/9 or IOOZ
4. The city of Monticello Is considering automated garbage collection,
Automation requires that ench home has the same type or parbage container.
The cost of these cokalners will be npproilmately $00, do you foci that:
A. The City should purchase the containers 14/50 or 282
D. The Ilomeowner/Renter and the City should chore the, epense 30/50 or 602
2nd option:' 5_/36 o,r =would rent
C. The Ilomeowner/Rentor should purchase the containers t/50 or 22
Don't Know IAO or 22 Rent 4/50 or 82
G. Do you feel that the City should operate Its own garbage co . Ilectl ail
service If doing so would reduce long term garbage collection costs?
*Did not complete-th is', question in the survey
as no
4 1 Maybe, 3
Gi,h Vle your oplillon,(if Non co, 'a racyi )Ii ng program,und, c urre nt, dnrlinge,
'Cl io_
Comfliente., Moia cbMpbst-.cbIIei:t1o1i-! 11
_
Steq4II11y'invor p_ruginmsA=-6r-86Z, Hore iecjillng- I Recycle P 5 (1Z
=Fflvor proRramelLa or,'12VU6iiurii of what-gfi6AA,'bm 6acycl-edt--1 Ricy-cie 'o6c!i_A
to sac chh6gislZig 'IcAl month
-'-7-
liouill Jlk. _oi WA chana6s? R'acvcIo ilnai
1) 1611 ki 6Altilhat' aspe6ts?
To be you own your own homo,or rent?
Own Iton;t
47/ToTor 942: 3/YO—or 62
0,, What Is you current household size?
Yes 1- 8 3- 9 5- 5 No 3- 1 5- 3
2. 15 4- 6, 4- 3
9. in MonLJceJlo, garbage collection Is paid for with pr9porty tax revenue.
Do you believe that this Is a common method among Minnesota cities to
finance the garbage collection service?
yes no Unsure or Don't Know
27/50 or 542 17/50 or 342 6/50 or 122
\1
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
Consideration of final payment on Project 90-03, The Meadows
Second Addition Phase II. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Meadows Second Addition Phase II project, which consisted
of utility construction and street construction for a portion
of Crocus Lane and Crocus Circle, is now substantially
complete. The contractor, Redstone Construction of Mora,
Minnesota, has only a couple of small punch list items to
complete and has asked for final payment to be processed while
he completes the project. The original contract amount was
for $81,899.55. At the request of the developers, the sodding
was left off of the contract to be performed by the
developers. The value of this sodding was $1,600, leaving the
total contract amount at $80,299.55. The actual quantities
incorporated into the work were less than originally
estimated, and the total cost for the project comes to
$77,355.41. The contractor has been paid $73,146.21 and is
requesting a final payment of $4,209.20.
The City's inspector and its engineer have found the project
to be constructed as specified and, therefore, recommend final
payment.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to make final payment to
Redstone ConatrUCtion of Mora, Minnesota, in the amount
of $4,209.20 upon completion of the few remaining punch
list items.
2. The second alternative would be not to make final payment
upon completion of the project. This does not appear to
be appropriate.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer, Public Works
Director, and City Inspector that the City Council authorize
final payment to Redstone Construction in the amount of
$4,209.20.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None. The City Enginoer will present finel paymont voucher
and recommendation letter at Monday evening's mooting.
15
9. Review of six-month liquor store financial report. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed with the agenda you will find a six-month financial
report for the liquor store with comparisons to the first six
months of 1989. Liquor Store Manager, Joe Hartman, will be in
attendance at the Council meeting to review and discuss the
financial report and answer any questions you may have.
Again, the financial statement appears to indicate that the
liquor operation is doing well. Sales for the first six
months are up approximately 68 over last year, and the
resulting gross profit on these sales is up over 158. Part of
the gross profit increase is due to minor price adjustments in
our products which have occurred in the beer and wine
categories. After deducting our operating expenses, the
operating income of the liquor store increased from $38,576
last year to $57,727 for the first half of the year. This is
a substantial increase of almost 498. our net income from the
liquor store is listed at $83,869 versus $66,113; but the true
indicator of the store's operation is its total operating
Income rather than net income.
Joe has been recently investigating the options available in
computerizing our liquor store operation, including mainly
inventory control. It appears that we will be able to narrow
this down to two or three vendors who supply software and
computers that are geared toward liquor operations that should
provide more accurate, up-to-date information on pricing and
inventory control. Some of the systems available use the bar
code scanning devices and can replace our existing cash
registers with a personal computer, etc.
No action is needed by the Council other than review of the
financial report as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the financial report.
16
G(IIi tdttti It. i PAL 1. 1 ;'t+GR FIIt1(I
j
AS$FTS' . Salance Sheet.- '
--���- JUN 30. 1990 �_.
6ALAMI[F
w ..._...
..., . --- ..
-
CUP.REt1T4AS`SE°IS:
609.10101
CASH
111.975.97
"609.1030114
6a9,101.0i
CHANGE FUND c.LIQUOR',
',INVESTMENTS
60-9.i'1501
ACCOUNTSW.040,.
RECEIVABLE
75
0.00
6ri-,115(4-3
A/P, - 6IP,F CNE'Ck$
29 ?a
609.141O1
INVENTORY
156.068.61
-' 609.15502
PREPAID INSURANCE
9,511„y5
._T-...YOTAi."ir(jkN'r"d$Ei:E:
64.27-9.26
-FIXED- ASSETS:
j
6C19.le101
FIXED ASSETS -LAO—'
.939.85
609.t6151
FIXED ASSE'r8 - PARKING LOT
LOT
39.751.08
609.16161
ACCUM DEPR - PARKING LOT
17, 105.50CR
?T,2 a_MWTS - SLOGS ��hi3Tt--
165.445.39
GO9.1626/
ACCUM MR - SLOGS 8 IMOR
69.216.73CR
609.10421
FIXED ASSETS - FURN & SOUP
64.292.31
609J6431
ACCUM OEPFt= FUP.N"5"rt3illP
38.1*55.35CR- _
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS:
150.651.13 i
IViAL .. Aoocl*.
997,.129.39 -
.LIABILITIES .AND' FUND-BALANCE,
1
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
3.2•yyg1.
AGIUbUNTS PAYABLE
_
59.556.52CR
' -(+09.200
• 91
A-
4X PAYBLE
-SALES- ?A
�
s.929.6t�CR +
609.7100
ACCR i,tA«7£S CSALAPIES .PAt'ABL
6.00
+ 609.21611
ACCRUED VAI,-4fi OSICK LEAVE, -'`
.,» 2.0'1 t . 55CR °
t 609.71703
FICA/MEDICARE PAYABLE,
60.$?
4 (366.21704
CERA 'PAYABLE
105.00CR
t IMI;*2 t is
: ,:... NE ArTWif{SIMAAL"`€- An§l
?u D.. oocR.
609.21709
CREDIT U1""LION bAYABIE _' '
3.03CR
- 609.2-2001
DEPOSITS - LIOU60 FUNIC
615.43.
JTQTAL CURRENT'LIABtLITIES:
60.000.-79CR -
TOTAL 6I 91LITIESI
6G..OII9.79CR
`
FUtiO SALANCEt
1309.293?0
UNRESERVED/UNDESIGNATED c0 y t
392,'643.0008 1
GO9.21201
UNO SFkVF,O'tFF`.iAINE0 PON IN{S '
.'.
A52,047.OZCR
g. 009r'291oi
REVENUE CONtR04_ _
593.059.07CR
097.20001-7
rApENpTTORE-DNTRT",
8O7.591';f0
TOTAL FUND 'BALANCE I
931.05.R _
10FAL LIASILIYIES
ANO FINO'SAt,ANCE:-
fl.39CR
' _..�.
