The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 09-17-1990AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 17, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Public hearing on Sandberg East Improvement Project 90-04. 3. Consideration of resolution ordering improvement, accepting bid, and authorizing contract --Sandberg East. 4. Consideration of resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for TIF District 1-9 (Topper's, Inc.), TIF District 1-10 (Remmele Corporation), and Project 90-04, extension of sewer and water to Sandberg East development. 5. Consideration of planting boulevard trees on 7th Street between Minnesota and Walnut Streets and the placement of a high railing on the south retaining wall near K -mart and the Monticello Mall. 6. Adjournment. IM C Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 Update to aqenda item written September 17, 1990 Staff met with John Sandberg late on Friday afternoon, during the weekend, and on ;aonday regarding the Sandberg East project. John Sandberg has also met with Vic Hellman regarding the sale of his land. Mr. Norell has also been contacted by Sandberg. As a result of these discussions and in an effort to provide Council with a starting point for Council discussion, staff has prepared two updated strategies for financing the project. Before outlining the strategies, it should be noted that staff recommends that the project should proceed in 1990 for the following reasons: It has been demonstrated that it is feasible to serve the area with city sewer and water. Allowing private sewer and water systems to develop does not appear to be an option. Waiting until spring to conduct the project for the sake of developing a pre -project assessment role that all parties agree on may not make sense, as it may be impossible to develop such an agreement; and delaying the project until spring eliminates the possibility of home construction this fall and during the winter. The low bid is acceptable and will not likely be less In the future. In addition, the cost to re -bid the project will add at least $1,500 to the total project cost. If Council concludes that the project should be completed, the following question needs to be answered at tonight's meeting: Is Council willing to established a fixed, pre -project assessment against the 17 Sandberg East lots, or should the City order the project and establish the assessment amount based on final project costs? Alternative dl Motion to adopt a resolution ordering the improvement, accepting the bid, authorizing a contract, and fixing 17 lot assessments against Sandberg East lots at $92,000 (which includes lift station charge) subject to Sandberg signing an agreement that includes the Following conditions: The City of Monticello will spread the total assessment of $92,000 against five of the lots created with the re - platting of the Sandberg East Subdivision. 2. At such time that an assessment against any of the five lots becomes delinquent, the City has the right to foreclose immediately on the lot with tho delinquent assessment. Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 `- 3. John Sandberg agrees to plat the Sandberg East Subdivision in a manner consistent with the preliminary plat recently approved. The $92,000 assessment includes assessments associated with the parcel owned by the Nelson household. The rear portion of the Sandberg East lots intended for sale to Norell and if not purchased by Norell shall be platted as a single outlet and shall not be sold to individual property owners purchasing replatted Sandberg East lots. Sandberg would like to sell five lots to Vic Hellman, and Hellman would like to begin construction this fall. In order for Sandberg to complete his deal with Hellman, he needs to know exactly what the assessment will amount to. Sandberg Indicates that if he has to wait until the completion of the assessment roll to establish the price of the lots and work his deal with Hellman, another construction season is lost. In exchange for Sandberg's desire to establish a fixed assessment amount, the City could require commitments from Sandberg as noted under items 2,3, and 4 above. Under this sconerio, Norell would be assessed $28,700 in the form of an access charge. This amount would not be payable until such time that the Norell property actually utilizes the improvement. Norell could be given the choice of accepting the $28,700 access charge or take his chances that the City will not later levy the area assessment charge of $2,500 per acro. Norell may choose to accept the access charge of $28,700 rather than expose his property to a potential area assessment of $65,000. There are other Issues associated with the Noroll assessment and the lialligor assossmont that can be resolved when the assessment roll is establishod after the project is complete. Alternative 2 Motion to adopt resolution ordering improvement, accepting bid, and authorizing contract. Under this alternative, Council would establish the assessment roll aL such time that the project is complete. If an assessment is contested, the Council would have the option of obtaining an appraisal to substantiate the increase in value for each property bunutiting. C Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 The down side of this proposal is the potential that the plan for developing the area per the re -plat of the Sandberg East subdivision might be scrapped by Mr. Sandberg. This possibility, though not disastrous, would result in the following: The Nelson family would pay an assessment based on 160 feet of street frontage (approx $8,000). Under alternative 1, Nelsons lose some of their land to Sandberg and Norell but pay no assessment. It is my understanding that Nelsons prefer alternative 1. Under this option, Sandberg might not sell the rear portion of his property to Norell. This results in the loss of some development potential of Norell's existing property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council select alternative 1 for the following reasons: Staff believes that Sandberg is honest in saying he needs a figure from the City in order to complete arrangements for home construction in 1990. It is our view that the conditions associated with alternative 1 will sufficiently protect the City's interest. Alternative 1 establishes a development plan for the area that will allow the highest and best use of the residential land available. Alternative 2, though all right, creates a lot layout that does not achieve the potential of the area. Finally, the Norell and Halllger assessments can be established at such time that the assessment roll is developed. 54 Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 Public hearinq on Sandberq East Improvement Project 90-04; AND Consideration of resolution ordering improvement, acceptinq bid, and authorizinq contract --Sandberg East. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to open the public hearing on this matter and consider ordering project 90-04 and authorizing staff to enter into a contract with the low bidder, Annandale Contracting of Annandale, Minnesota. The low bid came in at $167,986, which is $27,014 less than the projected project cost of $195,000. On Friday, September 14, 1990, the City received nine bids on the Sandberg East improvement project. Bids ranged from a low bid of $167,000 to a high bid of over $216,000. Council is asked to approve the resolution ordering the project at this time with the following considerations in mind. On the positive side, the construction bid amount is less than projected, and it appears to be an opportune time to do the project from a project cost standpoint. The cost per lot to complete the project is reasonable despite the fact that only one side of the water and utility lines can be accessed. It is certain that a major portion of the project cost can be recovered via the assessment process with or without prior agreements regarding projected assessment figures. On the other hand, we have an excellent bid and a lower than expected overall cost, but the method by which the costs should be distributed is not as yet established. Without a doubt, discussion on Monday regarding potential assessment methods and financing possibilities will be confusing and frustrating. Unfortunately, all of the parties involved were not able to attend Friday's bid opening, and there has not been enough time to pull together an agreement. It appears, therefore, that the program for financing the improvement may not be accomplished until the assessment hearing is conducted. Council may be uncomfortable with ordering the project without full agreement from all parties on how this project should be assessed. At this time, it does not make sense to attempt to describe in detail the various assessment formulas that aro being discussed. Suffice it to say that staff Is attempting to work with tho landowners toward development of an assessment program that is fair, based on logic, and not driven by one or more landowners' desire to pay a fixed, self-created price rather than the fair share of the project cost. Establishing an assessment method that all approve of is a noteworthy goal; however, if this goal is not achievable, the City has the option of completing a bofore-projoct appraisal and an after - project appraisal to determine the added value created by the improvement. The City could then assess the property an amount equal to the added value created. Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 Following are some issues affecting the method of assessing project costs. Sandberg insists that his assessment should not exceed $90,000 for the 17 lots created along Gillard Avenue. The 17 lots include two lots now owned by Norell and one lot owned by Nelson. Sandberg's actual cost will likely exceed $90,000 even if Norell assists in financing the project. If Sandberg is required to pay more than $90,000 for the 17 lots, he will then choose not to exchange a portion of his property for the two lots along Gillard that Norell owns, and he will not participate in the financing of Nelson's assessment. Under this scenario, he would simply develop the 14 lots as is or replat into still another layout. This alternative would negatively affect the Nelson's and Norell's future ability to plat their remaining property. In order to keep lateral assessments low and Sandberg's total assessment at or near $90,000, Norell may need to pay some amount as a form of an "access assessment," which is intended to represent the value his property receives in having the utility at his door step. This amount is somewhat arbitrarily established and is, in reality, a number somewhat created to help fill a financial gap created by Sandberg's insistence on paying $90,000. On the other hand, it is likely that Norell's property will significantly increase in value. Then again, if Norell must pay an "access charge," so should the other i property owners that are obtaining access to sewer and water. it appears that the project could be financed one of two ways: 1. Give up trying to establish a "pre -assessment" agreement and simply order the project and assess expenses based on the added value created per the recommendation of an appraiser. 2. Continue to attempt to establish a "pro-assossment" agreement with the understanding that it may be next to impossible to establish an assessment methodology that can be logically supported. Such an agroomont would require that the affected landowners agree on assessment figures that might be based on marginal logic. Specifically, Rod Noroll would have to agree to pay an access charge without any of the other landowners paying such an access charge. In exchange for this assessment, the City would need to agree that Norell would not be required to pay an area assessment in the future. The City's promise not to require future area assessments may be sufficient motivation to got Norell to agree to a front-ond access assessment. As an offshoot of this alternative, Council could establish 20% of the total project cost as the access benefit. This access bonofit could be assessed to all properties that received access to the utility and paid Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 based on square footage of area benefitting. In this way, all properties will pay an access charge rather than I only Norell paying a charge. This approach, though still somewhat arbitrary, in establishment of the 20% charge treats all of the landowners equally. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt a resolution ordering the improvement and awarding the construction bid to Annandale Contracting in the amount of $167,986. As noted above, this is an opportune time to complete the project. It may make sense to go ahead with construction and establish the assessment roll when the project is complete. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the resolution. It is unlikely that a finance plan will be developed that all parties agree to, especially by Monday. Council may not be willing to order the project without agreement from all parties regarding the assessment methodology. Rebidding the project in the spring would add another $1,500 (publication, bid tab, etc.) to the project costs. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution ordering the project. The construction bid submitted by Annandale Contracting is less than projected. Furthermore, the bulk of the project costs can be recovered via the assessment process with or without individual property owner support. It is recommended that the project be ordered with staff being directed to continue to work with the affected landowners toward development of an assessment formula that is acceptable to all parties. This direction is with the understanding that If no assessment formula is reached through a cooperative process, Council will establish an assessment amount based on input from an appraiser. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Revised preliminary finance plan based on actual construction bid; Bid tabulation; Copy of resolution for adoption. 1 pPt.e.� A - no„, l Pais A,<<Ls ccla,af SANDBERG EAST/NORELUHALLIGER DEVELOPMENT - FINANCE PLAN - AUGUST 9, 1990 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. ' TOTAL NORREL SANDBERG KRAUT HALLIGER PETERSON CITY TOTAL BAUER DOTAL SEWER (OVERSIZE VALUE ITRUNK ASSESSMENT TOTAL LATERAL BENE ASSESSABLE IFRONT FOOTAGE ICOST PER FRONT FOOT ITOTAL ASSESSED ILIFT STATION CHARGE TOTAL COST - SEWER TOTAL WATER IOVERSIZE VALUE ITRUNK ASSESSMENT ITO TAL LATERAL BENE ASSESSABLE IFRONT FOOTAGE ..OST PER FRONT FOOT ITOTAL ASSESSED (TOTAL COST - WATER ITOTAL SEWER AND WATER (INDIVIDUAL TOTALS (NUMBER OF LOTS ICOST PER LOT TOTAL CITY COST FRONT FOOTAGE/OVERSIZE 5101,300 $1.500 $1,500 $1.500 58.648 $8.