Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-13-1990\ AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 13, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen lA. Call to order. 2A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held October 22, 1990, and the special meeting held September 17, 1990. 3A. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 1. Public hearing for assessment and adoption of assessment roll for sidewalk repair and replacement project 90SW-1. SO 2. Consideration of resolution adopting assessment roll - Seventh s( Street Improvement Project 90-02. 1 3. Update and review of assessor contract - Peggy Stencel. 4. Consideration of a simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. Applicant, Robert and Betty Krautbauer. 5. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a church facility in an R-1 (single family residential) zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. 6. Consideration of preliminary plat request to replat portions of the Sandberg East residential subdivision. Applicant, John Sandberg. 7. Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing a public sign in the form of a decorative banner to be displayed on public property. 8. Consideration of liquor store financial report for the nine months ended September 30, 1990. 9. Consideration of replacement of Automatic Control Center at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 10. Consideration of Change Order Al for Project 90-04, Sandberg East utility improvements. Council Agenda 11/13/90 Page 2 11. Consideration of final payment on Project 90-02, street and utility improvements for 7th Street and Minnesota Street. 12. Consideration to amend Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines. 13. Consideration of adoption of urbanization plan by joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of S Monti cello . 14. Consideration of a petition for annexation of the West Kjellberg Mobile Home Park. 15. Consideration of fund transfers for 1990. 16. Consideration of setting a meeting for the purpose of establishing 1991 salary/wage policy for nonunion personnel. 17. Consideration of resolution authorizing execution of tax S j increment pledge agreements. 18. Adjournment. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 17, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Warren Smith Members Absent: Shirley Anderson, Dan Slonigen 2. Public hearinq on Sandberq East improvement, Prosect 90-04. AND 3. Consideration of resolution orderina improvement, acceotinq bid, and authorizinq contract--Sandbera East. Mayor Maus opened the public hearing and noted that due to the absence of two Council members, formal consideration of this matter cannot occur until at least four members of the Council are present. Assistant Administrator O'Neill updated Council on strategies for financing the project. Before outlining the strategies, he noted that staff recommends that Council order the project based on the fact that it has been demonstrated that it's feasible to serve the area with city sewer and water and that allowing private sewer and water systems to develop does not appear to be an option. In addition, waiting until spring to conduct the project eliminates the possibility of home construction this fall and could result in significantly higher construction bid prices. Finally, the low bid is acceptable, and the cost to rebid the project in the spring will add $1,500 to the total project cost. O'Neill also informed Council that John Sandberg requests that Council consider establishing a fixed assessment amount prior to actual completion of the project, which would allow transactions to occur with various landowners and hiitlders, thereby allowing home construction to occur in the fall of 1990. Under this scenario, the fixed amount for the 17 -lot assessment would be established at $92,000. If Council is willing to establish a fixed assessment prior to completion of the project, the following are terms and conditions that might be appropriate: The City of Monticello will spread the total as ant of $92,000 against five of the lots created with replatting of the Sandberg East subdivision. 2. At Such time that the assessment against any of the five lots becomes delinquent, the City has the 1 right to foreclose immediately on the lot with the delinquent assessment. Pago 1 00L Special Council Minutes - 9/17/90 3. John Sandberg agrees to plat the Sandberg East subdivision in a manner consistent with the peeli roar— plat r..contly apprzvcd. 4. The $92,000 assessment includes assessments associated with the parcel owned by the Nelson household. 5. The rear portion of the Sandberg East lot is intended for sale to Norell; and if not purchased by Norell, it shall be platted as a single outlot and shall not be sold to individual property owners purchasing replatted Sandberg East lots. 6. A document shall be recorded against each of the five lots carrying the assessment stating that property owner will not challenge the assessment using the argument that the property has not increased in value equal to the assessment. Jchn Sandberg noted that he can abide by the terms associated with establishing a fixed assessment prior to completion of the project with one exception. He noted that item A5 requires cooperation from other property owners affected by the development. He noted he could not guarantee that adjoining property owners would buy remnant land created with the replotting of the Sandberg East subdivision. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to continue the public hearing to 7:00 a.m. , October 18, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for TIF District 1-9 (Tapper's, Inc.), TIF District 1.10 (Rommele Ern(Lineerinq)s and Project 90-04, extension of sewer and water tc Sandborq East development. Catherine Polta of Springsted reviewed the financing proposals for all three projects. She noted that the tax increment district will generate sufficient revenue to cover both the Tapper's and Remmele bond issue. 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 boon structured using certain assumptions anticipating that a portion would be assessable to Mr. Krautbauer and the Joanne Kaliiger property and such assessments may not be collectable Immediately. wolfstellor noted that because only thre o Council members aro proaent, the Council cannot act on the bond issue financing the Sandberg East development; howovo=, Council may act on the resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for TIF District 1-9 and TIF District 1-10. Page 2 G) Special Council Minutes - 9/17/90 After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve a resolution authorizing the sale of i7G,ids fOA TIF uistr-:t -i, Tal FPar* , and TIF Dic-trt_t 1-10, Remmele Engineering. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-34. Consideration of olantinq boulevard trees on 7th Street between Minnesota and Walnut Streets and the placement of a hiqh railing on the south retainina wall near Kmart and the Monticello Mall. City staff requested that Council consider authorizing the planting of 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 4-1/2 feet from the existing sidewalk. Staff proposed a mix of Maple, Linden, Ash, and Hackberry. A total of 48 trees at 50 -foot spacing appears to be most appropriate according to staff. Staff proposed purchase of 34, 2 -inch trees for 7th Street to be planted by the public works department utilizing our own tree spade. Roger Mack has obtained two quotes for the trees. The lowest bid price was obtained from Noble Nurseries of Maple Grove at $2,699.80. 1` In addition, staff proposed development of a railing along that portion of the retaining wall that is higher than two feet. The railing is needed to limit the possibility of falls from the retaining wall. Simola went on to note that the project will come in under budget even with installation of railing and trees. Warren Smith noted that the boulevard tree plantings are a nice idea. Fran Fair concurred. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to authorize staff to purchase boulevard trees and to direct staff to install railing along the southern retaining wall near Kmart and the Monticello Mall. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. V r�iGW Jeri Assistant Administrator Page 3 /�'1, MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONT ICELLO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 18, 1990 - 7:00 a.m. Members Present: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: Shirley Anderson 2. Public hearinq on Sandberq East, Improvement Project 90-04. AND 3. Consideration of a resolution ordering improvement acceotinq bids and authorizinq contract--Sandberq East. Mayor Maus reconvened the public hearing that was continued from the day before regarding this matter. No one from the public was present. Staff reviewed the presentation made to Council during the previous meeting. Council reviewed the terns associated with establishing the assessment against the 17 lots associated with the Sandberg East development at $92,000. John Sandberg stated that he will be doing a replat of the Sandberg East development which is complicated by the fact that the Nelson mortgage must be released from the old plat and placed onto a new plat, which is a somewhat complicated and expensive undertaking. He also stated that the overall plan for the area makes better use of the land and is a good idea. Ken Maus asked if Vic Hellman is intending on developing homes in the Sandberg East development. John Sandberg replied that Hellman does have plans for development in the area and would like to dig some basements this fall. Fran Fair asked if the five lots that the assessment is being placed against would be adjacent to each other. John Sandberg mentioned that he would prefer that option. She also asked what type of quality housing is planned. John Sandberg stated that the price and the size of the lots will dictato the value of the homes. In addition, dealing with one builder helps in maintaining the character and caliber of the housing in the area. Fran Fair noted that the City needs to dovelop housing with higher market values. Page 1 00-11 Special Council Minutes - 9/18/90 1` After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to adopt a resolution ordering the project and fl, the against the 17 luta aaanriat arl with Sandber rg Eastdevelopment at $92,000 with conditions as follows: 1. The City of Monticello will spread the total assessment of $92,000 against five of the lots created with replatting of the Sandberg East subdivision. 