TOTAL FUND:
0.06
A
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE
AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
COMPARISON FOR THE
SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1990 AND
1989
1990
1989
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
SALES
Liquor
$156,774
$145,676
Beer
328,662
313,521
Wine
61,454
57,314
Other Merchandise
18,890
15,740
Misc. Non -Taxable Sales
848
1,155
Discounts
(58)
(146)
TOTAL SALES
$566,570
$533,260
COST OF GOODS SOLD
$ 432,464
$ 417,222
GROSS PROFIT
$134,106 23.678
$116,038 21.788
GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES
PERSONAL SERVICES
Salaries, Regular
$35,945
$36,357
PERA
1,464
1,316
Medicare Withholdings
67
78
Insurance, Medical 6 Life
4,156
4,009
Social Security
2,496
2,326
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
$44,128 7.79%
$44,086 8.279
SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
$550
$90
General Operating Supplies
2,910
2,938
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$3,460 .61%
$3,028 .573
A
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
COMPARISON FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1990 AND 1989
1990 1989
YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
Professional services (audit)
1,500
$2,760
Communication
362
383
Travel -Conference -Schools
79
40
Advertising
2,599
2,277
Insurance, General
7,956
9,318
Utilities, Electrical
4,120
3,712
Utilities, Heating
579
732
utilities, S s w
72
27
Maintenance of Equipment
2,143
1,980
Maintenance of Building
884
433
Taxes and Licenses
250
262
Garbage
1,173
842
Depr.--Acquired Assets
7,056
7,580
Miscellaneous
18
0
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES
AND CHARGES
$28,791
5.08%
$30,346
5.71%
TOTAL GENERAL 6
ADIM. EXPENSES
$76,379
13.48%
$77,460
14.55%
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME
$57,727
10.19%
$38,576
7.23%
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
Interest Income
$26,448
$26,665
Other Income
(84)
33
Cash Long/Short
(222)
839
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
$26,142
4.61%
$27,537
5.17%
NET INCOME
$83,869
14.80%
$66,113
12.40%
C
U
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT
FOR 1 ST SIX MONTHS 1990 AND 1989
WE
JUNE 30. 1990
JUNE 30, 1989
Amount
%
Amount I
%
Liquor Sales
$156.774.00
$145,676.00
Discounts
($58.00)
($146.00)
Cost of Sales -Liquor
$118,478.00
5109,424.00
GROSS PROFIT
$38,238.00
24.39
$36,106.00
24.81
(Beer Sales
$328,662.00
$313,521.00
lCost of Sales -Beer
$262,090.00
$255.367.00
GROSS PROFIT
$66,572.00
20.26
$58.154.00
18.55
(Wine Sales
$61,454.00
I
$57,314.00
lCost of Sates -Wine
$35,713.00
$37.338.00
GROSS PROFIT
$25.741.00
41.89
$19,976.00
34.85
Misc. Sales
518,890.00
$15,740.00
Cost of Sales-Misc.
513.165.00
$11.515.00
GROSS PROFIT
$5.725.00
30.31
$4,225.00
26.84
Misc.-Non-Taxable Sales
$848.00
$1,155.00
lCost of Sales-Misc. NT
$344.00
$870.00
GROSS PROFIT
$504.00
59.43
$285.00
24.71
TOTAL SALES
$566,570.00
I
$533.260.00
(TOTAL COST OF SALES
$429.790.00
$414,514.00
TOTAL FREIGHT COST
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
$13a,806 00
23,671
..00
$1$18,039.00
21.76_
WE
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
10. Consideration of a resolution pursuing acquisition of
Outlot A, Country Club Manor, in lieu of delinquent taxes and
assessments. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the 1978-1 improvement project, Outlot A of Country
Club Manor received an assessment for street improvements
along with sewer and water extensions in the original amount
of $280,228.28. The outlot is part of the Country Club Manor
residential development fronting on Country Club Road adjacent
to I-94 between the golf course and Elm Street.
The parcel currently owned by Marvin George of Princeton,
Minnesota, has not had any taxes or special assessments paid
in the last ten years; and with penalties and interest
accumulating, the balance owing is approximately $515,000 at
this point. Since the property is delinquent in its taxes, I
do believe the County will be including this parcel under its
tax forfeiture procedures next year. It would appear that if
the City is willing to wait long enough, we should be able to
obtain title to the property through the tax forfeiture
procedures in another year or so.
In discussing this property with our City Attorney, Tom Hayes,
It came to my attention that other communities have been
successful in acquiring title to the property in lieu of
delinquent taxes and assessments through another means rather
than waiting for the County to go through its process under
the tax forfeiture regulations. Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 282, In regard to tax forfeited land sales allows the
City to petition to the County Board of Commissioners
requesting that the property be turned over to the City as
long as the City is willing to use the property for a public
purpose. This public purpose can be established by the
Council to mean development of residential housing or any
other public purpose which the City Council determines. The
only drawback to this procedure is that if the City obtained
Lille to the property, it would be our responsibility to pay
the real estate taxes owing to the other taxing jurisdictions
such as the school and the county. Approximately $4,500 of
Lhu $515,000 is actual real estate taxes; and unless the
school and/or the county agree to abate their portion of the
Loxes, the City would have to pay this amount to obtain title.
I have had a number of conversations with Marvin Goorgo on his
intentions for this property and asked him whothor he would be
willing to just quit claim dood the property to tho City, as
it certainly appeared he would be losing the property through
tax forfeiture eventually. Initially, Mr. George indicated a
willingness to do this but then changed his mind and asked for
17
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
a few concessions from the City, including the ability to
receive the sign rental income he has been getting for the
next five years. Currently, approximately $7,000 per year
income is received by Mr. George off of this property for the
freeway billboards; and it appeared that this is an
unreasonable request considering he has not paid any taxes in
the last ten years. As a result, I requested that our City
Attorney pursue whatever avenue was available for the City to
obtain title to this property so that we can market the
property to other interested developers. In all likelihood,
even if we do obtain title to the property, it does not appear
that we will ever get our original investment back, as I do
not believe the property will be worth the $515,000. But it
does seem like ten years is long enough to wait; and if the
City had title to the property, we should be able to find a
developer even if we had to reduce the price of the land below
the $500,000 price. our original assessment was $280,000 with
the balance being penalties and interest that have accumulated
over the last ten years.
In order to proceed with this process under Chapter 282, the
Council would have to adopt a resolution indicating a desire
to obtain title to this property and to petition the Wright
County Board of Commissioners to turn over the property to the
City in lieu of the unpaid taxes and assessments.
As I indicated, approximately $4,500 of the $515,000 is actual
real estate taxes, which the City would have to pay to acquire
title without getting the taxes abated by each Jurisdiction.
The City Council could request each taxing jurisdiction abate
their share of the taxes based on the assumption that the City
is trying to acquire this land for a public purpose and
promote faster development of the property than what would
occur under the present situation. Mainly, the school
district and the county would have to agree to forego their
share of the taxes, and there is no guarantee that they would
be willing to do so. The argumont could be made that by the
City taking this action to acquire the property, we will be
increasing the tax baso sooner than what would happen with the
property remaining in Marvin George's hands.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution petitioning the County Board to sell
the property to tho City for tho unpaid taxes and
assessments. Council could also direct staff to roquest
the school district and the county governments to abate
their portion of the taxes in the public interest of
r
future development.
L
18
C
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
2. Do not petition the County at this point and wait for the
tax forfeiture procedures to take place scheduled for
1991 or later.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It has become apparent to the City that Mr. George does not
have any intention of paying the back taxes or special
assessments on this property. The City will be able to obtain
title to the property some day because of the back taxes, but
this could take another year or two. In the meantime,
Mr. George is continuing to collect the sign rental income of
approximately $7,000 per year; and it would appear that it
would be in our best interest to own the property and seek out
other developers who might be interested in developing the
property as soon as possible. It appears unlikely that the
City will ever recapture its entire cost, including interest
and penalties, in this property; but the sooner we're able to
market the property, the more we will be able to realize,
Including increased property valuations, when developed. As
a result, I recommend the Council adopt a resolution and
authorize the City Attorney to proceed with the action to
obtain title to this property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution; Copy of concessions requested by Marvin
Georgo; Copy of map of Outlot A.
19
RESOLUTION 90-
WHEREAS, there are accrued and unpaid taxes and special assessments
levied against Outlot A, Country Club Manor, city of Monticello, in
the following amounts:
1980 - $65,116.74
1981 58,424.52
1982 - 55,429.84
1983 - 52,403.78
1984 - 49,393.58
1985 - 390.26
1986 - 380.08
1987 - 430.24
1988 - 469.80
1989 - 517.18
together with penalties and interest; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello wishes to acquire said real estate
under Minnesota Statute 282.01 for public purposes to wit:
development of residential housing or such other public purpose for
which the City Council of the City of Monticello by resolution
subsequently determines;
NOW, THEREFORE., be it resolved that the City Administrator for the
City of Monticello shall petition the Wright County Board of
Commissioner for sale to the City of Monticello of the above
described real estate for a price equal to the unpaid taxes and
assessments levied against said real estate.
Adopted this 10th day of September, 1990.