$48 $8.646 $91.154 2.737 0 1,557 695 0 285 2.737 $33 533 S33 533 S33 533 $33 S33 $91,154 50 551,855 90 $29.807 SO $9,492 $91,154 54,547 s0 $2.856 SO 51.680 90 $0 $4,547 s8.648 $54,711 $0 931.487 $0 $10.992 5101.300 $105.836 5107,000 57,000 57.660 s7.000 58.$46 s8.$48 $8.646 591,354 3.367 0 1,537 630 895 100 285 3.387 S27 927 927 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 99t,354 W $42,245 $14,380 $24,283 $2,713 57.733 591.354 98.646 $42,245 $14,390 $24,29.7 92,713 $14.733 5107.000 9107,000 $17,293 996.955 $14,360 955.770 $2.713 $25,724 28 0 17 . 10 1 NA $5.703 NA $5,577 $2.713 NA 925,724 NA $212,836 r opi.on 13- no,741 +ot444r,?S ?oj A-clSS GF.aele C N SANDBERG EAST/NORELL7HALLIGER DEVELOPMENT - FINANCE PLAN - AUGUST 9, 1990 A. B. C. O. E. F. G. H. TOTAL NORREL SANDBERG KRAUT MALLIGER PETERSON CITY TOTAL BAUER I (PERCENT OF TOTAL AREA SERVED 72% 17% 1198 TOTAL SEWER 8101,300 r MOVERSIZE VALUE 81.500 11,500 51.500 (ACCESS CHARGE 519,980 814,371 83,393 82,198 819.980 (TOTAL LATERAL BENE ASSESSABLE 879.840 11RONT FOOTAGE 2.737 0 1,557 895 0 285 2737 (COST PER FRONT FOOT 829 829 $29 $29 1129 829 829 $29 ASSESSED 879.840 8A 845,419 ( 8O $28,108 80 $8,314 579,840 ((TOTAL (LIFT STATION CHARGE I $4.547 80 $2.8561 1 $0 51,880 $0 $0 84,547 TOTAL COST -SEWER ( $14.371 0t,668 90 $29.983 80 $9.814 $101.300 $10S.8361 TOTAL WATER $107,000 OVERSIZE VALUE $1,000 $7,000 87,000 ACCESS CHARGE $20,000 814,400 13,400 $2,200 820,000 TOTAL LATERAL BENE ASSESSABLE 980.000 FRONT FOOTAGE 3,387 0 1,557 830 695 100 285 {I 3.367 I COST PER FRONT FOOT $24 $24 $24 $24 624 $24 $24 $24 ASSESSED 880,000 90 00.994 $12,593 921.255 92.378 88.772 880.000 jTOTAL (TOTAL COST - WATER $14,400 840,394 $12,583 $27455 82,378 $13.772 $107,000 $107,000 TOTAL SEWER AND WATER INDIVIDUAL TOTALS 928.771 892,052 $12,593 953,449 92,378 923,585 $212,836 1NUMDER OF LOTS 28 0 17 10 t COST PER LOT NA $5,4/11 NA 0.345 92,378 NA NA TOTAL CITY COST FRONT FOOTAGEIOVEFISIZE $23,565 y � p 77/ C N I 0 L BID TABULATION UTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND APPURTENANT WORK SANDBERG EAST 2ND ADDITION PROJECT NO. 90-04 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA BIDS OPENED: September 14, 1990 ORR SCHELEN MAYERON 11:00 a.m. & ASSOCIATES, INC. AnDENDUM RID CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGED SECURITY TOTAL BID (Progressive Contractors INorthdale Construction Redstone Construction /+Latour Construction ✓(Annandale Contracting INodland Construction IQuam Construction ,,IB & D Underground I Barbarossa 6 Sona Mille Lacs Contracting ✓I Volk Sewer 6 Water ✓I S.J. Louis Construction ✓IKadlec Excavating (Randy Kramer Excavating (Inland Utility Const. i/IKirkwold Construction IR.D. Mclean Construction ✓IRice Lake Contracting IHank Weidama Excavating I ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $195,000.00 • Denotes corrected figure OSM Comm. No. 4557.20 5 2/GIFT°1 S i.o 7. '?P6 0 Jr 1'rer /,, .—. 1�f @ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON: DATE Somtembar 14. 1990 By Brat A. Weiss, P.E. iz qZ7 ✓ ;)/1/ 77 rr S 100 S /7P 0��.�� 7 Jr 1'rer /,, .—. 1�f @ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON: DATE Somtembar 14. 1990 By Brat A. Weiss, P.E. RESOLUTION 90 - RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, ACCEPTING BID, AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 13th day of August, 1990, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of East County Road 39 and Gillard Avenue with sanitary sewer, water main, and appurtenant work, and WHEREAS, 10 days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon the 17th day of September 1990, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, and WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of East County Road 39 and Gillard Avenue, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: LaTour Construction $216,183.07 Annandale Contracting 167,986.00 B 6 D Underground 191,927.22 Barbarossa 6 Sons 214,713.00 Volk Sewer 6 water 202,925.40 S.J. Louis Construction 200,492.00 Kadlec Excavating 178,078.44 Kirkwold Construction 206,390.35 Rice Lake Contracting 188,155.60 AND WHEREAS, It appears that Annandale Contracting is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The 90-04 improvement is hereby ordered as proposed. 2. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Annandale Contracting in the name of the City of Monticello for the improvements to East County Road 39 end Gillard Avenue according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator. 3. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has bean signed. Adopted this 17th day of September, 1990. Mayor City Administrator Orr 0S)i Sdickn tK 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis. MN 55413 612.331 8660 FAX 3313806 September 17,19% suers Planners City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. John Simola Director of Public Works Re: Utility Improvements and Appurtenant Work Sandberg East 2nd Addition City Project No. 94-04 OSM Comm. No. 4557.24 Dear Mr. Simola: Bids were received for the referenced project at 11:00 am. on September 14, 1990 and were opened and read aloud. A total of 9 responsible bids were received. Annandale Contracting, Inc., Route 1, Box 19, Annandale, Minnesota 55302 submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $167,986. The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and l tabulated. The Engineer's Estimate was $195,096.20. We recommend award of the contract to Annandale Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $167,986. Enclosed is a bid tabulation. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Project Manager /cmw 09/90•com.ltr CC. Annandale Contracting, Inc. BID TABULATION L UTILITY IMP320VE 4ENT AND APPURTENANT WORK SANDBERG EAST 2ND ADDITION PROJECT NO. 90-04 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA BIDS OPENED: September 14, 1990 ORR SCHELEN MAYERON 11:00 a.m. 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. L C CONTRACTOR Annandale Contracting Kadlac Excavating Rice Lake Contracting B 6 D Underground S.J. Louis Construction Volk Sever 6 Water Kirkvold Construction Barbarossa 6 Sons Latour Construction ADDENDUM BID ACKNOWLEDGED SECURITY X 5% X 5% X 5t X 5% X 5% X 5% X 5% X 5% X 51 TOTAL BID $167,986.00 $178,208.79• $190,554 . 20+ $191,927.22 $200,491.87+ $202,925.40 $206,)90.]5 $214,712.60• $216,183.07 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE $195,096.20 ASND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON: DATE Sentembar, 14, 1990 By Bret fAW' isi,-P.E. •Donotos corrected figure OSM Comm. No. 4557.20 D MDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 14. 1990 no 1541.1541711 UTILITY INPRO 1GTS AU MI/TCIW7 IM IMUCRD UST W ROIIIIUN ADAIIC3110, RIOMTI CETT PMEiT 10. ro - 4 091 COm illoo 40. 4337.30 _ 911. NG. Ina 1CNEIUIt A - VA1[IRIIA 2111.300 17• III Q 50 wTnR7uP ". IIIIJON 1' 011 IS "7 .A 2111.300 1• lir a 57 ROUT ,EAI 2/11.300 12- RUIT[R7II VALVE 1 101 2611.3" 17• WITIIrII VALVE CIICRC10113 2111.3" 1• GATT VALVI 1 101 I111.501 1• DATE VANE IIIE.D1013 2111.3" 1• Dan VALK I Bat 211136 1• DATE VALVE [1TCgID13 7411300 xYOAYn 2411.IN "4111111'.t AEIOAN 11.1.3" 171715463 2111.5" I• EWKAq IW COC, 2'.1.50 1. CUNT IlW A 111 2611.56 V WKS SIAVI[E PIK 2611.5"7• Cm1Kr1ATICA COC[ 2111.5" 2• CUD 11W 1 111 2411.5" V Comm 9111cl PIR 119.11 CORRECT To 4111114 Dia 1 8 1 A I C N E I U I. E A - A A I[ A A A 1 1 1 e2,3U.00 1 11.314.6 4 11.097.45 1 93.154.41 1 41.913.00 J IAE 1 1 E I 1, 1 MIND". MINDA" 109011.E NICE LATE 1 I D TOTAL 14 1 1 111 E IAC. IIWVT1111 CONTRACTING WYADR0013 0{IAAI. UNITS UNIT PRIM 1 0 1 A I. UNIT PRICE 1 0 1 1 1 UNIT PRI[[ r o 1 A[ UNIT PRICE 1 0 1 8 1 0717 PRICE 1 0 T H 14" L.F. 1 30.00 1 71.100.00 11.6 71,114,00 1[.11 IN ..... 