2. At such time that the assessment against any of the five lots becomes delinquent, the City has the right to foreclose immediately on the lot with the delinquent assessment. 3. John Sandberg agrees to plat the Sandberg East subdivision in a manner consistent with the preliminary plat recently approved. 4. The $92,000 assessment includes assessments associated with the parcel owned by the Nelson household. 5. The rear portion of the Sandberg East lot is intended for sale to Norell; and if not purchased by Norell, it shall be platted as a single outlot and shall not be sold to individual property owners purchasing replattcd Sandberg East lots. 6. Property owners will not challenge the assessment using the argument that the property has not increased in value equal to the assessment. 7. Transfer of lot(s) from John Sandberg to a new property is not allowed until after assessment hearing is conducted and the assessment roll is cortifiod. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-36. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds for Project 90-04, extension of sewer and water to the Sandberg East development. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-35. JofGift\\ Aasistant Administrator Page 2 O MINUTEESS REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 22, 1 990 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 2. Approval of minutes. After discussion, motion was: made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October- 9, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to approve the minutes of the special meeting held October 15, 1990. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Fran Fair. Abstaining: Warren Smith. Smith abstained because he was not able to attend the special meeting. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. Wayne Mayer, commander of the Monticello American Legion Post, presented the City of Monticoll o with $1,500 toward materials needed to develop a basketba Z1 court at the park located between the Par West and Anders Wilhelm subdivisions. On behalf of the City, Mayor Maus thanked the Legion Club for the $1,500 contribution. 4. Consideration of reaffirming resolutions awardinq the sale of $250,000 general obligation improvement bonds, Series 1990C, and $305,000 taxable tax increment bonds, Series 1990D, to Park Investment Corooration. Administrator Wolfsteller roportod that the five bids received on the general obligation bonds for financing the Sandberg East improvement project rangod from 6.759 to 7.18. When the bond sale was authorized a montliago, Springsted had estimated a not increase rate of 6.689. Wolfstoller also reported that the City had eight bidders on t --ho tax increment bonds ranging in interest cost from 8.998 to 9.589. Springsted had originally estimated the interest cost at 9.198 for this bond. Park Investment Corporation wale the low bidder on both bond issues; and tho Council, at the spocial meeting, adopted resolutions awarding the ea to of both issues to Park Investment. Pago 1 Council Minutes - 10/22/90 After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Warren Smith, to reconfirm the action taken at the special Council meeting October 15 and adopt resolutions awarding the sale of both bond issues to Park Investment Corporation. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTIONS 90-47 and 90-48. Consideration of Interpretation of enlargement of non- conforming use as it applies to tree sales at the West Side Market and allowing staff to issue administrative permit. Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council review the intent of portions of the City Ordinance limiting enlargement of a non -conforming use and then determine whether or not selling Christmas trees at the West Side Market constitutes an enlargement of an existing use, or is the sale of trees merely incidental to the convenience store operation and, therefore, allowable. O'Neill reported that the property owners wish to sell Christmas trees at the site for a four- week period and that Council action is requested prior to Planning Commission review because trees cannot be ordered in time for both Planning Commission and Council to review this matter. O'Neill noted to Council that the City Planner, John Uban, recommended that Council make a finding that the operation of a Christmas tree sales area does not constitute an enlargement of a non -conforming use. O'Neill also reported that Uban did not support an ordinance amendment because the precedent established by ordinance may haunt the City later even if the amendment is specifically designed to address this spocific situation. O'Neill noted his concern that the Planning Commission and local residents might react negatively to Council action on this matter without a public review process. At the same time, he noted that there have been no complaints regarding the tree sale operation; therefore, allowing tree sales to occur here may not alienate the neighborhood. Shirley Anderson did not like the idea of making an interpretation of the ordinance without first consulting with tho Planning Commission and without hearing comments from the public. At the same time, however, she did not want to see the property ownore lose the opportunity to sell Christmas trees this year. Ken Maus asked Gary Anderson if the property owners had met all conditions associated with the permit they now have to operate. Gary Anderson noted that the screening requirement has boon satisfied; however, maintenance of the fence is still an issue, as it needs painting or staining in certain areae. Page 2 Council Minutes. -10/22/90 Warren Smith supported the concept of allowing the Christmas trey solos to occur in loon as it wee his .ria.., that four weeks of Christmas tree sales at the convenience store did not constitute an enlargement of the non -conforming use. Dan Blonigen concurred that the tree sales should be allowed to occur. After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to approve the granting of an administrative permit allowing Christmas tree sales to occur at this site based on the preliminary finding that Christmas tree sale activity does not constitute an enlargement of a non -conforming use, preliminary finding to be tested and reviewed by the Planning Commission via the normal public hearing process and placed before Council prior to issuance of administrative permits allowing future tree sales to occur at the West Side Market. Motion carried unanimously. On a related matter, Council reviewed the tome associated with the administrative permit to be granted to the West Side Market to allow Christmas tree sales. The following conditions are to be included in the permit: _ 1. Sufficient parking shall be available for existing business use and parking associated with tree sale use. 2. All tree sales must be conducted outside of county road right-of-way. 3. Tree sales area shall be fenced, and all unsold trees shall be removed by January 15, 1991. 4. No additional seasonal outside sale activity shall be allowed sit the site without rezoning from residential to business classification. 5. Area of tree inventory and storage shall be limited to an area equal to 1,000 sq ft. 6. Consider fundinq a portion of the cost to doveloo banner system in conlunction with Chamber of Commerce Marketinq and Communications Plan. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the Chamber of Commerce request that the City of Monticello contribute to development of a unified marketing program. O'Noll l reported Page 3 Council Minutes - 10/22/90 that the total marketing program that the Chamber is lnstltutlnn rPmnlrPa an expenditure of E30,On0. Of the $30,000 budgeted for year one, $7,285 will go toward purchase of banners and banner brackets. O'Neill reported that the Chamber requests that the City consider funding a portion of the cost to purchase and install the banners. O'Neill described the banner program which called for purchase of 84 color banners featuring the City logo and the slogan, "Monticello is your kind of place." Half of the banners would be hung from the streetscape decorative lighting. The remaining 40 banners would be hung from other street light Posts throughout the community. These areas would include non-commercial thoroughfares, thoroughfare areas, and the community hospital. Under the proposal, City staff would be responsible for attaching banner brackets and hanging banners. In addition, O'Neill reported that the Chamber of Commerce will be budgeting for banners to be used for each season. Funding for these banners will come entirely from Chamber coffers. Dave Peterson of Monticello Ford reviewed the unified marketing effort being undertaken by the Chamber of Commerce. Ken Maus noted that the banner system proposed is consistent with City goals noted during joint meetings conducted and emphasized that the banners will contribute toward beautification of the city and communicate a sense of pride in the community which all citizens benefit from. Fran Fair noted that under the program, the City would be responsible for purchasing the initial sot of banners with the Chamber financing the purchase of future banners. She felt it was reasonable that the City fund the full amount associated with the initial banner purchase. Dan Blonigon noted that the banners as proposed are purely advertising in nature; and, therefore, he did not support use of City funds for such purposes. Shirley Anderson noted that originally she planned on supporting the financing of one-half of the cost to install the banners. After realizing that the banners are being placed throughout the community, she expressed a willingness to support City payment of 60% of the cost to develop the banner system. Page 4 Council Minutes - 10/22/90 Ken Maus noted that the house should be rentable after minor epaire f cr five year- without much more mcney into it . Warren Smith did not support the concept of renting out the house. It was his view that staff time and money into the actual rental of the house would not be worth the expense. It was his view that it would make more sense to demolish the structure and sell the front portion to a business concern and develop the rear of the property for potential parking. Dan Blonigen suggested that the City should not demolish and sell off a portion of the property, as doing so would limit parking options. Blonigen noted that we should not sell off any portion of the property until our long-range plans to serve City Hall premises are understood. Shirley Anderson agreed that the structure should not be demolished until future plans for development of the City Hall area are understood. Roger Mack suggested that City staff prepare the house for winter and allow it to remain vacant. In the meantime, we can study for expansion of City Hall and use the garage within the structure for storage of City equipment. Ken Maus concurred that it will not cost the City that touch to let it stand. In the meantime, we can conduct a long-term planning process. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to postpone a decision regarding whether or not to rent out the property, prepare the house for winter storage, and direct City staff to use the garage as it sees fit. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of resolution adoptinq additional sections of the City General Records Retention Schedule and consideration of adopts no internal office polic v on records rotontion. Executive Secretary, Karen Doty, in her staff roport to Council, recommended that the City adopt five sections of the retention schedule adopting the elections, financial/ accounting, payroll, personnel, and utilities sections of the City General Records Retention Schedule and also adopt the internal office policy for reco rda retention. This would enable the City to dostroy bulky records which are no longer needed. At the same time, the internal office policy as Pago 6 Council Minutes - 10/22/90 After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair to support financing the full amount of rhe hanner RVRiem development of $7,285. Dan Blonigen noted that City staff time required to install and replace the banner system will be significant and represents a major contribution to the project. Warren Smith noted that he supported City financing of 100% of the project expenses; however, he would be willing to vote for 80%. Dan Blonigen indicated that he would not support use of funds for this project. Ken Maus suggested that as a compromise, the City could pay 75% of the cost to install banners. It was his view that the committee working on the unified marketing program would be able to continue the program with a 758 contribution rather than the 100% requested. Fran Fair then amended her motion from 100% financial support of the cost to install the banner system to 758 of the expense. Voting in favor of the motion: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson. Staff noted that a zoning ordinance amendment would be required in order to allow a public sign in the form of a banner to be hung for a period longer than ten days. 7. Consideration of final pa�rment to E.H. Renner 6 Sona for, Project 90-1, booster pump refurbishment. John Simola reported in his staff report that the project is complete, and the motor and pump are working well. The settlement reached rogarding tho oxtonded warranties and payment of engineering fees is satisfactory to all parties involved. After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair, to make final payment to E.H. Renner on Project 90-1 in the amount of $8,098.20. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of whether or not to rent the house and garacle on the recontly acquired Cole property near City Hall. John Simola reported that the City has completed closing on tho Cole property near the City Hall for an agreed upon price of $50,000 as offered previously by the City Council. City staff has roviowed tho condition of the house for the purpose of making a rocommondation for immodiato use or for potential longer term use. Page 5 Council Minutes - 10/22/90 noted would protect those records which the State of Minnesota sllews us to destroy but .:hick .:c f^^l at th-2:;tir..c any bo needed for future reference. Council reviewed the retention schedule as noted. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt a resolution adopting the elections, financial/accounting, payroll, personnel, and utilities sections of the City General Records Retention Schedule and also adopt the internal office policy for records retention. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-49. 10. Consideration of bills for the month of October. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve the bills as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Other items. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that t1ho Township had approved the joint resolution governing urbant zation of land directly adjacent to the city of Monticello. This item will �- be before the Council at a subsequent meeting. Assistant Administrator O'Neill and Bret Weiss of OSM updated Council regarding staff efforts to obtain state aid to highways funding for 1991. O'Neill indice3ted that the Minnesota Department of Transportation will not accept the City's challenge directly to the populat ion estimates received, and MN/DOT will only accept a population figure submitted to them directly by the Municipal Board. O'Neill informed Council that he would be working directly with the Municipal Board and the Census Bureau toward establishment or a population figure by November 15, 1990. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Page 7 Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Public Hearinq for assessment and adoption of assessment roll for sidewalk repair and replacement project 90SW-1. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council approved final payment for Improvement 90SW-1 concrete sidewalk repair and replacement to Whitco Construction on September 24, 1990. The actual quantity of sidewalk replaced was 11,351.95 sq ft. The cost of the replacement including the necessary seeding and sodding was $24,459.07. This was for sidewalks on the grid. The City's Public Works Department performed the removals prior to the repairs and replacement. The projected costs were based on $.90 per sq ft. The total removals by the City amounted to $9,352.13. These would bring the total project cost to $33,794.92. In using our cost sharing policy as approved by the City Council on July 9, 1990, the City pays for the cost of repairing those sections of sidewalk on the grid involving two panels or less per property. For those property owners with more than two panel of sidewalk needing replacement, the City Pays 75% of the cost. Using this cost sharing policy the total assessment for this project is $7,174.80. This is about 21.2% of the project. In addition to the work performed by the City, one property owner, the Monticello School District, chose to replace two panels themselves as they were having other concrete work done. Since it involved two panels or less, the City would reimburse 100% of our bid cost. In this case, however, the cost was less than our bid prices so we will be reimbursing the Independent School District 882 an amount of $173.20 as they did their own removal and replacement. A second property owner, Brad Fylo, on Maple Street had requested to do his own removal and replacement of sidewalk. After starting on the project, Mr. Fyle chose to do only the removal. Based upon our policy, the City may reimburse property owners based upon City bid prices or actual costs whichever is lower. We have not yet received documentation from Mr. Fylo, but we will assume that the S.90 per sq ft price for removal by the City would be the lower. Therefore based upon this price, It is assumed that Mr. Fyle will receive a credit for removal of his sidewalk in the amount of 75% of our price or $516.98. This would actually offset Mr. Fylo's assessment, and he would be receiving a credit upon receipt of documentation of his actual removal costs on the project. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 A third property owner with sidewalk "off the grid" (Shirley Anderson with sidewalk along Palm Street) petitioned the City for removal of her existing off grid sidewalk. Since she was 1008 of the property owners with existing sidewalk on the block, the City's policy was to pay 25% of the removal project costs when performed by the City. In this particular case, we recommended to Shirley that it would be cheaper for her to find a contractor to remove the sidewalk rather than the City bid out the removal as City crews were only removing sidewalk from on grid locations to facilitate repairs. Shirley had her sidewalk removed for a cost of $425.00 which is less than the anticipated cost at $.90 per sq ft of $594.00. Therefore, Shirley has a credit due of 25% of $425.00 which is $106.25 For your information we have enclosed a copy of the assessment roll for sidewalk, the sidewalk cost sharing policy, a copy of the cost allocations, and a copy of the bid from Whitco for the roplacement and restoration. Tom Bose will be available during the hearing process to answer any questions that residents may have concerning the quantity of sidewalk removed and repaired and the cost. The City staff would like to suggest an interest rate of 8.1259 per year, with the assessments being spread over a ` period of 5 years. After the close of the public hearing, one other item that should be discussed is the removal of off the grid sidewalks. A few s1dowalks needing major repairs were removed immediately. There are some sidewalks, however, that still need repairs and have not been removed. The November deadline is fast approaching, and it may not be possible now for some of those property owners to have their sidewalks repaired or removed. It may be best to give rosidents some additional time to May 15th or 30th for repairs or replacements of off grid sidewalks. They could be sent a notice that they are solely res ponsiblo for any injuries that occur up until the time that tho sidewalks are removed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to, at the close of the public hearing, make adjustments In the assessment roll as so determined by information presented during the public hearing and then to adopt the assessment roll, making special note of the payments and credits due to tho throe individual proporty ownors removing, repairing, or replacing their own sidewalk as so noted. In addition, alternative 1 would extend the time frame for sidewalk romoval off the grid to May 15, 1991, sending written notice to those property owners of the extension of time and their responsibility for injuries. 