City Administrator
L
Mayor
W&I
Phones
Princeton
/'e��/1
n
P.O. Bo. 428
1 Milo
(612)389.3201
NN//__
South of
Minneapolis
Princeton
(612)332.3034
e®�
MN 55371
l`
on Hwy. 169
WWI
"EAST CENTRAL MINNESOTA'S LARGEST BUILDER"
July 27. 1990
City of Monticello
Administration Office
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Rick:
Per our phone conversations pertaining to Country Club Manor
2nd Addition, Munticello. MN. 1 would be interested in selling
this property to the City of Monticello for $25,000 cash, or
I would Quick Claim Deed over the property to the city for the
rights to collect the lease rental on the four highway signs,
r that are on the property for a period of five years.
4 Enclosed please find a statement from the Sign Company stating
the amount of money I received in 1990. This is a total of
$7,042.79. This increases by 51 each year. If the city was
to collect their rent for a five year period they would have over
$40,000.
c
I feel that I'm entitled to get my initial investment back, which
was i25,000. Plus the sign rental that is due in the fall of 1990.
1 want to keep those monies in addition to the $25,000. If the city
chooses to go with the Quick Claim Deed and allow me to collect
for the next five years on the sign rental. The years I would
collect would be 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. I feel that
if the county and the city go through a foreclosure, as by low,
this is going to take approximately two years. Plus an additional
cost by all parties. I think the settlement I am presenting
is a fair one for both portico. Please review this and contact
me as soon as possible.
MG:mk
Sincerely,
Marvi�rg6 e, President
Marvin George Builders. Inc.
Oro]
' i"--'-QQ`T �tw vi' '' .'' s',i war rc .•. ..... »..•.w (s .w :iu'Y iic u�•
1g1N2.4;pA.4 rl
M• N2.4$2�6�E�~t-_—_--�.•-=586•39'21`E5tt47' --j � .-- �w ---- �� a.i,`�6-=�=586•S9'2I"E�9�SfiEB�= r__,...._..
'a.=S8714'341r a - �SWM4'34•E40000- _ r ' •r • s a •� 1— r _. W�'.�. ». �."_ .+• -. T
-19514- ! lot r.^.�. E! ` t i .•t A r}p , is
`+, + � A _ `... a .— --i is r-• • -i rv� i'ni a i•(--•....,� .t= �rw,r.•}r ��:. � <w;
�1 Ntv.':.2wa `^.+ _ x
r!! 1S86•S9'2I"E, 4 _ • ,J •., G _..y_ [µ
' �' "a 'itL }aa. r . �i y !••„'•,•��'_. .r L..- :ri^�
�`4 iA, tll '' \ ---. .,p, .� ;s 4�f '' a < `t. S •�11 K `� �'•+ .-•• '.,fli. ,r..nw. � � �':r :a
Ex is1 • ^t'ti. r<^ '': ••' �5�•• �!i't�,••'w.! j. �•�'�a r(.».2 ,:.::
r ..• 'E i �
�• ` ��' a
31 ��� _` ,�'.• . �! ,aa•r r'a L. r-� r- 2' �!•`•,�-r.•....y. t '
�� ,,y�•Y ! �y t �:i f or
•i�► , "r "(i.,<n•ra a < Y. 1 4ayd-d�'iii�.i is ai:.
It
IIt
4A� c �,t'-• ts3� .;� S�mw i .____ „ 'Y ; .J rr �°�"w t t
•� . "" • tires Ni+• --T- ...- i� „ .�
4 , 464 ••". V � !!))�,' `'w w`^E 'jjja�'` »sw- L.. ..a ... •4 iY'�.�•�il��� r' :::: Mu• -B
<• c ` l ti ;'~�' •A,ii p to ,i, �f • �; " i:�i.11.- , 15::..1e f.
j� t ,1 j�f e ♦ +. L
�> I 1t• y '�i<,a y !(:4
'1y�. 1�' �t Ipi4A-
1
f. , � is •-, n L u , lt1 ,z ro r
IF tig40 4 ••
It, w
r,ai •a• Aa.u,a•• w• •<a w rr 6 •��
•Yri Maai w •aiwai MM •�
♦ t
IF
�4-• �''''��'} p is �i ' r
PA
C `
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
11. Consideration of replacinq driveway culvert at 150 5 West River
Street. (J.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
We recently received a letter from Mr. Ronald Nygaard at
1521 west River Street regarding one of his neighbor's
culverts located approximately five lots away. This
particular culvert is a 15 -inch culvert, but because of its
grade and size at times freezes solid over the winter and
stops the flow of snow melt or rainwater in the early spring.
The driveway at 1505 West River Street is significantly high
so that the water cannot run over the drivewaywitltout backing
up into Mr. Nygaard's basement through a walkout door.
Several years ago, the City took bids to replace all of the
culverts in the area of West River Street; however, the bids
came back quite high, so the Council authorized the public
works department to replace one of the culverts o n West River
Street and another culvert on Hilltop Drive. The culvert in
question on west River Street on Lot 4 was repla sed with a
24 -inch culvert. The culvert on Hilltop Drive has not yet
been replaced but has not caused any significant backups or
problems.
Normally, culvert maintenance and replacement are the property
owner's responsibility; however, in this case, the City has
already replaced one of the culverts at no most to the
property owner and has essentially set a precedent at least in
this area to replace culverts at no cost to the property
owner. By replacing the culvert on Lot 5 with a larger
culvert set at a different grade, we could expect to eliminate
the treezing problems at least at this location_ By having
City crows replace the culvert, we should be able to keep the
City's out-of-pocket expenses to around $500. This would
exclude labor.
I spoke to Mr. John Gronau, the resident at 1505 West River
Street. lie has no problem with the City replacing the culvert
and patching the driveway at no cost to him. I did ask him to
attend Monday evening's meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The first alternative would be to replace the culvert as
necessary at 1505 West River Street at an estimated out-
of-pockot expense of $500.
20
I
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
2. The second alternative would be to replace the culvert
but assess the benefiting property. This would be
difficult, as the only immediate benefit would be to
Mr. Ron Nygaard with no benefit to the actual property
owner where the culvert is being replaced.
3. The third alternative would be to do nothing but to open
the culvert in those springs when it periodically
freezes.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the
Street Superintendent that the City Council authorize
replacement of this culvert as outlined in alternative 41.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the letter from Mr. Nygaard; Copy of the proposed plan
of the area.
21
I
August 10, 1990
Rick Wolfsteller
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Rick:
This spring, we had water back up into our basement early in the morning when
Monticello had rains and the culverts on West River Street were froze up. This
is the third time that we have had water in our basement. Two were due to rains
when the culverts were froze and one was due to heavy rains when the culverts
could not handle the water. I don't recall the year, but I did appear before
the city council when Cary Weiber was administrator and explained the situation
with the culverts and presented a detailed drawing with the existing culverts
and elevations. The council did take action that year and took bids on
replacing culverts that were undersized. Supposedly, the bids were higher than
anticipated so they dust replaced the l2 " culvert on Lot 4, Block 1 with a 24 "
RCP. That helped the problem during normal thaws and normal rains. The 15"
f culvert on Lot. Blockl also should have been changed. Ken Maus was on the
council at the time and Ken told me at the time that if I had any more problems
to let him know.
This spring, three of us had all we could do to vacuum, scoop and soak up the
water coming through our door and into our basement. I did call John Simola
about 6:45 a.m. Sunday morning, and John was real cooperative in getting a crew
out to open the culverts. The culvert that was the real culprit is the 15" on
Lot 5, Block 1 (1505 West River Street). The culvert is between 2 - 24"
culverts. The driveway is high and when the 15" is froze, the driveway acts as
a dam and water backs all the way back to our door and into the basement. The
water flows over the other driveways.
We do have carpet in our basement. Three of us worked non-stop four to five
hours trying to contain the water somewhat besides taking up the carpet, drying
and stretching and reinstalling the carpet.
I believe I have been patient in this matter and I believe the city is
responsible and should replace the 15" culvert on Lot 5, Block 1 this fall.
If you have an Questions, please call me.
Sinccrel
ons IK" r
C 1521 Weat er Street
Monticello, MN 55362
295-4487
'+ or
l
,r
.. as
}
i
_ t
�j�=M (, �1•f ��-\ 1.4.1♦ tti C.�.,4a f'♦ � 1iZ t♦♦rY iC. �.w.r♦� �+A{1 Mi •y � 7 �' ��• '
K'�.faSaY' � .4.t�• ,�_ - dna' a ��,-,��`�.o�♦. •�
.4 ♦ d a
a-.1 14•.44 ,�4ww1 �.1. a1 � ♦♦ta A 1
9 ►o
t I
r
i
I
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
12. Consideration of ordinance amendment adjustinq Mayor and
Council compensation. (R.W. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the Mayor and two Council member positions being up for
election this November, State Statutes require that any
increase in Council and Mayor compensation must be done by an
ordinance amendment or resolution prior to any municipal
election to take effect the following January. In other
words, if the Council is interested in adjusting the
compensation, it has to be done prior to the general election
in November or any increases cannot take effect until after
the next election in November of 1992.