30.11 30.317.50 19.00 71.310.6 Iro7 L.F. 1 13.00 171.001.00 11.00 21,111.6 11.41 "0930.31 11.23 79."154 11.00 11,191.00 134 L.F. 1 13.00 4 1.147.00 11.6 1,114.00 13.04 I,",.1, IS". 7.111.09 IB.00 L'.7.6 2 [A01 900.00 1.100.00 173.00 1,134. 113.00 1.301.00 /50.00 1.3".00 711.00 I,1w.6 f 1./. 200.6 1"." 70.00 09.00 30.6 09.6 11.00 $0.6 173.6 250.6 450.00 3.,$0.00 "0.00 1.60.6 111.11 1.117.17 410.00 1.140." ..00 1.113.00 60.00 70." U.6 30.6 170." 25"1 ,6.6 50.00 1 To 400.00 7.96.6 110.00 7,110.00 330.44 2.413.01 315.00 7.203.6 11,.6 2.192." 1 I.F. I6." 4"." 7D.00 U.6 30.6 130.6 7f.00 1"." 50.00 Pao." 1 to 160.6 1.000.00 6"." r,ODD.00 150." /.050.01 .113.00 1.223.00 1100.00 1.I"." 4 L.F. 730.6 1,000.6 700.6 100.00 761IX 1,071.92 160.00 1.040.00 313.00 1.:11." 156 ll. 1.00 4,mo.00 0.10 1.050.00 0.10 3.16.6 1.00 .6 41.10 4.050.00 73 tux 10.6 I,a6.6 71.6 121.6 35.00 11.6 11.6 111.00 1,.00 WAS 71 tAW TS.6 1.113,6 30.6 I,1m.6 30.6 1,1$0." 17.6 1,111.6 ro.00 7.250.6 101 1.1. 1.00 1.4 .00 1.50 3.:17.6 Lw 3,333,09 La 4./32.00 3.50 4,451.00 2 tACY 11." Iw.6 10." Ill." ,17.6 750.6 In.6 750." 09.6 130.6 3 tux 200.00 100.6 110.6 n0.00 114.00 300.00 115.6 :30." 16.6 3:0.6 s1 L.F. 17.6 46.6 1.00 36.00 10.30 Im.10 18.00 00.6 .0.00 1.:10.00 1 (PER "6.00 300.6 111.00 17).00 130." 150.00 300.00 3".6 Un.0 017.00 1 8 1 A I C N E I U I. E A - A A I[ A A A 1 1 1 e2,3U.00 1 11.314.6 4 11.097.45 1 93.154.41 1 41.913.00 J � J J 1. 1. LOU I1 III1 QY(A I Y870 11.411010 WVffiSL 1510158 t�J1A1t11 I4[. COISTRllm Ili CPIINCIICI Ulla MICE I O I I L PIT MICE 1 0 1 A L UNIT MICE 1 0 1 A L UNII MICE 1 0 1 1 L 0111 RICE I I I A L 11.00 11,140.00 70.00 1•,800.01 11.10 71,4".0 11.0 19,011,00 0.'A 10,711.0 @.0 77,11600 0.00 10.]17.: 11.11 71,111.11 14.10 11,01.10 Il.a 11,174.10 17.00 1,101.0 10.0 7,0,80.01 17.11 1,111.70 70.00 7,110.46 11.10 1,111.40 110.00 1.00.00 110.00 1,500.01 070.00 1,600.0 171.0 1,4so. 46 10.0 1,00.00 11.00 10.000.46 IO.a 70.00 40.00 10.0 10.0 11.46 12.0 60/.00 1,130.0 110.0 1,11001 410.0 1,110.0 00.0 1210.46 01.0 !,111.0 11.0 146.0 70.0 80.01 70.0 10.0 10.0 70.0 10.10 10.00 110.0 LIRA 110.0 7.410.01 111.0 2,143.0 110.0 7.110.0 111.0 1,10.0 35.00 L10.0 70.00 0010 70.00 10.00 10.00 70.46 WIG 117.00 1400.0 1,100.0 1100.00 1,700 a 1160.00 11170.0 070.00 9,:40.00 110.00 4,415.00 710.00 1,000.00 I0.0 1.200.0 710.00 1.010.00 100.00 I,,W.O 70.46 11170.00 0.11 1,131.0 1.0 1,000.0 I.3) 1.071.00 1.00 4.10.01 1.71 3,415.0 11.00 171.00 11.0 87La 11.06 111.0 MOM 61.46 71.00 10.00 17.0 1,110.0 100.0 1.5000 0.00 1,01.46 60.00 1.700.00 16,0 1.00.00 9.00 1,714.01 4.04 1.810.41 6.70 4,991.76 10.00 1.01,11.0 1.10 0.121.00 17/.00 711.46 11.06 110.0 221.00 410.00 11.00 00." 11.00 111.46 174.00 70.0 116.00 SM." 710.0 100.46 171.00 710.00 101.00 110.0 15.0 111.0 9.00 mat.: 11.04 110.06 15.0 111.0 11.10 02.70 600.0 400.0 10.0 30001 700.00 700.0 149.10 119.14 400.00 100.0 18,970.01 411, 174,01 119,464.01 411.111.0 00,:1.00 [1c71[[1't Ju161nAL[ lulu nLEuu 1[0 SPCC. TOTAL ( 1 1 1 0 11 E C01RIC71ND, INC. EIGVIIG CONTRAC7105 0CFA6ROURD 10. Illi Wit. UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 0 1 O L 1111 PRICE 1 0 1 O L IDM PRICE 1 0 T 1 L UNIT 1111[[ 1 0 T 1 L UNIT PRICE t 0 1 6 t 6C it I UL1 1 - 1111111/ 6E ICT 1 GCM 1 100.00 1 1,100.00 1 }00.00 1 600.00 31.00 1 101.00 100.00 1 100.00 7%.00 1 )00.00 7104104 WOVE 6 11Vou OF V00P 9GC1 600 L.F. 1 400 1 7..00.00 1 0.10 1 20.00 0.:5 1 210.00 1.00 1 900,60 1.10 1 .70.00 7521.500 121 PVC PIH Su SY0 SDI II 11 1.6. 1 21.00 1 177.00 77.01 121.71 13.. 8 321.37 23.50 566.10 11.00 122.00 2521.300 101 PVC PIH (6N SIO SDI 35 '113 L./. 11.00 1,111.00 11.01 7,171.13 11.53 11157.11 11.75 /,218.17 11.00 1,111.00 2521.500 101 on PIH Su In SOI 26 442 L.F. 1 71.00 1 9.212.00 20.01 1,144.17 21.51 17,716.0 n.20 10.251.10 20.00 1,110.00 1621.700 11 PVC PIH 511 S1/ SON 21 607 L.F. 11.00 17,195.00 11.51 16,131.77 23.06 20,113.00 24.60 22.20.00 22.00 11.910.00 75x.500 1• PVC PIH Su 114 SOI is 215 L.O. 11.00 15.117.00 11.11 44,153.25 11.21 10,110.00 16.00 14.175.00 77.00 70,591.00 2121.300 11 PIP Su SII CL. 12 3 L.F. 15.00 41.00 70.00 130.00 71.21 44./1 26.00 71.00 10.00 2. NO 2621.500 [IP Su so RAMS 4' 014. to - !0') 12 E1. 1100.00 11.200.00 1000.00 17,000.00 925.00 11,100.00 1050.00 17,00.00 1100.00 11.200.00 7571.500 EI in AI WIN OVER 10' $1.13 L.F. 10.00 1.731.10 .5.00 3,771..5 0.00 3,171.17 60.00 3,107.10 70.00 .,069. t0 2121.700 81 IIH 111 OIW SEn3C11 7 ER. 1000.00 7.000.00 770.00 1,500.00 725.00 1.470.00 00.00 1.500.00 1125.00 7.150.00 7171.700 EITRS ITP[ 'S'127 SECTION 11[1 4' 5.66 L.F. 77.00 111.50 10.00 331.00 21.11 193.01 50.00 111.00 137.00 171.11 2121.500 10111' IIT 7 G. 100.00 200.00 0.00 130.00 85.00 110.00 55.00 110.00 10.00 160.60 571.500 101141 PRE s E1. 21.00 375.0 60.00 300.00 60.00 300.60 51.00 271.00 60.00 soe.a 521.500 117.- NYE 11 (1. $0.00 150.00 10.00 7.0.00 36.0 111.:7 30.00 90.00 J.00 121.60 2621.500 N PVC SW76 SERVICE PI9[ 14 L.F. 17.00 161.00 1.00 112.00 1.16 M.A. 1.40 00.10 70.00 710.04 2171.100 11 PVC 5015 SERVICE PIH 311 L.F. 1.00 1,721.00 6.% 11171.00 1.11 1,760.11 6..o 31735.10 7.50 31113.60 521.330 .- CLGIOIT 2 G. 200.00 100.00 $0.00 100.00 17.00 110.00 15.00 110.00 10.00 111.04 DIV II CONVECT 70 1115116 5701 1 (6. 500.00 !00.00 20445 101.11 100.00 200.00 500.00 100.00 750.00 750.04 1 0 I 1 l 1 C V( O U L I 1 - 1 1 4 1 1 1 6 1 S E M I 1 71,66.70 1 71.71.00 1 731010.11 1 11,451.77 1 13,211.7; IC M1 Du ll C - 011 C[ 116010 D 6111110111101 2101.101 (1161116 2 6CI[ 1 7000.00 1 1,000.00 11.110.00 1 7.100.00 1500.00 1 3.000.00 1000.00 1 7,000.00 1100.00 1 3,100.00 7101.101 6/0111/6 1 OCA[ 1 7000.00 1 1,000.00 11.110.00 1 7.900.00 !00.00 1 1,000.00 1000.00 1 1.000.00 1700.00 1 7,.00,00 7101.!00 ICRM 1 W461 PIH 51 L.F. 1 1.00 6 371.00 1 ..00 1 11400 1.21 4 207.% 1.00 1 137.00 6.50 1 311.00 710..100 R(RM 1 HIISIALL 15 -CAP lull. TCI 1 GCM 1 100.00 1 1,100.00 1 }00.00 1 600.00 31.00 1 101.00 100.00 1 100.00 7%.00 1 )00.00 7104104 WOVE 6 11Vou OF V00P 9GC1 600 L.F. 1 400 1 7..00.00 1 0.10 1 20.00 0.:5 1 210.00 1.00 1 900,60 1.10 1 .70.00 2711.500 660116.1[ list CL. 1 11001 ClIUSKIII loo lot 1 1.00 1 110.00 1 1.10 1 950.00 6.21 1 in." 10.00 1 2,000.00 17.,10 1 1.700.00 7575.501 (110166111d. 1"n.. p1061 311o61n1 7 &CRE 11000.00 1 7.000.00 1 100.00 1 1,700.00 1160.00 1 3.400.00 7000.00 1 4000.00 1177.00 1 7..50.0 1577.101 WV016614411.4116116111 1100 1 1 7.00 I 7,600.0 I 1.10 1 410.00 7.21 1 I.n.00 2.% . 7,210.00 7.10 1 1.131.00 2575.573 6000116010.611[11 2100 3.1. 1 2.00 1 4100.0 I 1.10 1 11160.00 1.95 I 1,212.00 L% 1 31100.00 1.60 1 1.170.00 2621.50 131 Cls U L.F. 1 16.00 1 116.00 1 15.00 1 110.00 11.91 1 111.20 13.00 1 728.00 17.01 1 172.00 7/21.100 111 to ILIR[I [D S(CI ION 1 EI. 1 100.00 1 100.00 10.00 710.00 71.00 100.04 11.00 100.00 114.00 446.00 I O 16 L I C 1 E I U 1[ C23.610.00 1 13,11U.00 1 11.000.70 1 11.510.00 1 181733.00 O I IC I L L 1411116 1[110161101 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 . 