2. The second alternative would be to, at the close of the Council Agenda - 11/13/90 public hearing, adopt the assessment roll along with the credits to property owners as outlined above, but not to extend the time for sidewalk removal but to instruct the Public Works Department to obtain bids for removal of those sidewalks involved at the earliest possible date and so notify those property owners as outlined in the City Ordinance. I" I C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff tends to favor alternative 2. There has been ample time for citizens to remove their sidewalks. This is evidenced by those residents who have already done so. However, since this is a recently adopted policy, there may be some extenuating circumstances to give the residents additional time, and the Council may want to consider alternative 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution; sidewalk cost sharing policy; assessment roll; coat allocations; and bid prices from Whitco. C RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 90SW- 1 RESOLUTION 90 - WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed as E;cssmcnt of the improvements of various sidewalks within the City of Monticello's Grid System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: Such proposed assessments, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed Improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments against improved property shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 5 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1992, and shall bear the interest rate of 5.1250 per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid assess ments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to car tlficatlon of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no Interest shall be charged if the entire assessment Is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any Lime thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with Intere st accrued to December 31 cf the year in which snrh Payment Is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or intorest will be charged through December 31 of the next succooding year. 4. The c lork shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assosmonLs shall be colloatod and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes . Adopted by the Council this 13th day of Novembor, 1990. Mayor City Administrator SIDEWALK COST SHARING POLICY Sidewalk off the grid is the total responsibility of the abutting property owner. It can be removed rather than be repaired or replaced. It must be removed in its entirety across the length of the property in question. The boulevard must then be restored. If requested, the City will bid sidewalk removal and boulevard restoration, supervise the project, and bill the property owners. Cost is to be 1008 for the abutting property owner for individual sections of sidewalks off the grid. If 1008 of the property owners on a particular block petition the City for removal of existing sidewalk from the entire block, the City will pay 258 of the project cost when performed by the City. 2. Major replacement of sidewalks on the grid (residential or commercial and more than two panels per property): City pays 758. (No 1008 credit for first two panels.) New sidewalks on the grid abutting commercial property: City pays 758. 4. New sidewalks on the grid abutting residential property: City pays 758. 5. Preventative maintenance by abutting property owner. 6. Minor repairs or replacement on the grid abutting commercial or residential property (two panels or less): City pays 1008. The City will also pay 1008 or repair all pedestrian ramps at intersections. 7. Sidewalk width considered for cost sharing by the City will be limited to five (5) feet unless the City Engineer deems additional width is necessary. S. The City Council will consider adding additional existing Sidewalks to the grid if: a) the segment abuts the grid; b) it is in complete block sections; c) and 1008 of the property owners in each block petition for inclusion on the grid. 9. neferrals of assessment will be granted for property owners aqe 65 or older for whom the cost will be a financial hardship. Individuals must apply under standard public improvement regulations. 10. Snow removal: Existing ordinance remains in force. City does only City property and south side of Broadway (residential). NOTE: For items 2, J, and 4, the percentages are of the actual project costs bid annually by the City and Installed by the City or its contractor. For those individuals who wish to repair or replace their own sidewalks as per City standards, the City may reimburse property owners based upon City bid prices or actual costs, whichever is lower. Damage resulting from deliberate actions of a property owner or his/her representative is exempt from cost sharing by the City under this policy. 7/9/90 1990 ASSESSMENT ROLL 90-SW1 REPAIR PROJECT PID# AMOUNT NAME ADDITION LOT/ BLK SEC 155-010-028060 546.44 Lilja, John Original 6-7 28 155-010-032020 96.05 Ben Franklin Original 1-3+ 32 155-010-033040 94.50 Crandell, Keith Original 4 33 155-010-033041 579.29 Lahr, Darrin Original 4-5 33 155-010-033041 274.25 Lahr, Darrin Original 4-5 33 155-010-033060 299.30 Lindberg, Ann Original 6-7 33 155-010-033060 444.02 Lindberg, Ann Original 6-7 33 155-010-033070 376.99 Smith, Ben Original 7-8 33 155-010-033090 153.83 Harstad, Lester Original 9 33 155-010-036040 385.58 Gahr, Margaret Original 4-5 36 155-010-036041 66.26 Smith 5 Hayes (S. Keating) Original 4-5 36 155-010-037090 228.34 Tripp Oil Company Original 9-10 37 155-010-037120 81.25 Kirk, Rick Original 12-13 37 155-010-039040•• 436.41 Fyle, Brad Original 4-5 39 155-010-039060 578.48 Grimsmo, Arve Original 6-9 39 155-010-041100 57.10 Lagergren, Robert Original 10-12 41 155-010-048010 119.27 Porter. Steve Original 1-3 4R 155-010-049010 86.14 Trinity Lutheran Church Original 1-5 49 155-010-049080 386.42 Holt, Todd Original 8-10 49 155-010-050011 732.76 Fred's Auto Repair Original 1-3 50 155-010-051110 341.35 Bronny Ford Optical Original 11-12 51 155-010-051111 204.19 Gustafson, Clifford Original 11-12 51 155-015-013030 74.99 Jahnke, Diana Lower Mont 3 13 155-040-002100 531.59 Lindquist -Pitt Lowor/Elks A,B,C 1-2 B 7174.80 ••credit duo: $516.98 for removal of sidewalk by owner COST ALLOCATIONS CITY OF MONTICELLO PROJECT 90SW-1, SIDEWALK I. 4 -INCH THICK SIDEWALK, INCLUDES SOD RESTORATION 1. 4 -ft sidewalk removed, 4 -ft sidewalk installed A. $ .90/sq ft removal X 258 X 4 -ft wide = $ .90 B. $1.92/sq ft installed X 256 X 4 -ft wide = 1.92 Property Owner Cost Per Lineal Foot - $ 2.82 2. 4 -ft sidewalk removed, 5 -ft sidewalk installed A. $ .90/sq ft removal X 256 X 4 -ft wide = $ .90 B. $1.92/sq ft installed X 256 X 5 -ft wide 2.40 Property Owner Cost Per Lineal Foot - $ 3.30 3. 5 -ft sidewalk removed, 5 -ft sidewalk installed A. $ .90/sq ft removal X 256 X 5 -ft wide - $ 1.13 B. $1.92/sq ft installed X 256 X 5 -ft wide 2.40 Property Owner Cost Per Lineal Foot $ 3.53 II. 6 -INCH THICK SIDEWALKS IN DRIVEWAYS 1. 4 -ft sidewalk removed, 4 -ft sidewalk installed A. $ ,90/v7 ft removal X 256 X 4 -ft wide - $ .90 B. $2.25/sq it installed X 256 X 4 -ft wide e $ 2.25 Property Owner Cost Per Lineal Foot - $ 3.15 2. 4 -ft sidewalk removed, 5 -ft sidewalk installed A. $ .90/sq ft removal X 256 X 4 -ft wide $ .90 D. $2.25/sq ft installed X 258 X 5 -ft wide 2.81 Proporty Owner Cost Per Lineal Foot $ 3.71 WALKCOST.ALL: 8/13/90 Pago 1 3. 5 -ft sidewalk removed, 5 -ft sidewalk Installed A. $ .90/sq ft removal X 251 X 5 -ft wide - $ 1.13 B. $2.25/sq ft installed X 258 x 5 -ft wide = $ 2.81 Property Owner Cost Per Lineal Foot - $ 3.94 III. BITUMINOUS REMOVAL AND PATCHING (based upon removal square footage) $2.00/sq ft X 259 X 6 -ft wide = $ 3.00 Property Owner Cost Per Lineal Foot = $ 3.00 NOTE: City crews will perform all removals and will also patch bituminous driveways. IV. SIDEWALK GRINDING 1. 4 -ft wide panel A. 48" wide sidewalk X 2" grind width X $1.20/sq in X 25% -$28.80 Property Owner Cost to Grind 4 -ft Panel $28.80 B. Property owner replacement cost for 4" X 4 -ft X 6 -ft panel $16.92 2. 5 -ft wide panel A. 60" side sidewalk X 2" grind width X $1.20/sq in X 2513$ 6.00 Property Owner. Cost to Grind 5 -ft Panel $36.00 B. Property owner replacement cost for 4" X 5 -ft X 6 -ft panel a $21.113 (' WALKCOST.ALL: 8/13/90 Pago 2 31. Bidder agrees to perform all Concrete Sidewalk and Appurtenant Work described in the specifications and shown on the plans for the following unit prices (existing concrete removal by others). Base Bid "A" Concrete Work in place 8,500 so. ft. 4" concrete walk @ $� /sq. ft. - $_a,-'_ . JD 1,350 sq.ft. 6" concrete drive- way/sidewalk @ $ 323 sq• ft. = $ h'3A pavement 20 lin.ft. B6-18 Curb @S // � /lin.ft.- $ 23 AY.lRq 95 lin.ft. B6-24 Curb @ $ /Z z—!c� /lin.ft.= $ 350 sq.yds. sod with black dirt @ $ /sq.yd. = $ IS 75.0/ 600 sq.inches concrete grinding to remove verticle lip @ $ /sq.in. - S G60.00 Grand Total Base Bid "A" $'j"f`!"„` 4. The Contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder as soon as practicable after the bid opening subject to the reservation of paragraph 8 hereinafter. 5. The undersigned further proposes to execute the contract agreement and to furnish satisfactory bond within ten (10) days afternotice of the award of contract has been received. the undersigned further proposes to begin work as specified, to complete the work on or before date specified, and to maintain at all times a contract bond approved by the City in an amount equal to the total bid. 6. Accompanying this proposal is the bid security required to be furnished by the contract documents, the same being subject to forfeiture in event of default by the undersigned. 7. In submitting this proposal it is understood that the right is reserved by the owner to reject any or all proposals and to waive informalities. B. This proposal my not be withdrawn after the opening of the proposals and shall be subject to acceptance by the owner for a period of thirty (30) calendar days from the opening thereof. SIDEWALK SPECS: 7/30/90 IMPROVEMENT NO. 90SW-1 Pago 45 Council Agenda - 11/13/90 2 Consideration of resolution adootina assessment roll - Seventh Street Improvement Project 90-02. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The seventh street project has been successfully completed and it is now time to adopt the assessment roll. Following is a review of the expenses associated with the project construction. The assessment roll reflects the finance plan adopted by Council on January 29, 1990. OVERVIEW The original finance plan projected a total cost to install street and utilities of $407,000. The final cost amounted to $348,313 which is 14.58 less than expected. The final construction total Includes the added expenses associated with sidewalk ($21,000) and tree plantings ($3,000). In addition, $9,133 was expended for public improvments/studies that directly benefit The Lincoln Companies. It is proposed in the assessemnt roll that this amount be assessed directly to The Lincoln Companies. The assessment roll calls for a total assessment of $204,756. The remaining portion of the construction coat is financed via tax Increment revenue. SANITARY SEWER It was estimated that sanitary sewer installation would cost $30,000. The actual cost came in at $15,312., TIF $3.062 or twenty percent of the cost. Represents benefit attributable to the south side of the freeway. Nall No assessment Kmart Site $3,369 or 221 of the total cost. Kmart Remnant $2,756 or 181 of the total cost. Brennan $4,594 or 301 of the total cost. Assessment payment deferred.