To provide a little background, a monthly salary for the Mayor
and Council members was established in February of 1978 at
$100 per month for Council members and $125 per month for the
Mayor. In 1982, the compensation was increased to $125 for
Council members and $175 for the Mayor. In 1988, the Mayor's
compensation was increased to $225 per month and Council
members at $175. T here are a number of ways the Council could
Increase the compensation such as establishing a flat monthly
r amount, a monthly amount plus an additional amount for each
meeting, or basically any other method desired.
Although this may be more information that you desire,
enclosed you will find the 1990 salary survey prepared by the
League of Minnesota Cities for non -metro communities over
2,500 population listing what each community who responded is
paying their mayor and council members. I am only bringing up
this item for Council consideration in that if there is
consensus that the compensation level should be adjusted, it
has to be done prior to the general election. The City staff
does not havo any recommendation one way or another.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a motion to amond the ordinance and ordor
publication of the amended compensation level.
2. Take no action, thus leaving compensation as is.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of applicable section of existing ordinance; Salary
survey of communities over 2,500 in population.
22
1-5-10
1-5- 12
1-5-10: SUSPENSION; AMENDMENT OF RULES: The rules and regu-
lations of the Council may be temporarily suspended
by a majority vote of all the Council members, and shall not be
repealed or amended except by a majority vote of the whole Council
after notice has been given at some preceding Council meeting.
1-5-11: COMPENSATION: The monthly salary for offices of Mayor
and Council members shall be as follows:
Mayor - •5225.00 per month
Council Members - $175.00 per month
(10/12/62 0124)
(8/22/68 #163)
1-5-12: WORKER'S COMPENSATION - ELECTED OFFICIALS:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 176.011,
Subdivision 9, Clause 6, the elected officials
of the City of Monticello are hereby included in the coverage
of the Minnesota worker's Compensation Act.
(9168, 1/23/89)
C
i.1L1L41410�i 0 0 L1 41 41 61 W W a! W W id i! 14)11 ]i lII111►4i1UU1�
05/21/90
MAYOR: Elected Official.
COUNCILMEMBER: Elected Official.
LEAGUE OF NI NNESOTA CITIES
1990 SALARY QJRVEY
GOVERNING BODY
JOB COMES: 001. 002
EMPLOYEE mVRRAGE FAMILY COVERAGE WORKERS CONVENSAIION
EIPL CITY TOTAL E14PL CITY TOTAL EMPL CITY TOTAL
OSI COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST
............................................................
0.00 10.17 10.17
0.00 10.17 10.17
0.00 4.69 4.69
0.00 4.69 4.69
0.00 11.67 11.67
0.00 11.67 11.61
ADDITIONAL
39.17
ANNUAL vAt1ENT FOR
24.38
JOB TITLE
..............................................
GLARY SPECIAL MEETINGS
NEALIN PROVIDER
MAYOR
8300 33
.....................
NONE
CORICILRENBER
4800 35
11011E
MAYOR
OT
31100 ONE
NOME
COLUCILMEIKR
2800 NOTE
NOTE
RATON
2700NNE
NONE
COSNCILMEINER
1soo NOME
NOTE
MAYOR
6000 NOTE
NOSE
We 11.14110111
3600 NONE
NOR
FAVOR
4200 25/2N1S;SO-4;75.6;100.24
NOPE
CMMCILMEINEN
3900 25/2N111;SO.4;75•6;100.24
HONE
MATOR
30001s
MORE
CRBICILRERUR
1200 IS
NOR
MAYOR
1500 am
NONE
COBICILNENBER
1200 NOR
NOME
MAYOR
2200 SONE
NOR
mRMCILMENOEN
18001101E
NNE
MAYOR
4800 NONE
WAS GOLD M/CO-PAY
COAICILMEMNER
3600 SOME
MARE GOLD V/CO-PAY
MAYOR
3600 //Na
BLUE cROtt/11LLE SMELL
ALMERRAN
2400 7/N1
BLUR CROSS/BLUE BNIELI
MATON
3360 SONE
!ORE
CONICIINENER
2160 NORL
S01R
MAYOR
Isoo Is
MORE
COAMCILREROEN
1200 is
NNE
MAYOR
3000 NOR
EMPLOYER'S NEALTN
W111CILIIENBEN
2400 NOR
MOVES'S MEAILM
RATON
3650 NOR
BLUR CROSS/BLUE SNIELI
COANCILMISKA
2400 NONE
BLUE CROSS/81LE WELL
JOB COMES: 001. 002
EMPLOYEE mVRRAGE FAMILY COVERAGE WORKERS CONVENSAIION
EIPL CITY TOTAL E14PL CITY TOTAL EMPL CITY TOTAL
OSI COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST
............................................................
0.00 10.17 10.17
0.00 10.17 10.17
0.00 4.69 4.69
0.00 4.69 4.69
0.00 11.67 11.67
0.00 11.67 11.61
0.00 39.17
39.17
0.00 24.s6
24.38
0.00 300.08 300.88
0.00 4.72
AM
0.00 300.68 380.88
0.00 4.22
AM
1A.60 0.00 177.60
6.31
6.31
117.60 0.00 177.60
6.31
6.11
S.94
5.94
S.94
5.91
0.60 262.00 2612.00 166.00 491.00 652.00
0.00 6.2S
6.25
0.00 262.00 262.00 164.00 491.00 667.00
0.00 4.00
4.00
0.00 343.63 343.61
0.00 343.83 x5.63
J
I
LEAGUE Of MINNESOTA CITIES
1990 SALARY SURVEY
05/21/90
GWERRING BODY
JOB
CODES: 001.
002
MAYOR:
Elected Official.
CMICILMEMBER:
Elected Official.
ADDITIONAL
EMPLOYEE COVRRAGE
FAMILY COVERAGE
YORKENS COwENullom
ANTRAL PAYMENT FOR
EWL CITY TOTAL
EMPL CITY TOTAL
LKPL CIIT
TOTAL
CITY NAME
JOB TITLE
SALARY SPECIAL MEETINGS
......................
KEALTN PROVIDEN
CMT COST COST
COST COST COST
COST COST
COSI
...............
DELANO
..................
RATON
......
1500 2S
.........._.............
NONE
...... ...... ......
...... ...... ...... ......
......
........
DELANO
CL7UNCitiamER
1200 2S
NONE
DETROIT LAKES
MAYOR
3900 NONE
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SNIELD
0.00 130.25 1$0.25
iS.00 331.64 346.64
0.00 6.31
8.31
DETROIT LAKES
COUNCi LMERBER
2700 YOME
BLUE. CROSS/BLUE SNIELD
Tim 130.25 130.25
15.00 331.64 346.64
0.00 8.31
8.31
DILIfORTN
MAYOR
1240 70/DAT FOR TIME LOSS
am
0.00 8.83
8.83
DILWORTH
COUNCILMENBER
2160 70/DAY FOR TIRE 1055
NONE
0.00 8.113
0.83
EAST GRAtm IORKS
MAYOR
S400 NONE
NONE
0.00 10.17
10.17
EAST GRAND FORKS
COUNLILMENBER
4600 MORE
NONE
0.00 10.17
10.17
NELK RIVER
MAYOR
4800 100/10 EDA MTGt
WWI
ELK RIVER
CEAINCUNFICUR
1600 100/140 FDA PIGS
NOME
EVELEFN
NATOR
3300 NONE
BLUE CROSS/11111 SHIELD
18.08 344.05 162.11
0.00 Si.00
51.00
EVELETN
COIUICILMR
27W NOME
BLUE CROSS/111UE SHIELD
18.08 $44.05 362.13
0.00 51.00
51.00
FAIRMONT
MAYOR
2400 NOME
SELF INAIOEO
0.00 50.00 60.00
0.00 180.00 180.00
0.00 .84
.84
FAIRMONT
COUNCILIOMBER
2400 NOW
SELF INSURED
0.00 90.00 60.00
0.00 180.00 180.00
0.00 .84
.84
IARIUWLI
RATON
4560 NOME
AWARE
103.00 0.00 103.00
309.00 0.00 309.00
FAD IBAULI
COUYCILMENOER
3960 NONE
AWE
101.00 0.00 101.00
309.00 0.00 309.00
f ERGIA fAIIS
RAYON
4800 2001110 In -CITY EXPENSE
NONE
FERGUS FALLS
CO NCILMENBER
3000 75/10 IN•CITT EXPENSE
HOME
GLENCOE
RATON
3600 NMI
NONE
GLENCOE
CCANCILPEOER
2400 NOPE
NOPE
' GLENWOOD
MATH
2700 NMI
NMI
GLENYODD
C0IMISSSaER
1800 am
NNIR
GoWVIEV
MAYOR
IS00 NONE
NONE
0.00 10.00
10.00
1200
NOSE
0.00 10.00
10.00
rRA1111EY
GIIRYII! Ihllt
RAtA1CILRENBER
MAYOR
1300 9jED O/ EOUAL 124TB
918D
No
0.00 8.57
e.St
N GRANITE FALLS
COACILREREEN
1200 9/0 Of EOLALIZATN
am
O.DO 8.57
a.S7
NERNANfdRI
MArot
1600 MORE
M10ME
0.00 e.e1
8.63
MERMANi111N
COUNCIL
1800 Nae
NOR
0.00 8.63
8.63
-
- .• _• •, •t
„ at 41 it
it 14
!l P 1
4111#Atk,44, fit 41kiki4►41Lv41+l414-1tj!a'�
05/21/90
MAYOR: Elected Official.