1 0 1 0 1 I C N( 19 L( 1 1 • C 4111,011.20 1117,116.00 1111,708.71 1110,111.20 1111,47).11 •QJ'S. J. LOUISIOL7 SCOoI 1 64TC1 1I0 1010 WIMISA -/ ul0i C06TIO"I IW le[. CORIA[T IW 1 S00 C01S10ST1011 WIT PRICE 1 0 1 A L WIT PRICE 1 0 T I L Sill PRICE 7 0 1 6 L UNIT PRICE I I I A L UNIT PRICE 1 0 1 e l 37.00 191.00 ».00 400.00 30.00 7».o0 31.00 140.00 29.00 611.00 73.00 /,01.00 11.00 1,601.00 71. W' 0.171.00 ».00 10,130.00 x1.00 10,111.00 27.00 11.111.00 I7.00 11,070.00 So.» 13,]11.10 17.00 11,10 .oe17,021.10 l0.0o 27,170.14 rl.00 »,617.00 ».10 21.117.76 ».00 0,60.00 27.50 23,0.1.30 21.00 11,171.00 11.00 13,101,00 19.00 ......00 ».00 1Lre0Ao 7.. 10 73.110.70 42.00 1».00 70.60 170.00 ».00 64.00 10.00 120.00 207.00 M-0 1100.00 17,SW.00 1000.00 17,000.00 1137.00 13.670.00 170.00 11.100,00 1227.00 14.100.00 ILOo 7,173.71 10.00 1,170.10 0.W 1,.30.10 10.00 1,119. 1e 67.00 3,7»,q 130.14 1,010.00 1!00.00 1.000.00 1000.00 7.000.00 700,00 1,100.00 1070.00 2. too 10!.00 111.30 100.00 W1.00 100.00 W.00 170.00 119.00 87.00 !11.12 0.00 130.00 13.00 170.00 67.00 ISO. Oo 10.00 100.00 120.00 710.00 11,00 »1.00 77.00 377.00 0.00 !77.00 0,00 277.00 90.01 IS0.00 17.00 »3.00 64.14 170.00 17.00 u7.0o 30.14 170.00 63.00 1,1.1.00 14.60 P1.00 1.14 ... 1.10 11.00 11.00 197 .00 10.10 171.m 0.00 7,011.00 1.14 5,967.00 20 6.00 3,111.00 1.00 3,011 .00 1.71 1,160 18.x0 131.00 Roo'" moo 100.06 700.00 100.00 117.00 :10.06 120.00 1».00 500.14 700.00 110.00 Iso. 00 66.70 116.70 375.00 77).00 117,1!1.17 6 78.197,0 111,111.30 IA,w 14 1 re,1P.7/ 7100,00 1 1,100.00 5100.00 1 1,00.0 »00.00 1 1,000,00 2077.00 1 1,170.01 2170.00 1 I, 340.00 I7ao.,, . 7,100.00 1300.00 / :.600.00 1$00.0o 1 3.000.00 :0».00 1 1,070.00 x170.00 1 1,:10.00 1.00 / 111.00 10.00 1 140.00 ».DO 1 I,OU.00 7,00 1 170.00 I.po 1 IU.00 300.00 / 6)0.00 700.00 1 1,700.00 716.0 1 110.00 :10.00 1 170.00 600.00 1 00 Go 1.71 1 U1.00 1.00 . 100.00 1.00 1 1.:00.00 O.m 1 100, 0o LOU 1: 1 tl7.00 Loo17.00 1 1.700.00 II.0, 1 1.11,.00 1'.00 1 17.77 1700.00 / 7,1U.Oo 177f.00 1 0.170.00 rj0.0o 1 I,1W.00 410.00 1 Iire0.00 10)0,00 1 2.IP.14 7.so 1 3.2'0.06 7.17 1 3.. .00 1,64 1 1.176.00 1./0 1 1dio.oe 1.39 1 7.071,00 1.11 1 3..11.0, Lp / 1,❑1.64 LTo 1 1,1to 1.76 1 1,:00.06 1.79 1 3,.11.00 :5.00 . 1,:32.64 20.01 1 1.Im.0 ».1 1 1,1.1 »A, 1 1,120.00 :e.» 1 1,161.60 110.00 776.00 125.00 !00.00 11.0 1 100.00 I'O.Do 1 600.00 97.00 1 Mom s 21.111.00 . 10.111.00 1 23.310.00 111,60.00 1 ",1111.00 ,200, 01.11 1202.,27.10 120/,100.37 1111,117.64 1216.111.41 J Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 4. Consideration of resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for TIF District 1-9 (Tapper's, Inc.), TIF District 1-10 (Remmele Corporation), and Project 90-04 t extension of sewer and water to Sandberg East development. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Previously, the HRA and the City Council approved the tax increment financing plans for both Tapper's, Inc., and Remmele Corporation projects in our industrial park. Both of these projects are well underway, and it is now necessary for the City to issue bonds to finance these improvements as anticipated. With the recent Council action to advertise for bids and to hold a public hearing on the proposed sewer and water extensions to the Sandberg East development September 17, I purposely held off on issuing the bonds for the two tax Increment districts until this date to see whether or not the bids were acceptable and the project was ordered for this improvement along East County Road 39. If the 90-04 project Is authorized and a contract is awarded tonight, there would be some savings in issuing all three bonds at once. If the previous agenda item, which is the public hearing on the improvement project and the awarding of the contract, is not approved, the Council should still take action on the two tax increment bond issues. Mr. Jerry Shannon, our bond consultant from Springsted, Inc., will be in attendance at the meeting to review his financing proposals for all three projects. Basically, the tax increment district will generate sufficient revenue to cover both Tapper's and Remmole's bond issue and is in line with our original anticipation. The financing necessary for the East County Road 39 project would total $265,000 based on our estimated cost of this project. This bond issue has been structured using certain assumptions that anticipates that the portion that would be assessable to Mr. Robert Krautbauer and the Joanne Halliger property may not be collectible Immediately. Mr. Krautbauer may be able to defer payment on the assessments through the Green Acres statute; and as of this date, Mrs. Halllger's property is not in the city and cannot oven be assessed immediately. In addition, an assessment is being proposed for Mr. Rod Norell, owner of the balance of the Sandberg East development, which also would receive a threo-yoar deferral on the interest with no payments due the first three years also. These assumptions were used by Springsted to develop a proposed schedule of levy requirements and assessment income projections for structuring the bond (see appendix 09). Using those assumptions, the Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 - City's anticipated levy requirements would be approximately $20,000 per year for ten years; but this amount can be reduced annually based on the amount of additional assessment income the City does receive from property owned by Krautbauer, Halliger, and Norell. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. If the Council has ordered the improvement project to the Sandberg East development, the Council could approve authorizing Springsted to advertise for bond sale on all three projects. 2. If the improvement project has been delayed or the bids are not acceptable, the Council should still authorize the sale of bonds for the two tax increment district financing needs. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Depending on the outcome of the bids for the Sandberg East development, the two bond issues pertaining to the tax increment financing districts have to be authorized, as the HRA will be disbursing the money when each project is 30% complete. The staff also recommends the sale of bonds for the County Road 39 improvement project if the Council has awarded a contract and the improvement is to commence. If the project is delayed at this point, the bond sale for this improvement can be also tabled for now. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolutions required; Financing proposals prepared by Springsted. 5 r SPRINGSTED Wisconsin Otl,ca• PUBUC FINANCE ADVISORS 6900 Coi eodwalo es East Sevenln Placa Suite too Sunt :019 Saint Paul. MN 55101-2143 (612) 2233000 Suite 101 Far: 612.223J3= August 31, 1990 Mr. Rick Wollsteller, Administrator City Hall 250 Broadway Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Re: Proposed Financings Dear Mr. Wolfsteller: The City has three projects which will require financing in the near future. Two of the projects will be combined into one taxable tax increment bond and one will be an improvement bond. The tax Increment bond will fund the project costs for TIFD 1-9, Tapper Inc. and TIFD 1.10, Remmelo Corp. The estimated costs for those projects are set forth in Appendix I and II. Appendix IV sets forth the proposed maturity schedule for TIFD 1.9, Tapper Inc. The projection of Increment income is based on the required adjustment to the original tax �. capacity base as set forth In Appendix III. While the City has an agreement from the developer that the minimum guaranteed Increment will be $26,000, it appears the total projected Increment will be more than sufficient to pay 105% of required debt service as set forth by statute