* Kramer $1,531 or 101 of the total cost. * The residence on the Kramer property is currently receiving sower and water service from the City. Kramor is paying an assessment ass ociatod with the service that the property already receives. It therefor may not make sense to require immediate payment of Council Agenda - 11/13/90 additional assessment installments. Rather, staff suggests that the payment be deferred per the terms below. Under this scenerio, the assessment is payable at such time that the entire property is converted to commercial use. WATERMAIN It was estimated that watermain installation would cost $30,000. The actual cost came in at $18,648. TIF $3,730, or twenty percent of the cost. Represents benefit attributable to the south side of the freeway. Kmart Site $4,103 or 228 of the total cost. Kmart Remnant $3.351 or 188 of the total cost. Assessment payment N� deferred - Brennen $5,594 or 308 of the total cost. Assessment payment deferred• j Kramer $1,865 or 10% of the total coat. Assessment payment deferred• The residence on the Kramer property is currently receiving sewer and water service from the City. Kramer has paid or is paying the assessment associated with the oervice that the property already receives. It therefor may not make sense to require immediate payment of assessment installments. Rather staff suggests that the payment be deferred per the terms below. Under this sconerio, the assessment is payable at such time that the residential use is converted to commercial use. commercial use per the deferred assessment terms below, MINNESOTA STREET It was estimated that Minnesota Street installation would cost $50,000. The actual cost came in at $38,377. TIF $3,799, or ton percent of the cost. Represents benefit attributable to land acquired by the City through purchase of Pratt/Holthaus property. Ridgmount Apt $16,349 or 42% of the total cost. Brennen $13,355 or 351 of the total cost of the project. This portion of the Brennen assessment to not rocieve a deferral. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Kramer $883 or 2.38 of the total cost. Springborg $3,991 or 10.48 of the total cost. STORM SEWER It was estimated that storm sewer installation would cost $100,000. The actual cost came in at $83,749. TIF $23,450 or 288 of the total cost. Represents Horning property and Ridgmont apartment share. Horning and Ridgmont not assessed as the improvement does not create any added benefit. Mall Site $8,207 or 108 of the total area served by the storm sewer. Kmart Site $18,467 or 228 of the total area served by the storm sewer. Kmart Remnant $14.363 or 178 of the total area served by the storm sewer. Brennen $17,000 or 208 of the toal area served by the storm sewer. Payment of the assessment to be deferred• Kramer $2,261 or 2.78 payment or assessment to be deferred - SEVENTH STREET Seventh Street was completed in two phases. The first phase included grading completed and financed entirely by The Lincoln Companies at an approximate coat of $36,500 which is $8,500 over budget. The second phase was completed as a public improvement at a cost of $161,441 which is $15,000 lose than budget. All land acquisition and demolition costs not relating to construction are financed via TIF . Following is the proposed Seventh Street portion of the assessemnt roll. TIF $40,360 is included in the TIF column as oversizing costs associated with construction of a roadway designed to serve as an arterial street. An additional $52,510 is charged to TIF which includes street frontage on the north side of the street that can not be asaossed. This includes p street frontage associated with National Bushing, the "old seventh street", and the city remnant property between 7th and Ridgmont apartments. It Council Agenda - 11/13/90 is proposed also that TIF pay one half the the assessment associated with the Horning Property. A reduced assessemnt is proposed to compensate Hornig for the reduced access to his property. The presence of the retaining wall limits access to the Hornig property to one access point and could therefore justify a an assessment reduction. Total TIF expense for seventh street construction amounted to $92,870 which is about $9,000 less than the budgeted amount of 102,000. Mall Site $14,975 which represents front footage share. Kmart S Ito $34,906 which represents front footage share. Kmart Remnt•• $7,522 which represents front footage share. •• Kmart Remnant site assessments together, include an "oversizing" credit equal to 258 of the cost to complete grading. The total amount assesed against these properties together is about $600 less than budget. Hornig $11,167 which represents one half the front footage share. This amount is about $3,000 less than budget. SIDEWALK The original project did not include installation of sidewalk. Due to excellent bid prices and other factors, the City elected to install sidewalk with the project. The total cost to install sidewalk on Seventh and Minnesota Streets amounted to $21,653. It is proposed that this cost be financed as follows. TIF Current City policy calls for City financing of 75% of the cost to install sidewalk located on the grid system. All of the sidewalk installed with the project is on the Grid system. It Is proposed that TIF funds be utilized to finance 75% of the total cost which amounts to $16,240. In addition, it is proposed that $407 in TIF funds be used to finance a small sidewalk segment fronting the City property located along Minnosota Street between Ridgmont apartments and 7th street. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Mall site $801 based on front footage. Kmart site $1,908 based on front footage. Kmart Remnant $1,107 based on front footage. Ridgmont Apt $1,191 based on front footage. DIRECT ASSESSEMENTS The improvement project included completion of certain project tasks or activities that provided a direct benefit to the properties owned by the Lincoln Companies and affiliates. Such activities included staking and inspection of road bed preparation, review of Kmart site hydrology Issues, and extra design and construction expenses.. Total direct assessement to be levied on a prorated basis agal'ns the Mall Site, Kmart Site and Kmart Remnant amounts to 11,802./ The Lincoln Companies has not objected to the direct assessment proposed. • Deferral terms outlined in proposed resolution as follows: Payment of the assessment shall be deferred for a period of j up to 8 years or until the property is subdivided, platted, or utilizes the sanitary sewer or watermain improvements, whichever occurs first. At termination of the deferral period, the original principal assessment amount shall be adjusted to coincide with tho increases of the Minneapolis - St. Paul Construction Cost Index that have occurred during the deferrment period. The adjusted assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over a period of 10 years, but in no case shall the last installment be payable later than 15 years after the levy of the original assessment. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest of 8.1258 per annum on all unpaid assessments. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt resolution adopting project assessment roll for Seventh Stoot Project 90-02. The alocation of expenses as outlined above is very similar to the finance plan approved by Council at the outset of the project. If Council remains comfortable with the formula for alocating costs as outlined above, this alternative should be selected. Please note that Council is not bound to follow the formula approved previously. Council may make downward adjustment to individual assessments under this althernative. Council may not make upward adjustments to individual assessments without first calling a public hearing. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Withing this alternative, Council may also adjust the proposed taring waaociated with the deferral of ascosa,.crt payren . =0 deferral terms suggested by staff provide for termination when the propery developer or at the end of an eight years. During the deferral period interest accumulates at a pace equal to the construction price index. At such time that the deferral period terminates, the ajusted assessment is amortized over 10 years or through the balance of a 15 year payback period. If Council so desires, the interest rate and term of deferral can be adjusted. 2. Motion to deny adoption of resolution adopting assessment roll for Seventh Street Project 90-02. If upward revisions in the amount assessed to many or all properties is desired by Council, then the assessment roll should be rejected. A new assessment hearing would then need to be conducted after the proper notice is published. If the assessment roll is not adopted at this time, annual installments will not start coming in until 1992. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff�. recommends approval of alternative 1 with adjustments as Council deems appropriate. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Resolution adopting assessment roll, spreadsheet showing sources and uses of project funds 0 G /l oq l� �i� �2w ✓a,t �fD�N G �� h•.