CORCILREMBER: Elected Official.
L£A1.18 OF MINYESOTA CITIES
1490 GLARY SUIVET
GOVERNING SODY
JOB CODES: 001. 002
EMPLOYEE CDVRNAGE
ADDITIONAL
WORKERS CCMDERSAT ION
ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR
CITY NAME
...............
JOB TITLE
..................
SALARY SPECIAL MEETINGS
MISSING
RAYON
...... ......................
6600 NONE
MIBBING
COIRRILOIIS
3912 me
MOTT LAKES
MAYOR
2100 2S/MtG; LIMIT Umo
MOTT LAKE/
COUNCILIIENBER
ISOD 2S/NTG; limit bm0
MUTCNINSCM
RATON
67150 Nae
MUTCHINSON
COUNCILIRENBER
4304 NOME
INTERNATIONAL FALLS
MAYOR
5600 NONE
IMIEBNATIONAL FALLS
COUNCILREMBER
3000 MOPE
JACKSOM
MAYOR
3200 25/60 OF REVIEW
-JACKSON
CGLXCILREPMER
2400 25180 OF BEVIEV
KASSOM
MAYOR
1/00 NONE
KASSON
COLWCILMEMBER
1200 NONE
LA CICSCENt
RATON
1500 2S
LA CBESCEaI
COUMCILNEMBEa
1200 25
LE S1AUR
MAYOR
1400 30
LE SIEUR
COUNCILMEN
1800 30
LltCNFIELD
PATON
2400 NOME
LITCHI IELO
COIMCILMEMBER
1800 ROME
LITTLE FALLS
MAYOR
3000 HOME
LITTLE FALLS
COUYCILMEOREN
24W ND11E
LOMG PRAIRIE
PATON
SSOO 2S
LONG PRAIRIE
COOMCILIERUP
1200 25
LUVEaNE
RAYON
60/110. SO/SPEC
LUVE1Nt
ALDERMAN
So/ato. 40ILPEC
MANKATO
MAYOR
5400 ROME
MANKATO
COUNCILREP414
3000 NNE
MARSNALI
RAYON
S/SO ROME
MAISKALL
COAICILMERBEB
2500 Not
L£A1.18 OF MINYESOTA CITIES
1490 GLARY SUIVET
GOVERNING SODY
JOB CODES: 001. 002
EMPLOYEE CDVRNAGE
FAMILY COVERAGE
WORKERS CCMDERSAT ION
EMPL CITY TOTAL
EMPL CITY TOTAL
EMPL
CITY
TOTAL
KERLIN PROVIDER
.........................
COST COST CDST
...... ......
COST COSt COST
COST
COST
COST
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD
......
...... ...... ......
140.82 3SS.02 496.64
......
......
18.43
........
18.43
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD
140.82 3SS.82 496.64
10.92
10.92
BONE
0.00
8.63
8.03
ROME
0.00
8.83
8.83
SELECT CARE
0.00 137.00 137.00
0.00 307.00 307.00
SELECT CARE
0.00 137.00 137.00
0.00 307.00 301.00
BLUE CROSS
0.00 114.00 114.00
0.00 281.00 281.00
0.00
7.93
7.93
ELLE CROSS
0.00 114.00 114.00
0.00 281.00 281.00
0.00
7.93
7.93
NONE
BONE
MOPE
0.00
1.00
1.00
NOME
0.00
1.00
1.00
NOME
NONE
NONE
ROME
NONE
0.00
14.25
14.25
NONE
0.00
10.42
10.42
BLUR CROSS
0.00 94.46 94.46
2.61 260.92 263.53
0.00
14.6t
14.67
BLUE CROSS
0.00 04.46 94.46
2.61 260.92 263.53
0.00
11.75
It.7S
BONE
NONE
ROME
0.00
21.00
2S.D0
NOME
0.011)
40.01)
40.00
ROME
am
Rae
ROR
LEAGUE Of MINNESOTA CITIES
1990 SALARY SURVEY
05/21/90 GOVERNING BODY 200 CODES: 001, 002
MAYOR: Elected Official.
COFYCILMEMRER: Elected Official.
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE COVRRACE FAMILY COVERAGE WORKERS COMPENSATION
ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR EMPL CITT TOTAL IMPL CITY TOTAL EMPI CITY TOTAL
CITY MARE JOB TITLE SALARY SPECIAL MEETINGS MEALSN PROVIDE* COS? COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COSI
............... .................. ...... ..................... ......................... ...... ...... ...... .._._....... ...... ...... ...... ........
04EL205f NATO* 2500 20 NONE
MELROSE COURCILMEMBER 2100 20 NONE
MOILIEVIDEO MAYOR 2140 S/MR 6D Of fOUAL12ATM MOVE 0.00 8.35 8.35
MONTEVIDEO COUNCILMEMB£* 2140 S/HN 90 Of EOUALIZATM NNE 0.00 6.35 8.35
YKA1110ELLO MAYOR 2700 NOME NONE 0.00 6.83 8.83
MONTICELLO CO NCILREMOER 2100 NOME NONE 0.00 8.63 8.83
MOOAKEAD MAYOR 12096 am SLUE CROSS/SLUE SHIELD 0.00 118.18 118.18 99.39 251.90 331.29 0.00 20.58 20.58
p MOORNEAD comiLMEMBEN 8324 NOTE Otte CROSS/SLUE SNIELO 0.00 118.18 118,18 99.39 231.90 331.29 0.00 20.58 20.115
MORA MAYOR 80/REO; SO/SPEC NONE
MORA CONCIUUEMOR ?D/REG; SO/SPEC NOME
a MORRIS FAVOR 4450 NOME NONE
MORRIS CCUNCILMENOEN 3250 NONE ROME
MOJNtAIN IRON MAYOR 2700 NOME NONE
MOJATAIV IRON CONICILREMBEI 2100 NONE ROME
NEW ULM FAVOR 4200 NONE MORE 0.00 10.33 10.33
NEW ULM COACILNENKV 3600 25/60 OF EOUAL12A11011 MAE 0.00 10.33 10.33
NORTH MANKATO RATON 4600 NONE BORE
MORIN FANKATO CATV COUNCIL 2400 am owl
NOR INF IRO MAYOR 4800 owl DOME 0.00 11.04 11.04
NORTMFIELD CO210CILMEMBER 3600 UWE am 0.00 6.26 8.28
OLIVIA RATON 1700 SO NONE 0.00 10.17 10.17
OLIVIA C"CiLNENBER 1200 SO NONE 0.00 10.17 10.17
ORTOMVILLE FAVOR ISOD ROME am
0110MVILLE COIAICILMEMBE* 1200 LONE NONE
•. a►TONNA RATON 6300 a= IIOO 0.00 12.13 12.13
(h*)' OWATONNA CONIct LMEMOEN 5700 am MORE 0.00 12.13 12.0
PARK RAPIDS IATA 1SOO NONE ROME
PARK RAPIDS COMCILMEMRER 1200 RINE am
-- -• .. ,� ,1 e1 41 251 R, ii 1, i1
�i �r i'.