and therefore no tax levy will be required. Appendix VI sots forth the preliminary maturity schedule for TIFD 1-10, Rommolo Corp. As you will note, the projection of increment Income, as developed in Appendix V, Is Insufficient to cover 105% of estimated debt service and a tax levy would be required. Since a signiflcant tax levy Is not desired by the City, we have reduced the size of the issue from $240,000 to $165,000. This maturity schedule is set forth in Appendix VII. While the projoction of increment income Is slightly loss than that required for debt service coverage, the City has a guarantee of $30,000 of Increment pledged which should cover this potential shortfall. This lower par amount of bonds would yield approximately $135,000 of proceeds available to pay project costs after deducting discount, capitalized interest and Issuance costs. While the two tax Increment bonds are shown separately heroin, we will combine the maturity schedules for one offering to the underwriters. The improvement bonds will be Issued to finance Project 90.04 for the oxtonsion of water and sower Improvements along East County Road 39 and Glllard Avenue. Current project costs aro estimated to be $229,000 to which we have added issuance costs, capitalized Interest and discount for a total bond Issue of $265,000. Innana Otl,ca. Kansas office, Wisconsin Otl,ca• 135 Nonn PennsyMnm Street 6900 Coi eodwalo 500 Elm Glove noao Sunt :019 Su,te 600 Suite 101 Ino,anapols, IN 16204.2490 Cverfano Pan, K9 062114533 Elm Giovo. WI 53122 0037 (013)345.0062 14-.222 ra-, 17,8846 Fm' J1J�BOa G004 Fa.: (013) 34547:0 Fi. F1� 414.:0:2004 City of Monticello, Minnesota August 31, 1990 Page 2 It is anticipated that approximately $107,000 will be currently assessed against benefited property in 1991 for first collection in 1992. These assessments will run for ten years with Interest charged at 6% or 1.5% over the bond rate. In addition, $19,000 will be assessed in three years to be paid over the remaining term (seven years) of the original assessment. A potential $15,000 of assessments may also be receivable but that amount will be certified against Green Acres Property and therefore would not be receivable until the property no longer qualifies for this exemption. An additional $60,000 of project costs will benefit property outside the City limits and would be payable upon annexation. The City tax levy would pay the balance of the costs. In determining the maturity schedule, we have used only the $107,000 and $19,000 principal amounts of assessments as there is no certainty as to the receipt of the other assessments. Appendix VIII shows the projection of assessment income. Based on this stream of income and assuming an equal level of tax requirements, we have prepared Appendix IX as the preliminary maturity schedule for this financing. The average annual levy Is estimated to be $20,000 per year commencing in levy year 1991. To the extent you receive assessment income from the Green Acres or annexed property, the tax levy can be reduced in future years. We understand the City will take bids on the improvement project on September 14 for Councii consideration on September 17. Assuming the project costs are in line with the engineer's estimates, the City will be requested to pass resolutions authorizing the publlcatlon of notice of sale for both the improvement and tax Increment issues. Bids on the bonds would be received on October 15 with settlement in early November. C, Please let me know if you need any further data. Sincer ty, . l Gerard B. Shannon Vice President mjh Attachments Eel MONTICELLO TIFD 1.9 Tapper Inc. Land Acquisition Site Improvement Administrative Professional Services Capitalized Interest Discount Total Market Value at Completion Tax Capacity at Completion Less Original Tax Capacity Captured Tax Capacity Current T.C. Rate Projected Increment Income Guaranteed Increment Economic Development District Factor Full Value District Approval District Dissolves First Increment Last Increment Bonds Dated Mature Months of Capitalized Interest Interest Rate *A" Scale $ 74,000 15,500 14,000 8,900 26,600 3.000 $140,000 100,000 Q 3.3 750,000 650,000 Q 4.95 APPENDIX I $ 3,300 32.175 $35,475 2,641 $32.834 81.843% $26,872 26,000 1.04 1.2-91 March 1990 March 2000 1992 1999 11-1-90 2-1.93-00 15 Taxable SO L MONTICELLO TWO 1.10 Remmele Land Acquisition Site Improvement Administrative Professional Services Capitalized Interest Discount Total Market Value at Completion Tax Capacity at Completion Less Original Tax Capacity Captured Tax Capacity Current T.C. Rate Projected Increment Income Guaranteed Increment Economic Development District Factor Full Value District Approval District Dissolves First Increment Last Increment Bonds Dated Mature Months of Capitalized Interest Interest Rate 'A' Scale $120,000 65,000 15,000 10,000 47,000 3.000 $260.000 100,000 Q 3.3 605,000 705,000 Q 4.95 APPENDIX II 5 3,300 34.898 $38,198 2.290 535,908 81.84396 $29,388 $30,000 1.04 1-2-91 July 1990 July 2000 1992 1999 11-1-90 2.1.93-00 15 Taxable 0 APPENDIX III CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared on 23 -Aug -90 ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL TAX CAPACITY by SPRINGSTED Incorporated TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1-9, TAPPER INC I. Average Percent Increase Determination* A. Established Date (Public Hearing) Mar -90 8. Base Year Valuation Date 02 -Jan -89 C. Base Year Tax Capacity Adjusted $2,641 0. Fifth Preceding Year Valuation Date 02 -Jan -84 E. Fifth Preceding Year Tax Capacity $2,200 F. Five Year Tax Capacity Increase (E - C) $441 G. Five Year Total Tax Capacity Ratio (F / E) 0.2005 H. Five Year Average Increase Ratio (G / 5) 0.0401 I. Annual Base Year Adjustment Factor (1.00 • H) 1.040 • According to September 24, 1982 Department of Revenue memo to County Auditors. II. Adjustment Calculations for Original Tax Capacity (OTC) Adjustment Adjusted Year OTC Factor OTC Base 1989 2,641 1.000 2,641 1990 2,641 1.040 2,747 1991 2,747 1.040 2,857 1992 2,857 1.040 2,971 1993 2,971 1.040 3,090 1994 3,090 1.040 3,213 1995 3,213 1.040 3,342 1996 3,342 1.040 3,475 1897 3,475 1.040 3,614 1998 3,614 1.040 3,759 1999 3,759 1.040 3,909 III. Tax Capacity / Tax Increment Calculations (Assumes Adjustment to Original Tax Capacity) Projected Assumed Assess Adjusted Projected Captured TC Projected Collection Year OTC TC TC Rate Increment Year Base 1989 2,641 ••• ••. 1990 1990 2,747 2,747 0 81.843 0 1981 1991 2,857 35,475 32,618 81.843 26,696 1992 1992 2,971 35,475 32,504 81.843 28,802 1993 1993 3,090 35,475 32,385 81.843 26,505 1994 1994 3,213 35,475 32,262 81.843 26,404 1985 1995 3,342 35,475 32,133 81.843 26,299 1996 1996 3,475 35,475 32,000 81.843 26,189 1997 1997 3,614 35,475 31,861 81.843 26,076 1998 1998 3,759 35,475 31,716 81.843 25,957 1999 1999 3,909 35,475 r 31,566 81.843 25,834 2000 D CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA Prepared August 23, 1990 5140,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incorporated TAX INCREMENT BONDS TAPPER INC Dated: 11. 1.1990 Mature: 2. 