✓ dam /n +w Si� %>�t� Lias _ o — ?3Gy 2 '7S'G — — � 3s!S7i S M•+• ST `11037 j;;,7 /J'sk.7 �ntr 6Y,s7u rY,1>>• sy+o�- 7�-t1_ / y-po7 190- /107- � XrS c z7 Off4S(-7 Ado* -L 4"4 If W7/ 7tY� /j.31i t6) 3 s9/ fid '� l �:�'� '� / ✓ q -Vol t1- ✓ v? /7rY Wim. ,nS+sY i ssvY� Mr sr 270 j- 3L�L c/ up ddtc ci 1 Yelk CITY OF VONTICELLO SEVENTH STREET PROJECT 90-02 dr ,TOGER 21, 1990 I I ASSESSABLEPROPERY USES ITIF , 1 (MALL 6MART NMART H_0_RN__IG_. RDGEPN_ T/ lth, BRENN_ 6RAMER SPRNG NATIONAII _ILINCOLN TOTAL IDIRECi JOVERSI2E ASSESS I (SITE 'SITE-REiPIANT CiTY STREET' -80RG BU&ilNGIITOTAC (EXPENSE IEXP02SE PAID I I REMNANT II 1I......... A.MN ST. SAN SEMI _____---------- I I III ----------------------- 115,312 1 1 13,062 1'I 13,369-/12,756 14,594"11,531 JJ 115,312 .22 .18 .3 B.MN ST. WATER J $18,648 1 I I I 1 13;730 111 14,103-13,357-' II 15.59441,865 II $18,618 I 1 •2 I I .22 .18 .3 .1 II C.MN STREET I I I I II $38,317 J 1 13, 799 1 1 116,349 113,355/ 18BY13,991 II 138,317 I OS�.OSJ J .426 .348 .023 .IDA II O.STORM SEWER I I I I 11 183,719 J J $23,450 111 18,207•$18.161411,363' 117,001.12,261- J1 183,749 I I .28 1 J .098 .2205 .1715 .2D3 .027 II E 7TH STREET I 1 I I 1 1 $197,941 1$36,500 1 $40,360 152.510 111114,975.134,906 17,522411,167 - 1 ' ' 111191,911 I I I I •0609 .145 .0841 II f.SIOEWALK I I I I 0.21 11 121,653 1 1 $16,210 $407111 1801.11,908-11,107 i 11,191' 11121,654 I I •751tots .07/2511 1 (.105 of 251) (.22 of 25%) IJ H.TLC ASSESS Ij 19,133 I I I'1 11,918 $1,567 12,649 11 $9,133 I I I I .21 .5 .29 I I i.TLC EXP JI 12,183 1 2,183 I I II 32,713 J.LAND PURCHASESI I I, I II d0' 1239,543 1 11239,513 1 1 111239,13 , Dow. Planning, I I 11' 11 ID' interest, Dev Agl ......inaiui I I 1 I I.... a .............. .... ............Oaianaiiiii2 II 10 itiaiaKiiaiiOitiiilii11 ii..... Baru... Iwnaianaioaua I I -TOTAL- 1626.539 1138,689 11326,315156.,,116 16112$,902 167,319-131.153.11.1,167 117,510_ _ so I I 110,544 16,5Ao (1,991 10 I11626,139 Il TIFF EXPENSE $313,101 I I I I II TOTAL ASSESS 1201,156 I 1 11 DIRECT EXPENSE $38,613 1 1 11 II GRAND TOTAL I I $626,531 J 1 I I II ROAD GRADE PREPARATION I I I I II II ORIGINAL BID I I 121,000 I I 11 ADDED TREE/DIRT 11,500 I I II II TOTAL I I 111,500 I 1 11 :NTH STREET FRONTAGE 2301 111 425 367 134 1 1 O 112 11 11,111 TOTAL COSi 1121,011 1 1 II COST PER FOOT 153 153 1'1 153 153 153 153 153 153 $53 1S3 $53 153 " 153 TOTAL COST BEFORE CREDITS I I 1'J 122,135 119,211 11,142 Ii $1 11 11 $5,116 111121,01 (OBD RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 90-2 \ RESOLUTION 90 - on WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment of the improvements of 7th Street, Minnesota Street, and appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: Such proposed assessments, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against It. Such assessments against improved property shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1992, and shall bear the interest rate of 8.1259 per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid assessments. Such assessments against unimproved property, as noted in the attached assessment roll, are hereby eligible for deferrment of principal and interest for a period of up to 8 years or until the property is subdivided, platted, or untillzes the sanitary sewer or watermain improvements, whichever occurs first. At termination of the deferral period, the original principal assessment amount shall be adjusted to coincide with the Increases of the Minneapolis - St. Paul Construction Cost Index that have occurred during the deferrment period. The adjusted assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over a period of 10 years, but In no case shall the last installment be payable later than 15 years after the levy of the original assessment. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest of 8.1259 per annum on all unpaid assessments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 90-2 RESOLUTION 90 - Page 2 S. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditur to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assesmc--nts shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the Council this 13th day of November, 1990. Mayor City Administrator Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Update and review of assessor contract - Peggy Stencel. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Now that the City has completed one year of our contract arrangement with Peggy Stencel for assessing duties for the City, I have asked Peggy to attend the council meeting to update the Council on how the contract has worked out and to provide any information on the assessing duties for the upcoming year. Peggy will be available for any questions that the Council may have on the assessing process in general. As an added note, Peggy has completed the necessary work for obtaining her certification as an accredited assessor. She should be receiving final approval around November 15, 1990, which is a requirement if the City is going to continue our contract arrangement with Peggy. No specific action is requested of the Council other than to review how the program has been working. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 p Consideration of a simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. Applicant. Robert and neccy FrauLuauni. j.i.J.j REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission recommends approval of this simple subdivision subject to the conditions listed under Alternative 3. Robert and Betty Krautbauer are proposing to sell approximately 7 acres of their land to A Glorious Church to build a new church facility. As part of the East County Road 39 water and sewer improvement project, services were in stalled on the north side of the property in order to serve the Manhattan Lots Addition. Services were also proposed to be installed along the northerly frontage of the property which Mr. Krautbauer is proposing to sell to A Glorious Church, but Mr. and Mrs. Krautbauer chose not to have the services put in at the time of that project. There are two ways in whic3h the property can be served. The first way is that a sorviee can be stubbed off the existing main located underneathth0 East County Road 39 right—of-way. The second way is to obtain a minimum of a 30 -foot easement beginning at a point on the easterly lot line beginning at a midway point on the eastorly lot line of our city lift station lot, then southerly to the southeast corner of the lot , thence westerly to the southwest corner of the city lot, a 30 -foot easement on Mr. Krautbauor 's property surrounding the above- described location. This is probably the most cost effective way to come off of the stub that was provided from the city lift station lot. Onre you Are within an easement that is obtained from Mr. Krautbauor, you'd then be entering the private property which A Glorious Church is proposing to purchase for the installation of a long sower and water extension to serve their proposed new church facility. Also, as one of the conditions of the subdivision, an agreement would be established between Krautbauors, the City, and A Glorious Church stating that proceeds from the sale of this lot must be paid to the City of Monticello by a specific date for the payment of outstanding assessments that were levied against this entire parcel prior to its subdivision. In oxchango for Krautbauers using funds to pay off debt against this remaining land, A Glorious Church would be allowed to assume theasso ssment against the 7 -acro site. In assuming the assosement debt, the church would pay assessments annually rather than being required to pay the full amount at time of Salo. Council Agenda - 11113190 Also as part of a condition within the simple subdivision request would be that we obtain a minimum of a 12 -foot easement around the perimeter of this subdivided 7 -acre parcel. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. 2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. 3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land with the following conditions: a. Within 30 days of the November 13 City Council meeting (on or before December 13, 1990), the following must occur: 1. A 12 -foot drainage and utility easement must be drafted and recorded around the outside perimeter of the 7 -acre portion to be subdivided. 2. There is no water and sewer service stub into this property off of East County Road 39, and the City is not responsible for the installation of a water and sewer service to this property. 3. In conjunction with recording of the subdivision, Robert and Betty Krautbauer shall record a separate document providing A Glorious Church with utility casements that will allow accoss to the City sewer system. 0. An agreement including xrautbauers, A Glorious Church, and tho City must be established which outlines the formula and method for use of sale proceeds to finance payment of assessment debt against the original parcel. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 1 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the simple subdivision request to sti=i. Ge -- axi-ting unplattcd ct c_ land intc two platted tracts of • land with the following conditions. These conditl`ono must be completed on or before 30 days from the November 13 City Council meeting, which would be anytime before the 13th of December, 1990. 1. The 12—foot drainage and utility easement must be described and recorded around the perimeter of this 7 - acre subdivided tract of land to A Glorious Church. 2. There is no water and sewer service off of East County Road 39 to service this property, and the City of Monticello is not responsible for the installation of a water and sewer service to this simple subdivided property. J3. In conjunction with recording of the subdivision, Robert and Betty Krautbauer shall record a separate document providing A Gorious Church with utility easements that will allow access to the City sewer system. P 4. An agreement including Krautbauers, A Glorious Church, and the City must be established which outlines the formula and method for use of sale proceeds to finance payment of assessment debt against the original parcel. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request; Copy of the site plan. A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing uaplatted tract of residential land into tvo unplatted tracts of residential land. ROBERT 6 BETTY ZRAOTBAUM 00 �\ 5- 15 r G0� 1 e +�. • ti , 1 P 1,4 h.5p- " % P"tssa 0 2- --- — A 6LOIRkous ClAU`(ZC-\-A. iii m ■ J ob ' En�1171M41;• 4S UlP}e! TRC C'S _ : .. wPR Slud. 7 N� • 1 1 1 1 1.1 I I I I Gh � �� <<T•� '-`n � o� 10 Foal EAST#n IJ LtF W 'I o p1 U3 PNtSfl� --- = PHsB@ Z -' 4(,:o z0 Sou -r Cv 4 3 — _ _ ia�o�i�ae:u1gonn�AUI;I;yE�spaovu% N VJ ovI N\•J 'J.A Oa SCC.T, 16 Z.\ Rc-. ZyS-A-CaL�2\OvS CNVRG\�. .3 J P�oT Pt.�►a •PNAS�u4-Scte�GkS PC'2. • SCALE 1• = 100 HONT%CQU-O PtA•J JIWI. COHFAlStOAJ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY i J jj� i 1� t /t � 11 �i/r •, I i � �1 I Council Agenda - 11/13/90 5. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a church facility in an R-1 (single family residential) zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the meeting conducted 11/7/90, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to final review of landscaping and construction plans. SITE PLAN REVIEW Council is asked to consider a request for a conditional use permit submitted by "A Glorious Church" which would allow development of a church facility in an R-1 zone. Following is a brief review of the site plan and adjacent land uses. The site consists of 7 acres of land now owned by Robert Krautbauer located on East County Road 39. A direct driveway access to County Road 39 is planned. Please see the supporting documentation for additional detail. SURROUNDING LAND USE ` County Road 39 serves as the northern border of the property and also serves as a buffer between the church site and existing homes in the area. To the west of the site lies open, undeveloped land that is slightly elevated relative to the church site. This area Is zoned for single family residential development. The change in elevation between the church site and the residential land to the east serves to create a natural division between the two areas. Robert Krautbauer is retaining approximntoly 200 feet of land to the south of the site for future residential development. As you may note on the site plan, Krautbauer plans on two tiers of residential lots with back yards facing the church site. This design, if executed, will minimize conflicts in land use between single family housing and the church use. The terrain of the land Bouth of the site includes a steep Mississippi River valley wall which may limit Krautbauor's ability to develop the adjoining property as proposed. Single family lots with back yards facing the church site are planned directly adjacent to the site on the east side. The roadway serving the single family homes adjacent to the church facility will be used for residential traffic only. Again, the design will serve to minimize traffic related conflicts between single family housing and the church alto. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Following is a review of the site plan in terms of the zoning ordinance requirements: RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Proposal complies: The zoning ordinance requires that conditional use permits be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Attached is the section of the comprehensive plan that applies. It is clear that the site location and site plan design are consistent with the comprehensive plan with one exception. The comprehensive plan discourages church development in residential areas; however, in this case, church traffic will have direct access to County Road 39, which will serve to limit significant conflict in land use between adjoining residential areas and the church site. YARD REQUIREMENTS - Proposal complies: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required - — 30 10 30 (30) Proposed - — 190+ 45 50 Conditional use permits in the R-1 zone require that side yards shall be double that required for the district but no greater than thirty (30) feet. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS - Proposal complies: Parkinci Stall Minimums According to the ordinance, in stadiums, sports arenas, churchas, and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews, or other similar seating tacilitios, each twenty-two (22) inches of such seating facilities shall he counted as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements. In terms of churches and auditor Sums, at least one (1) parking space is needed for each four (4) seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which aro Imposed by this ordinance. The proposal calls for an approximate Beating capacity of 300, which creates the need for 15 spaces. It is my undors tanding that a final adjustment to the total number of parking spaces will be made based on a final dotorm :nation of Beating capacity. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Stall Size Each space is nine (9) feet wide and twenty (20) feet in length in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Aisle Desiqn Parking areas and their aisles proposed are consistent with the following requirements: WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM Required -- 90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0' Surfacinq and Curbinq Asphalt paving and a complete curb and gutter system is proposed. *� Required Parkino Lot Screeninq According to the ordinance, open parking abutting residential areae must be screened with a fence 6-8 feet high or screened through use of berming or. 90% opaque landscaping material. Following is a proposal for meeting this strict requirement: Residential Properties to the North The nearest homes in the area are located on the river nearly 300 teat trom the proposed parking area. Because of the great distance between the existing homes and the parking lot and because the Highway 39 abutment serves to screen the site from homes to the north, Planning Commission may wish to reduce or eliminate the parking lot screening requirement that applies to this side of the parking lot. Instead of a solid parking lot screen, Planning Commission could require tree plantings with spacing no lees than 30 feet apart or a borm could be created along the northern perimeter of the parking lot. Over time, tree development could provide sufficient screening of the parking lot from the view of homes located to the north of the site. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Screening Residential Properties to the South, East. and West Residential property to the south, east, and west is now undeveloped; therefore, it may not make sense to require parking lot screening at this time. Planning Commission may wish to require that residential areas be screened from view of the parking lot at such time that adjoining residential areas are platted. The method by which the parking lot will be screened should be established as part of the conditional use permit. Attached is a site plan which outlines a potential plan for screening the parking lot area. Following are excerpts from the ordinance which outline the parking lot screening requirement: The ordinance states that "All open, non- residential, off-street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance." In Chapter 3, Section 2, of the ordinance it states, "A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood, or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight (8) feet in height or be less than six (6) feet in height." Also, "Where natural materials such as trees or hedges are approved in lieu of required screening by means of walls or fences, the density and species of such plantings shall be such to achiove 9U percent opacity year - around." Please note that the City has required other churches to dovolop the level of parking lot screening noted above. Additional minor parking lot landscaping, including parking island dolineators, will also need to be installed. SITE LANDSCAPING The site plan presented does not include a detailed landscaping plan; however, the applicants are willing to comply with conditional Liao permit requirements. Planning Commission may wish to consider tho following as a general plan for site landscaping: Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Minimum Tree Requirement The minimum number of overstory trees at this site if church activity was a permitted use would amount to 30 overstory trees. Since a church facility in an R-1 zone is allowed as a conditional use, the City can impose additional landscaping requirements as it deems reasonable and necessary. The ordinance also allows for credit for the retention of existing trees which are of acceptable species, size, and location. It appears that there are as many as 35 trees already on the sitethat qualify as overstory trees. Unfortunately, they are clumped together, which limits the ability to provide full credit for each tree that is preserved. Attached you will find a proposed plan for planting of 35 overstory trees. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to grant the conditional use permit allowing development of a church facility in an R-1 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission review and approval of parking lot landscaping and screening plan. Adequate screening of parking lot area from abutting residential uses and landscaping must be provided. The screen must be at least 6 feet high and achieve 90% opacity. The screen may consist of either a berm, solid fence, or landscape plantings. Installation of the parking lot screen shall occur at such time that the adjoining residential property is platted. 2. City approval of drainage plan prior to issuance of building permit. 3. Planning Commission review and approval of landscaping plan. The landscaping plan should include 30 overstory trees to be planted along the perimeter of the developed portion of the property and spaced approximately 35 foot apart. Additional dovolopment to precipitate additional plantings. 4. Planning Commission reviow and approval of exterior troatmont of structure to insure compatibility with neighborhood. Stool exterior materials shall be limited to ono -half of the available wall surface. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend approval of the pormit with conditions based on the finding that: 1. Church dovolopmont at this site is consistent with the comprehensive plan. I Council Agenda - 11/13/90 2. Church development at this site is consistent with the gecgraphical area involved. 3. Church development will not tend to or actually depreciate the area. 4. Church development is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit based on the finding that church development at the site does not meet the criteria associated with conditional use permits. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted or as modified by the Planning Commission. It is our view that church development at this site is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the conditions noted serve to mitigate eonfl acts between the church use and future residential uses in thearea. Furthermore, the plan appears to be consistent with the five criteria used in the evaluation of a conditional use permit , request. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please bring your copy of the information handbook distributed last week; Excerpt from the comprehensive plan; Sketch showing parking lot screen area and overstory tree plantings. �U n �I % (fo MP140�^ COMMUNITY FACILITI POLICY I. Presently, the development of land for public facilities such as parks and playgrounds is considered more important than the acquisition of such land. However, with respect to acquisition, land must be purchased before proper sites are usurped by Private developments or high land prices make acquisition unfeasible. It is a desirable goal or the City Lu i,alai ce acquisition and development efforts. 2. All public facilities are to be developed according to generally accepted standards and the results of thorough study. 