:'r 'i'r ii
li
U ii
L l► L�
li �/ d
�i �t int cL
�`t `t Al �: (..
l�. 1'r li
it1 i� li
li li V
ii ll
Q_
J
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
1990 SALARY SIAIVEY
05/21/90
GOVERNING BODY
JOB
CODES: 001, 002
MATO:
EIRC ted Official.
CONCILMEMBER:
Elnted Offlcist.
ADDITIONAL
EMPLOYEE COVRRAGE
EMILY COVERAGE
WORKERS ODImERSAT ION
ANNUAL PAYTQNT FOR
ENPL CITY TOTAL
ENPL CITY TOTAL
ENPL CITY
TOTAL
CITY NAME
JOB TITLE
SALARY SPECIAL MEETINGS
NEALTN PROVIDER
COST COST COSI
COST COST COSI
COST COST
COST
...............
PINE CITY
..................
MAYOR
...... ......................
IND IO/NR
.........................
NOME
...... ...... ......
...... ...... ......
...... ...... ........
0.00 31.17
31.17
PINE CITY
COUNCILREMBER
960 10/NR
NONE
0.00 11.17
31.17
PIPESTONE
MAYOR
3SOO ROME
NONE
PIPESIONE
ALDERMEN
2000 NONE
NONE
PRINCETON
MAYOR
2600 NOME
NONE
PRINCETON
COUNC I LNEMBER
2100 NONE
NONE
REDVIMG
MAYOR
1320 ROME
NONE
y. NEDVING
COUNCILMEMBER
3120 NONE
NONE
REDWOOD FALLS
MAYOR
1200 NONE
NONE
0.00 21.00
21.00
RIDWXIO FALIS
COUNCILMENBER
SON 10/GTWRO REVIEW
NOTE
0.00 26.00
78.00
ROCHESTER
MAYOR
I&% NONE
SELF INSIAIED
0.00 102.62 102.62
16.16 266.26 281.12
0.00 1.99
1.99
ROCHESTER
CGIMCILNERBEN
1057 NOME
SELF INSURED
0.00 102.62 102.82
16.16 266.26 254.12
0.00 1.15
1.11
SANIELL
MAYOR
2700 35
ONE
IARTFIL
COIAICILREMBEI
2163 35
MORE
SAUK CENTRE
MAYOR
2100 NONE
NNE
SALIN CENTRE
COAICILREMBER
1500 NONE
NOME
SALIN RAPIDS
MOTOR
3000 35
NOPE
0.00 1.57
7.57
SAUN RAPIDS
COAICILNENUR
2100 is
NONE
0.00 7.57
7.57
SILVER DAY
MATON
3000 NONE
NONE
0.00 7.95
1.95
SILVER BAY
COIOCILMEMOER
1800 NONE
MOVE
0.00 1.9E
7.95
SLEEPY EYE
MAYOR
1600 NONE
NNE
0.00 1.61
7.61
StEVY EYE
COINCILMEMOER
1000 NNE
ROME
0.00 1.61
7.61
IT. CLOD
MAYOR
2100 ROME
BLUE CROSS/GLUE SNIELD
10.00 296.55 306.SS
15.00 291.SS 306.SS
0.00 12.18
12.16
11. CLOUD
COINCILMCMSER
6600 ROME
GLUE CROSS/GUIE SNIELD
10.00 296.SS 306.SS
15.00 291.SS 306.55
0.00 17.52
17.52
IT. JAMES
MAYOR
ON NNE
NNE
0.00 5.63
8.65
Il, JAMES
CGIYCILIIIMB[■
600 ROME
NONE
0.00 8.83
8.83
/1. JOGEPN
MAVOo
3600 10
MORE
\ if. JOSCDN
CGWCILMEWER
IBM 10
OWE
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
1990 SALARY SURVEY
05/21/90
GOVERNING BODY
JOB CODES: 001. 002
MAYOR:
Elec Ted official.
COJNCILMEMBER:
Elected Official.
ADDITIONAL
EMPLOYEE COVRRAGE FAMILY COVERAGE
WORKERS COMPENSATION
ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR
EMPL CITY TOTAL EMPL CITY TOTAL
EMPL CITY
TOTAL
CITY NAME
......
JOB TITLE
..................
GLARY SPECIAL MEETINGS
...... ......................
HEALTH PROVIDER
COSI COST COSI COSI COST COST
...... ...... ...... ...... ......
COST COST
COST
.........
61. PETER
MAYOR
2400 15
.........................
AWARE COLD
......
100.00 0.00 IOD.00 267.00 0.00 267.00
...... ......
........
61. PETEN
COIYCILMERBER
1500 1S
AWARE GOLD
100.00 0.00 100.00 267.00 0.00 267.00
STAPLES
MAYOR
3000 10
NONE
STAPLES
COIINCILMCRBER
2220 10
NONE
STEWARTVILLE
MATOI
2000 20
NONE
0.00 14.92
14.92
STEWARTVILLE
COJYCILREMBER
1200 20
NONE
0.00 14.92
14.92
THIEF RIVER FALLS MAYOR
6000 NONE
NONE
0.00 16.75
16.75
u.
THIEF RIVER TALI{ Al0[RMEY
5400 NOIRE
NONE
0.00 14.08
15.00
IMA HARBOR$
MAYOR
2400 YORE
ROME
TWO HARBORS
COUNCILRERSER
40
NONE
VIRGINIA
MAYOR
6000 NONE
9C/8S AWLRF
14.23 120,10 142.31 32.96 296.60 309.SS
0.00 29.60
29.60
VIRGINIA
COINCILRERSLR
3600 YOKE
SC/BS AWARE
14.23 120.1D 142.31 32.96 296.60 309.55
0.00 29.60
20.60
WADENA
MAYOR
3600 YORE
TINE INSURANCE
0.00 00.00 90.00 0.00 205.00 2DS.00
0.00 6.73
B. n
WADEMA
COJNCILMERUR
3000 NOPE
TIME INSURANCE
0.00 90.00 90.00 0.00 205.00 205.00
0.00 8.73
8.73
WAITE PARK
MAYOR
4800 10
ONE
0.00 8.61
8.83
WIRE PARK
COINCILNEMBER
24W 10
NON!
0.00 8.63
6.83
WSEU
MAYOR
5640 IS/BOARD REVIEW
YOYE
WASECA
COUNCIL
2820 75/BOARD REVIEW
NOPE
WELLS
MAYOR
1500 YORE
ROME
WILL/
COCILREMBER
UYMAYOR
1000 am
ONE
YI IINAN
3200 101
SLUR CROSS/BLUE SHIELD
0.00 96.28 96.28 290.67 0.00 290.67
WILLMAN
COINCIIMCMBER
1400 10/MR
BLU! CROSS/BLUE SHIELD
0.00 96.29 96.28 290.67 0.00 290.67
WINDOI
14ATOR
2592 NOT!
am
0.00 10.00
10.00
WIN"
COUNCIL
1992 ROM!
NON!
0.00 10.00
10.00
MAYOR
7000 Vol!
ROY[
0.00 5.83
5.81
YIYOYA
COIYCIIPER{OY
4500 YOU!
YON!
0.00 3.15
3.75
OURINOMA
T�6
WAIIHIYGTOY
MAYOR
7500 MOAT 011.01-TORI RTW
BLIT CROSS/BLUE SHIELD
0.00 141.00 141.00 130.00 12S.DD 105.00
0.00 20.94
20.94
WORTHINGTON
CORICILMEMBEA
41500 33/DAY OJT-0I-TOWN MICS
BLU! CR066/{LUE SHIELD
0.00 143.00 141.00 130.00 175.00 305.00
0.00 12.56
12.56
tt
``
1 IB 1�
rl
1� el �� �1
vl
X11
�l
fl �� �� I��
it �� �1 •L �I
11 \L
!1 ��
�1 �1 �1 1� �1 �� ��
�� ��
�,) �1
Council Agenda - 9/10/90
13. Consideration of qamblinq license application --Joyner Lanes.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For the past few years, Celebrity Bowl Charities has been
operating the pull tab gambling operation at Joyner bowling
alley in Monticello. Recently, the Celebrity Bowl Association
has been suspended by the State of Minnesota from operating
any gambling activities in local bowling establishments. The
Monticello Jaycees have applied to the State for a gambling
license to operate the pull tab facilities at Joyner Lanes.
The application is in process; and if the Council does not
have any opposition to the Jaycees operating an additional
gambling license, the license will be issued within 60 days.
The Monticello Jaycees currently operate pull tab gambling at
both the Silver Fox Motel and the Comfort Inn Motel. If the
Council does not oppose an additional license for Joyner
Lanes, the Jaycees have requested the staff write a letter to
the Gambling Control Division waiving our 60 -day notice
requirement and allowing them to issue the license as soon as
possible.