1 Total Capital- Net Projected Year of Year of Principal lied Levy 1051 Increment Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest 8 Interest Interest Required of Total Income Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) 15) (6) (7) 161 (9) (10) (11) 1990 1992 0 0.001 15,538 15,538 26,600 0 0 0 11,062 1991 1993 15,000 8.501 12,430 27,430 0 27,430 28,802 26,696 8,956 1992 1994 15,000 8.601 11,155 26,155 0 26,155 27,463 26,602 8,095 1993 1995 15,000 6.701 9,865 24,865 0 24,865 26,108 26,505 8,492 1994 1996 15,000 8.801 8,560 23,560 0 23,560 24,738 26,404 10,158 1995 1997 20,000 8.901 7,240 27,240 0 27,240 28,602 26,299 7,855 1996 1998 20,000 9.001 5,460 25,460 0 25,460 26,733 26,189 7,311 1997 1999 20,000 9.101 3,660 23,660 0 23,660 24,843 26,076 8,544 1996 2000 20,000 9.201 1,840 21,840 0 21,840 22,932 25,957 11,569 TOTALS: 140,000 75,748 215,748 26,600 200,210 210,221 210,728 Bond Years: 845.00 Annual Interest: 75,748 Avg. Maturity: 6.04 Plus Discount: 1,750 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.9641 Not Interest: 77,498 N.I.C. Rata: 9.1711 Interest rates aro estimates; changes say cause significant alterations of this schedule. y The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary, v my Z t7 Q APPENDIX V CITY OF MONTIC ELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared on 23 -Aug -90 ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL TAX CAPACITY by SPRINGSTED Incorporated l TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1-10, REMMELE CORP I. Average Percent Increase Determination* A. Estab lished Date (Public Hearing) Jul -90 B. Base Year Valuation Date 02 -Jan -89 C. Base Year Tax Capacity Adjusted $2,290 D. Fifth Preceding Year Valuation Date 02 -Jan -84 E. Fifth Preceding Year Tax Capacity $1,900 F. Five Year Tax Capacity Increase (E - C) $390 G. Five Year Total Tax Capacity Ratio (F / E) 0.2053 H. Five Year Average Increase Ratio (G / 5) 0.0411 I. Annual Base Year Adjustment Factor (1.00 + H) 1.041 • According to September 24, 1982 Department of Revenue memo to County Auditors. II. Adjustment Calculations for Original Tax Capacity (OTC) Adjustment Adjusted Year OTC Factor OTC Base 1989 2,290 1.000 2,290 1990 2,290 1.041 2,384 1991 2,384 1.041 2,482 1992 2,482 1.041 2,583 1993 2,583 1.041 2,689 1994 2,689 1.041 2,800 1995 2,800 1.041 1,914 1996 2,914 1.041 3,034 1997 3,034 1.041 3,158 1998 3,158 1.041 3,288 1999 3,288 1.041 3,422 III. Tax Capacity / Tax Increment Calculations (Assumes Adjustment to Original Tax Capacity) Projected Assumed Assess Adjusted Projected Captured TC Projected Collection Year OTC TC TC Rate Increment Year Base 1989 2,290 --• --- --• 1990 1990 2,384 1,384 0 81.843 0 1 99 1 1991 2,482 38,198 35,716 81.843 29,231 1992 1992 2,583 38,198 35,615 81.843 29,148 1993 1993 2,689 38,198 35,509 81.843 29,061 1994 1994 2,800 38,198 35,398 81.843 28,971 1995 1995 2,914 38,198 35,284 81.843 28,877 1996 1996 3,034 38,198 35,164 81.843 28,779 1997 1997 3,158 38,198 35,040 81.843 28,678 1998 1998 3,288 38,198 34,910 81.843 28,572 1999 1999 3,422 38,198 34,776 81.843 28,461 2000 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared August 23, 1990 5240,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incorporated TAX INCREMENT BONDS REMMELE CORP Dated: 11. 1-1990 Mature: 2. 1 Total Capital- Net Projected Total Year of Year of Principal ized Levy 105% Increment Net Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest 6 Interest Interest Required of Total Income Requirement (1) (2) 43) (4) (5) (6) 171 (8) (9) (10) (11) 1990 1892 0 0.00% 26,668 26,686 26,000 688 722 0 722 1991 1993 20,000 8.50% 21,350 41,350 0 41,350 43,418 29,231 14,187 1992 1994 25,000 6.60% 19,650 44,650 0 44,650 46,683 29,148 17,735 1993 1995 25,000 6.70% 17,500 42,500 0 42,500 44,625 29,061 15,564 1994 1996 30,000 6.80% 15,325 45,325 0 45,325 47,591 26,971 18,620 1995 1997 30,000 8.90% 12,685 42,685 0 42,685 44,619 28,877 15,942 1996 1996 35,000 9.00% 10,015 45,015 0 45,015 47,266 28,779 18,487 1997 1999 35,000 9.10% 6,865 41,865 0 41,865 43,958 26,678 15,280 1998 2000 40,000 9.20% 3,680 43,660 0 43,680 45,864 28,572 17,292 TOTALS: 240,000 133,758 373,758 26,000 347,758 365,146 231,317 133,829 Bond Years: 1,490.00 Annual Interest: 133,758 Avg. Maturity: 6.21 Plus Discount: 3,000 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.977% Net Interest: 136,758 N.I.C. Rate: 9.178% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this Schedule. • The actual underwriter's discount Did say also vary. V M z o X 5 O s x aCITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared August 23, 1990 W 5185,000 GENERAL 08LIGATION 8y SPRINGSTED Incorporated 4 TAX INCREMENT 90NOS REMMELE CORP ¢ Dated: It- 1.1990 Mature: 2. 1 O Total Capital- Net Projected Total Year of Year of Principal iced Levy 105% increment Net Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest 6 Interest Interest Required of Total Income Requireaent (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1990 1992 0 0.00% 18,338 18,338 17,750 588 817 07 1991 1093 15,000 8.50% 14,870 29,870 0 28,870 31,154 29,231 1,923 1992 1994 15,000 8.80% 13,395 28,305 0 28,395 29,815 29,148 887 1993 1995 20,000 8.70% 12,105 32,105 0 32,105 33,7tO 29,081 4,849 1994 1998 20,000 8.80% 10,395 30,385 0 30,385 31,883 28,971 2,912 1995 1897 20,000 8.90% 8,805 28,805 0 28,805 30,035 28,877 1,158 1998 1098 25,000 9.00% 8,825 31,825 0 31,825 33,418 28,779 4,837 1997 1999 25,000 9.10% 4,575 29,575 0 20,575 31,054 28,878 2,378 1998 2000 25,000 8,20% 2,300 27,300 0 27,300 28,885 28,572 93 TOTALS: 185,000 91,178 258,178 17,750 238,428 250,349 231,317 19,032 Bond Years: 1,018.25 Annual Interest; 91,178 Avg. Maturity: 8.18 Plus Discount: 2,083 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.972% Not Interest: 93,241 N.I.C. Rots: 9.175% Interest rates aro estimates; changes say cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual undorwritor's discount bLcl may also vary. O CITY OF. y :ICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared September 199 $250,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incarp-)1990 orated IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1990 Dated: IT- 1.1990 Mature: 2. 1 Total Capital- Not Projected Total Year of Year of Principal ized Levy 105% Assessment Net Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest It Interest Interest Required of Total Income Requirement (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1990 1992 0 0.00% 20,085 20,085 20,000 85 89 0 89 1991 1993 20,000 6.10% 18,068 36,068 0 38,068 37,871 19,696 18,235 1992 1994 20,000 6.15% 14,848 34,848 0 34,848 36,590 16,873 19,717 1993 1995 20,000 6.20% 13,618 33,618 0 33,618 '35,299 16,088 19,211 1994 1986 25,000 6.25% 12,378 37,378 0 37,378 39,247 19,197 20,050 1995 1997 25,000 6.30% 10,815 35,815 0 35,815 37,606 18,209 19,397 1996 1998 25,000 6.40% 9,240 34,240 0 34,240 35,952 17,224 18,728 1997 1999 25,000 6.50% 7,640 32,640 0 32,640 34,272 16,240 18,032 1998 2000 30,000 8.60% 6,015 38,015 0 36,015 37,816 t5,255 22,561 1999 2001 30,000 6.70% 4,035 34,035 0 34,035 35,737 14,272 21,465 2000 2002 30,000 6.75% 2,025 32,025 0 32,025 33,626 13,288 20,340 TOTALS: 250,000 116,787 366,767 20,000 346,767 364,105 166,280 197,825 Bond Years: 1,792.50 Annual Interest: 116,767 Avg. Maturity: 7.17 Plus Discount: 3,125 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.514% Not Interest: 119,892 N.I.C. Rate: 6.689% Interest rates aro estimates; changes may Cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. J CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA $265,000 G 0 IMPROVEMENT BONDS PROJECT 90.04 Co Rd 361GILLARD AVE Filing Collect Year Year 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 TOTALS PROJECTED ASSESSMENT INCOME Current Assessments Filing Date: ID/ 1/1991 Deferred Assessments Filing Date: 12/31/1994 Interest Principal 0 8.000% Total ......... ........ ...-- 2,493 Interest 3,893 Principal ......... 0 8.000% ........ Total ..... 9,810 9,8269 19,636 9,810 7,063 16,873 9,810 6,276 16,088 9,810 5,494 15,304 9,810 4,709 14,519 9,810 3,924 13,734 9,810 3,139 12,949 9,810 2,354 12,164 9,810 1,570 11,380 9,810 785 10,595 98,100 45,142 143,242 a) Includes interest from filing date to 12131/1992. Deferred Assessments Filing Date: 12/31/1994 Interest Principal 0 8.000% Total ......... ........ ...-- 2,493 1,400b 3,893 2,493 1,197 3,690 2,493 997 3,490 2,493 798 3,291 2,493 598 3,091 2,493 399 2,892 2,492 199 2,691 17,450 5,588 23,038 b) Includes interest from filing date to 12/31/1995. Prepared September , 1990 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated T O T A L - - - - - Principal Interest Total 9,810 9,826 19,636 9,810 7,063 16,873 9,810 6,278 16,088 12,303 6,694 19,197 12,303 5,906 18,209 12,303 4,921 17,224 12,303 3,937 16,240 12,303 2,952 15,255 12,303 1,969 14,272 12,302 984 13,286 115,550 50,730 166,280 CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA $265,000 0 0 IMPROVEMENT BONDS PROJECT 90-04 Co Rd 36/OILLARD AVE Filing Collect Year Year 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 TOTALS 07 PROJECTED ASSESSMENT INCOME Current Assessments Filing Date: 10/ 1/1991 Interest Principal 0 8.000% Total 10,700 10,718a 21,418 10,700 7,704 18,404 10,700 6,848 17,549 10,700 5,992 16,692 10,700 5,136 15,836 10,700 4,280 14,980 10,700 3,424 14,124 10,700 2,568 13,268 10,700 1,712 12,412 10,700 856 11,556 107,000 49,238 156,238 Deferred Assessments Filing Date: 12/31/1994 Interest Principal 0 8.000% Total 2,714 1,524D 4,238 2,714 1,303 4,017 2,714 1,086 3,800 2,714 869 3,583 2,714 652 3,366 2,714 434 3,148 2,716 217 2,933 19,000 6,085 25,085 e) Includes Interest from filing D) Includes Interest from filing data to 12/31/1992. data to 12/31/1995. Prepared August 30, 1990 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated T 0 T A L - - - - - Principal Interest 10,700 10,718 10,700 7,704 10,700 6,846 13,414 7,516 13,414 6,439 13,414 5,366 13,414 4,293 13,414 3,220 13,414 2,146 13,416 1,073 126,000 55,323 Total 21,416 18,404 17,549 20,930 19,853 18,790 17,707 16,634 15,560 14,469 181,323 Fu 0 X 5 ( � J CITY Of MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared August 30, 1990 $265,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incorporated IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1990 Dated: 11. 1.1990 Mature: 2. 1 Total Capital- Not Projected Total Year of Year of Principal ized Levy 105% Assessment Net Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest 8 Interest Interest Required of Total Income Requirement 11) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 17) (8) 19) (10) (11) 1990 1992 0 0.001 21,273 21,273 21,250 23 24 O 24 1991 1993 25,000 6.101 17,018 42,018 0 42,018 11,119 21,416 22,701 1992 1994 20,000 6.151 15,493 35,493 0 35,493 37,268 18,004 18,864 1993 1995 20,000 6.201 14,263 31,263 0 31,203 35,976 17,548 18,428 1994 1996 25,000 6.251 13,023 38,023 0 38,023 39,924 20,930 18,994 1995 1997 25,000 6.301 11,180 36,480 0 38,180 38,283 19,853 18,430 1996 1998 30,000 6.401 8,885 39,885 0 39,885 41,879 18,780 23,099 1997 1999 30,000 6.501 7,965 37,965 0 37,985 39,863 17,707 22,156 1998 2000 30,000 6.601 43,015 36,015 0 38,015 37,816 16,634 21,182 ? 1999 2001 30,000 6.701 4,035 34,035 0 34,035 35,737 15,580 20,177 2000 2002 30,000 6.751 2,025 32,025 0 32,025 33,826 14,489 19,137 TOTALS: 265,000 122,455 387,455 21,250 388,205 384,515 181,323 203,192 Bond Years: 1,681.25 Annual Interest: 122,455 Avg. Maturity: 7.10 Plus Discount: 3,313 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.509% Net Intero st: 125,768 N.I.C. Rate: 6.6851 y b Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. �o m The actual undorwiter's discount Cid may also vary, O Q O Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 Consideration of planting boulevard trees on 7th Street between Minnesota and Walnut Streets and the placement of a hiqh railing on the south retaininq wall near K -mart and the, Monticello Mall. (J.S.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As discussed at the previous meeting, City staff wishes to plant boulevard trees along 7th Street between Minnesota Street and walnut Street. The trees would be located approximately 4-1/2 feet behind the curb and, consequently, 4-1/2 feet from the existing sidewalk. City staff is proposing a mix of Maple, Linden, Ash, and Hackberry. A total of 48 trees at a 50 -foot spacing appears to be most appropriate. There are three existing trees on the north side of 7th Street between Locust and Walnut Streets; therefore, the total number of trees needed is 45. Eleven trees will be transplanted from the Pinewood School. we are proposing purchasing (34) thirty-four 2 -inch trees for 7th Street to be planted by the public works department utilizing our own tree spade. Roger has obtained two quotes for the trees. The lowest price was obtained from Noble Nurseries of Maple Grove at $2,699.80. h The railing proposed to be installed along the south retaining wall is needed for a distance of approximately 360 feet. The railing would match the existing one on Highway 25 along the sidewalk by Country Kitchen and consists of a 32 -inch high fence type of structure with a cross rail but without the fabric. This type of construction is somewhat unique in that it is much shorter than a normal fence, and we, therefore, have had some difficulty in obtaining quotes for installation of the railing. We solicited two quotes from fence companies. Century Fence was low with a price of $3,990. The actual written quote will be mailed Monday. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize the public works department to plant the trees from Noble Nursery and Pinewood along 7th Street as proposed and to have the railing installed along the retaining wall by Century Fence Company. The total for both projects would be $6,689.80. Special Council Agenda - 9/17/90 - 2. The second alternative would be to delete either the railing or the tree plantings as the Council so desires. 3. The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I The staff recommends that the Council authorize installation of the trees and fence as outlined in alternative 91. We have attempted to obtain the landscape plan from K -mart; but as of this date, we have not yet received the plan. We will be notifying them of the proposed planting. In addition, since the railing would be placed on The Lincoln Companies' property and/or the K -mart property, it may be beneficial to install the railing only conditional upon an agreement from K -mart and The Lincoln Companies that they would maintain the railing, which in all reality would need very little maintenance for many years in the future. We have enclosed a copy of the proposed planting schedule for your review. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed planting schedule; Copy of the low quote from Noble Nursery. 7 SEP 11 '90 1-1:11 tMOBLE WPSEPY C 111i1i}{IIINfill}Ili}II}}11iNi1{1 NODLE NURSERY J= Ten} iia. • Us* Gran. U • Plena u@.1797 MICE QUOTE 12 2- Norway Maple $87.00 it 2' Mackberrg $87.00 11 2' Qeempize 1.1adm $92.00 *Special Fall Sale Discount Applies M 128 P02 $1.044.00* 957.00 1,012.00 $3,013.00 — 313.20 $2.699.80 LOAF i\ J U fNp. M A ,,. ,r>• t .7 p i „ Q r 7<F ST. .i L' 0