Normally, the Council reviews the last 12 months' financial
statements before renewing a license; but since this is a new
organization, this Information Is not available since the last
time a license was renewed at Joyner Lanes.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Do not oppose the issuance of the license and waive the
60 -day notice requirement.
2. Recnmmend that the Jaycees not be granted a license.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff does not have any reason to oppose the issuance of
the Jaycees' .License at Joyner Lanes. In order to speed up
the process, the City has in the past waived the 60 -day notice
requirement, which would be appropriate in this case if the
Council has no opposition.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
C
23
INFORMATION ITEM
Variance request by Tapper's Inc. (J.O.)
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the
following variance request. Subsequent to the public hearing, the
Planning Commission acted to approve the variance request. Other
than remarks made by the applicant, there was no public input
regarding this item.
If any Council member does not agree with Planning Commission
approval of the variance, please contact staff, and we will place
the item on the next Council agenda.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/4/90
Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow no curbinq in
certain area of a parking lot. A request to allow less than
the minimum required tree plantinq size. Applicant, Tappers„
Inc. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Tapper's, Inc., requests that the City consider granting a
variance which would allow the company to forestall
development of curbing in an area of the parking lot that is
planned for expansion. As you will note on the site plan, the
building is oriented in a manner that will allow future
expansion. Likewise, the parking lot is oriented to
accommodate this future expansion. Tapper s, Inc., requests
that the end of the parking area subject to expansion be
allowed to be developed without a curb line. The applicant
feels that it is a waste of money to install a curb line only
to remove it in a few short years as part of an expansion of
the parking area. In addition, the curb line is not a
necessary component of the drainage plan.
The applicant also requests a variance which would allow 14 of
the required 24 overstory trees to possess less than the
minimum diameter of 2-1/2 inches. In exchange for this
variance, the applicant plans on planting 28 overstory trees,
which is four more trees than is required by ordinance.
Planning Commission is asked to consider this variance request
In light of the additional tree plantings and determine if the
proposed exchange is proper.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the variance request allowing
elimination of curbing in an area of a parking lot
planned for future expansion and approve the variance
request allowing installation of trees with a 2 -inch
diameter rather than the required 2-1/2 inch diameter.
There are other examples of the City granting a variance
to the curb requirement as requested by the current
applicant. In addition, the conditional use permit
process that lessons the curbing requirement also allows
the deferral of development of a curb line in parking lot
expansion areas.
The proposal to reduce the size of 10 of the required 24
trees in exchange for the planting of 4 more trees may
not be a problem, as the smaller trees aro only 1/2 inch
Csmaller in diameter than the trees required by ordinance.
C
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/4/90
Motion to approve curb variance request and deny request
to install tree plantings with a diameter less than the
2-1/2 inch diameter required by ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In terms of the curb variance, the Planning Commission appears
to have only one alternative, and that is to approve the
variance. The City has granted similar variances in the past,
and the curb is not required to control drainage; therefore,
it appears that this variance should be approved. Planning
Commission might want to stipulate that the variance is good
for a limited time; and if expansion does not occur within
three years, this item should be reviewed again by the
Planning Commission. At such time, the variance could be
extended; or if plans have changed, the curb could be
installed at that time.
In terms of the variance to the required tree diameter,
installation of 4 additional trees in lieu of the required
2-1/2 inch tree diameter with 10 trees appears to be a fair
exchange and should not impair the intent of the ordinance.
It is my recommendation that the variance be approved. Gary
Anderson disagrees with me and argues that the full diameter
t
should be required, as there is no guarantee that all of the
trees will survive. If some of the trees die, the City will
be left with less in exchange for the variance granted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Tapper's, Inc., parking and landscaping site
plans; Excerpts from the zoning ordinance.
t1�J
0
PLANT LEGEND:
tCfi fiOr�sfltJi: tiAMG r(AAfh.I 6W�tL '.I(L y(N W'ff/9
!}` j!y» ft.A»► !rr ry4, a'sa • tra�rtsJ ttK
"�. tr ~K•» YWM ».Ft• w�M Y wW»i O.ifM4Lq,'
,{ W glyU• MIpN /lb ya i' •• a MA''•"Y* `�'•f
ff ft+><i+Y7• !'►Y3•'Ri►r+'•u••R �w►t»I(�y,i TM i Mw•rA .+Rp+u. R.�.
' YV yAt•ii {l.� .w 6i4 i Nf�tVf4y{.r gy
.r a.ruM►r u-*A;"M.AI+•.avv— wrAw �r.r �. +`•wr.
of r,.Up&w-.kw`,WMWI' �•7»•f H"••Mv s•.yII•
[r ml+rw:+4.r+w..'.IVMIc: i+atw�a�•tsr• w rs .r-fi++.••+et.r•.i
Ja .11Yrf,�•1• It�.ed/•.. •Iapai}' OIMa.•r� JuAr1,* •.�•, 6 fi..wNy Y•r wd
t» nw• . »a.. carry nw»+ hr n'rf, t ,.fi..•r ++4+e•cd »»•.
214 W -_
..iM �'� •'fes ` rlll» .�: I f�It1� i
�p »r r•'ti
?, SES ��...f •, F-- a' PR
i
OL ti t _..... •.
- � .nw
.,aww
t •.. ro •.
ih.'.S# "f6 A.*f j. hlt Y _, w
w•..y
!ite�l dwe•trto p tees A1,10cc40
sEw ( O✓titsioi� tet CsjPtl,..4@d 2.1
`;rI L.e..�4at�u.t ff�GS aRa �e,rK)t�►L�C�
INFORMATION ITEM
Variance request by Mark Anderson. (J.0.)
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the
followi ng variance request. Subsequent to the public hearing, the
Planning Commission acted to deny the variance request. Other than
remarks made by the applicant, there was no public input regarding
this it em. The applicant did not appeal the Planning Commission's
denial .
If any Council member does not agree with Planning Commission
denial of the variance, please contact staff, and we will place the
item on the next Council agenda.
A
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/4/90
Public Hearing --A variance request to allow additional pylon
sign height than the maximum -foot height allowed.
Applicant, Mark Anderson. (J.O.) 33 -
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mark Anderson, operator of the Subway Shop being developed
south of the Tom Thumb on Highway 25, is asking the City to
allow installation of a pylon sign with a height of 45 feet
and a total sign area of 100 square feet. The proposed sign
is located within 800 feet of the roadway. Signs installed in
this area are allowed to be 32 feet high; therefore, Anderson
requests a variance of 13 feet. The total sign area of
100 square feet as proposed is allowed by ordinance.
As some of you may recall, in 1989 the City reviewed its
ordinance with regard to regulation of pylon signs along the
Highway 25/I-94 corridor. The review process culminated in a
reaffirmation of the maximum sign height and sign area allowed
in the freeway bonus area or that area extending 800 feet from
the freeway right-of-way. Upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission, the City Council made the following motion: "The
maximum pylon sign square footage shall remain at 200 square
feet, maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public
right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and
the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per
property." This particular motion was made to reaffirm the
existing ordinance and thereby diminish previous precedent
established when the City granted variances to allow other
businesses to establish signs higher than the minimums without
said businesses demonstrating significant hardship.
The applicant will argue that the City of Monticello has
granted variances before to this particular ordinance. Staff
would argue that those variances are moot because the City
reaffirmed its existing ordinance; and, therefore, the
precedent is significantly diminished.
The sole reason for this request is to simply have a higher
sign than that which is allowed by ordinance. No hardship is
demonstrated in this situation, and granting this variance
would impair the intent of the ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the 13 -foot variance to the maximum
sign height requirement In the freeway bonus area.
2. Motion to deny the 13 -foot variance to the maximum sign
height requirement in the freeway bonus area.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/4/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Previous precedent is diminished by Council action taken on
April 10, 1990. No hardship has been demonstrated, and
granting of the variance would impair the intent of the
ordinance. In addition, this is one of the first
opportunities for the City to encourage development of freeway
signage that is effective but less obtrusive.
Approval of this variance request will result in a need to
amend the ordinance, as it will set a precedent that will
dictate how high signs can be in the future. Finally, for
your information, K mart asked for a sign to be installed that
would be higher than the maximum allowed by ordinance. Staff
responded to K mart by saying that the City had recently
reaffirmed its sign height maximums and that it was not likely
that a sign higher than the maximum 32 feet would be allowed
unless a hardship could be demonstrated. The K mart
Corporation responded by amending its plan for sign
development by reducing the sign height to match the City
maximums.
For the reasons noted above, staff recommends that the
variance request be denied.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Plan showing proposed sign height and sign height allowed by
ordinance; Excerpts from the Monticello Zoning Ordinance;
Excerpts from City Council( minutes of April 10, ^1989.
�.15v.o.$.v! A/Swan.-�.�' Co(L 0.n d��•,.o...0 M�n�.,�wv�+�
Ese+•I nn 1
ft 40 Olt x.o
Vita—
l%et 0,4x
*�4
� oral 1
Na�aS,a�eP -3z s<<k s,.� d4P o a a„s��'
4
0
N
I
,,SI
-T-P.3.44t,-S
13
do,r*-1(4t
11
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Monthly BulldlnS.D.partaant-Report
-
- .Month
of August
19 90
PERMITS AUD USES
'
test
'Thin - gear Month 'last
Vast 'Thi■
Y"C
PERMITS ISSUED
Month
Month Lest
Year To Data
To Data
RESIDENTIAL
Maher
IO
17
17
13
91
Valuation
8521,900.00 8261.000.00 8166,300.00 6 2.428,300.00 S 1.762,5OO.00�
pos
4,150.15 2,112.17
1,454.06
1-7,d17.24
14,403.0(
Su::hares.
239.83 128.75
81.65
1,206.90
869.4` -
COMMERCIAL
4
2
16
20
Number
3
valuation
81,800.00
41.500.00
12,000.00 1,503,400.00
2.684,000.0(
Pao
679.10
434.00
136.50
9,801.50
15.365.8(
8ureher9es
40.90
20.50
6.25
130.93
1,341.0[
INDUSTRIAL
1
_
Nmtrr
3
7
Valuation
80,200.002,637,100.00
2,835,900.0C
rase
908.00
15,033.63
17.033.1!
..::hare.■
40.10
1,328.55
1,417.9°
PLUMBING
M,aber
6
7
2
26
73
Pee.
188.00
293.00
46.00
654,00
966.0(
Surcharges
3.00
3.30
1.00
13.00
16.5C
OTHERS
Number
1
2
7
6
Valuation
00
0
O
95,000.00 -
r.es
10.QO
20.00
70.00
1.100.00
Sur:her9ee
.50
1.00
7.50
49.30 -
(1
TOTAL MO. PERMIT.
20
11
23
11i
IRT
TOTAL VALUATION
683.900.00
2,959.600.00 .178,300.00 3,931 .100.00
7,282,400.00
TOTAL PEES
5.933.41
17,682.80
1,656.56 28 .112.74
48;RA7.90 -'
TOTAL SURCHARDu
343.85
1,481.10
88.90
1 .974,35
3,694.40
CURRENT MONTH
-
r!'-.
Naab.0
to O.ta
PERMIT NATURE
Number
PERMIT SURCHARGE
Valuation
Thla V,.-
Leat v.sr
Single Pally
4 E
1.818.67 E 116.85
6 233.700.00
12
17
tltipt.i
0
0 0
0
0
0
Multi-[o11y
0
0 0
0
1
2
Ceae.r:lel
0
0 0.
0
5
0
IldUXtLiGI
2
1.0,540.73 590.20
1,180.400.00
4
0
Res. Garages
1
20.00 1.00
2,000.00
4
4'
Sig -a
0
0 0
0
1
0
Milo Buildings
�0
0 0
0
0
0 �
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
D"Iling.
it
236.20 9.90
23.600.00
52
�z
co .rol.I
4
404.00 20.30
41.Soo.00
a
le
Indu.trlat
1
4,492.90 7318 5
1,476,700.00
1
0
FLAX ING
All Types
7
293.00 3.30
31
26
ACCESSORY STRUCTUR9S
Srl-ln9 Pool•
0
I
0
DeoAs
0
15.00 .50
1500.00
11
10
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
1
10.00 .50
3
7
TOTAL.
32
17.662.801 1481.30
2,939.600.00
156
127
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of AUGUST . 19_10
PERMIT
DESCRIPTION
TYPEI
NAME/:UCASION
VALUATION
-
NUMBER
PERMIT
SURCHARGEE�
PLUMBING SURCHARGE
90-1538
interior Remodel
AC
Glees Hut/1219 Hvy. 125 S.
5,000.00
50.00
2.50
0
90-1579
_
Houea end Ga roge
SF
Value Plus Homos/IlI Crocus Lane
51.100.00
777.50
25.55
20.00 .50
90-1540
Ho and Cara It
SF
John Miller Const./108 Kav to Longley Dr.
85.D00.00
!14.90
42.50
11.00 .50
90-1541
Office/Manufacturing
I
Ra®ala EnglneerinR/2l7 CUTA- R ad
.92,600.00
2.715.50
296 JO
72.00 .SO
90-1542
•Rep let emont of Entv'y
AD
Shirley Anderson/306 Ee et Broudvay
1.500.00
15.00
.50
90-1543
Datachad Geroge
RC
Cheryl Stntnmat4/917 E. Broedvay
2.000.00
20.00
1.00
90-15.4
Of!Addition
Al
Northo rn jgptea Pwerf 2801 W. Cry Rd 175
1.476 ,700.00
4.492.90
738.3)
94.00 .50
90-1545
Nouse v(th Attached Garage
SP
Value Plue Homa s/109 Crocus Lana
48,800.00
395.28
24.40
23.00 .50
90-154b
Hous. Sht nRla-¢aPlocament
AD
Clarence and Nancy McCarty/319 V. 3rd St.
1.500.00
15.00
.SO
90-1547
O(f lca/Menufactu rLng _
I
W1111nm Tnn112. Cha LecLgpitd__
.87.800.00
2,702.90
297.90
40.00 .50
9D-1548
Ramodaling Ettating Deck/Porch
AD
Wallace 6 Jaan Jonson /277 Mlestsel DPl Or.
5,000.00
50.00
2.50
90-1549
Deck
AD
Brad and Short Cyr/2720 Maodw Lona
1.500.00
15.00
.50
90-1550
House Shingle ¢up locament -
AD
Doug and Carol PIt /925 Y. River St.
1,500.00
15.00
.50
90-1551
Hav Roof Coating
AC
Brod La roan/318 Voet Broedvay
1.500.00
15.00
.50
90-1552
Dack
AD
Vlt ky Andarsan/711 KJellberg E. Troller Pk 1.500.00
15.00
.50
90-1557
Houea Shingle Replacement
AD
Robort Orgram/1010 Goif Course Roed
1,500.00
1S.00
.50
90-1554
Hou sv Shingle ¢,placement
AD
Ban Sm" 112 East 3rd St.
1,500.00
15.00
.50
90-1555
Do -1 leh esleting house
AD
Edna Kotlllnek/424 W. 4th Street
0
10.00
.50
90-1556
House
Sr
Pay no Builders/2781 Head Lena
48.800.00
366.07
24,40
23.00 .50
90-1)57
Houea Shlrigla Replacement
AD
Ann Lindberg/401 East Breadvay
1.500.00
15.00
.50
90 -ISS.
Storage Building Addition
AC
MN Dept, of Tranepurtallon
10.000. DO
117.00
5.00
90-1559
3 -Se aeon Porch
AD
Stephan Conroy/104 Hlllcraet Clrtia
6,800.00
98.20
3.40
90-1560
Tank Ramnval 4 Raplecamont Build.
AC
Kenneth Ko lvoy/743 E. Broedvay
25.000.00
252.00
12.50
90-1561
Basement Entrance
AD
Ty and Use Hongmuchlell5 Sandtrap Circ la
1,500.00
15.00
.SO
TOTALS
!,959,600.00
1,502.11
1,477.80
293.00 7.50
PLAN REVIEW
90-1519
Hou es and Ce raga
BF
Vvlua Plus Homae/Il7 Crocua Lena
77.75
90-1540
Nouse end Ce raga
SP
Jahn Mll lar Const./IDB Kevin Longley Drive
51.48
90-1541
Oflice Manu lecturing
1
Ro®ale Engineering/213 Chokes Road
1,505.07
90-1544
Office .,1", on
Al
Northern States Paver/2801 W. Cty RD 175
2,920.78
90-1545
House and Garage -
SF
Value Plue Homee/10' Crocua Lane
19.33
90-1547
Olflca/Ma nu(e a uring
I
VJ lllam Tapper/212 Chu lase Road
1,696.99
90-1556
House and Geroge
Sv
Payne Builders/2781 Mvadev Lane
76.60
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
6.Otl7. e9
TO TAI. REVP-NUK
!,953,687.69