3. where feasible, private developers will be required to set aside a portion of their land for public use; where this is not feasible or desirable, developers will be required to contribute cash in lieu of land, with such money to be utilized for the purchase and development of recreational facilities. 4. School facilities should be fully utilized by making building and land available to the public for use when such does not conflict with normal function of the school facilities. 5. Private developers will not be required to donate land for school sites. 6. Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping, potential expansion, and off-street parking. Parking should be provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches should be located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector street and have easy access to the area served. They should not be located on minor residential streets and in the midot of residential neighborhoods. 7. The City should not accept substandard lands such as swamps, power line easements, etc., for the development of park lands. This shall include lands laid out in subdivision plane. open space Policies Before delineating open space policies, o definition of the term is necessary. Traditionally, open apace has been primarily defined as that area which is retained in or restored to a condition where natural systems predominate and which may be used for recreation, or preservation purposes. Open space wan often regarded as a separate and contained entity usually under the ownership of a governmental jurisdiction. Recent trends indicate that open apace, like the people it serves, is becoming more directly integrated with its surroundings. Becoming more a part of the total urban fabric, open apace is being more closely integrated into the urban living and working environment. Because of this integrating phenomenon, many of the advantagnu and responsibilities of open space are equally applicable to public and private lands. 7 �Gli Thr ll r ./c g 9oJ, aP•�.r E7. ST,rat, � i`} `_�'"�` r -... P �o d' / (CJ�j .:a �{ I ��-" —�— � `�(� a"l �(•,; A1V((J.�i p. r fpr� fO ♦�"' t i L� i ri V �/!15 W `tom a' 0 L 13 fa' aE w 1 .E Oz __ -_ •CsT. Pttat.? •P4�0.51+J4- 5E't'Se.C�S pC -Z 1-�ONTtCtiLLO Pt►'.?N�1./1, tOM }1,Sia tiS" R-1 MtSSiSStr'''t�t �.tv=tZ ------------ amort �_ I��� ..'`WG`•{ °� h''+ ry o j 0` f i l ?Z... S E W, CO 02q, e c�J SW 1-1. 7 ' 1> is��0'R 10115 C 1i U2C1� FUTUCLE PLAT PC Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Consideration of preliminary plat request to replat portions of the Sandberg East residential subdivision. Aoplica nt John 54IIdIJ ?L'y. J.V. ) This item to be delivered at a later date. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Consideration of preliminary plat request to replat portions of the Sandberq East residential subdivision. Applicant John sandDerq. (J.U.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In response to extension of City utilities to a plat originally intended for rural, low density single family development, a revision to the original plat was developed that made better use of the land given the availability of City sewer and water. This revision which was approved in its preliminary form in August, included the sale of the rear portion of the lots fronting Gillard to Rod Norell owner of the large tract of land land to the west of re -plat site. Unfortunately, this plan is no longer viable as Norell and Sandberg were not able to come to terms regarding the necessary transfer of a portion of the Sandberg East property to Norell. Without Norrell's participation in the re -plat, the area of the re -plat is confined to property owned by Sandberg which limits the ability of Sandberg to re -plat the property in a manner that completely meets the City ordinance. The proposed replat creates 3 outlots and 22 platted lots. All of the platted lots meet minimum requirements in terms of Size and lot dimensions. However, of the 22 platted lots created, 9 do not have immediate access to street frontage as required by ordinance. Instead of providing bonafide, useable street access, the plan provides for an adjoining outlot which someday will become one half of a street right of way, the other half supplied by the adjacent land owner in conjunction with further developement of the area. At such time that Norell or a future owner wishes to develop, it is hoped that he will design a plan and roadway system that integrates with the Sandberg East Plat in a manner that utilizes outlots A and B as a street. In addition, in order to get the street to the point where it is shared by the proposed lots and lots that will be created by Norell, the street must pass entirely through the Nelson and Noroll property. As noted above, Section 11-5-2 (D) of the subdivision ordinance requires that "every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a City -approved street other than an alley." To allow property to be platted without a public street may be inviting trouble. For instance, one of the lots could be sold to a buyer wishing to develop a home on one of the nine landlocked properties. Imagine the surprise when he discovers Council Agenda - 11/13/90 that a street can not be developed without Norell's cooperation. If Norell has other ideas for his property, the only option the owner of the iandlockea iot would have wouid be to request that the City condemn a portion of the Norell property - not good. In response to the potential noted above, John Sandberg has agreed to record a document against each landlocked lot which outlines building and street development limitations. Tom Hayes has indicated that the recording of a restrictive covenants as outlined above would completely protect the City from potential liability. Prior to submittal of the latest replat, Mr. Sandberg was asked to work with Norell in acquiring the land necessary to create sufficient street easement area. Although Norell does not object to the plan presented by Sandberg, he was unwilling to provide the land necessary to extend streets to the landlocked lots. The new plat design also requires additional study and perhaps adjustments to drainage plans for the area. The new design calls for 22 total lots, whereas the original design showed 18 lots. The impact of the additional run-off created by 4 additional lots needs to be understood. Also, we need to determine if the front to rear lot configuration will impact drainage patterns. OUTLOTS A AND B According to Sandberg, the purpose of outlets A and B is to provide area necessary for a public right of way to be available at such time that Norell is ready to develop. Sandberg supports the platting of the property at this time in this manner as it provides a framework for future development In part by providing one half of the land necessary to extend a street. It is the view of staff that this aspect of the plat is positive and needs to be guaranteed through City encumbrance of outlots A and B for future street purposes if the need arises. OUTLOT C Outlot C is a small 14 wide parcel created east of lot 1, Block 3. Isolating this parcel as proposed creates the potential for croating an additional lot on Gilard between block 3 and 2. An additional lot could be created by combining outlot C with the existing 66' of outlot A street frontage. The status of outlot C would be dotermined at such time that Norroll's property is platted. If the 66' strip becomes a dedicated roadway, then outlot C would revert to the adjoining owners of lot 1 block 3. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion Lo deny variance request allowing lots to be platted without access to a City Street and deny approval of preliminary plat. Under this alternative, it is likely that the original plat would not change and lots would be sold as they are now platted. Under this scenario, it is not likely that the rear portion of the lots 272' deep would be replatted in conjunction with a future development to the west. If Council is not concerned about underutilization of land, then this option should be selected. / 2./ Motion to grant a variance to the platting requirement Li/ that each lot developed have access to a public street and recommend approval of the replat of the Sandberg East subdivision subject to the following conditions: a. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded outlining construction and building restrictions associated with lot 3 block 1, lots 10-16 block 2, lot 3 block 3. b. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded against outlets A and B which preserves both for use as street right of way in conjunction with future development of property now owned by Norrell. C. Developer shall submit a complete grading and C., drainage plan. Plan shall include potential home locations. Plans shall be approved by the City n engineer prior to final plat approval. According to the CJty Attorney, it is possible to completely eliminate City liability associated with `` approval of platted lots that are not served or capable of being served with a street. If a restrictive covenant is recorded against each lot that does not have a street that indicated that the lot is not buildable, then the City is off the hook if someone buys the land thinking that a house can be developed. The Planning commission supported adoption of the plat as proposed, but ultimately voted for denial because of the liability concern. Had the Planning Commission known that City liability could be eliminated, it is possible that the Planning Commission would have approved the plat. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Platting the property proposed will result in lots that are somewhat smaller than originally anticipated. Lot sizes propose meet minimum standards only which will result in the loss of a significant number of trees. A vital aspect of the plat is the Identification of a 30' strip to be dedicated as one-half of a future street right-of-way. The presence of this strip of land may assure the City that future development integrates with the Sandberg East lots. It would seem likely that the future developer of the Norell property will integrate future development plan in a manner that takes advantage of outlots A and B as street right of way. In addition, a site grading plan needs to be prepared which shows how each individual lot will be graded to achieve positive drainage. The City has the leverage to require the development of this plan. Under alternative 1, the City is not able to require a drainage and site grading plan as the plat is already recorded. The City Council may recommend a variance from the provisions of the ordinance when, in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance with the IL ordinance. A variance shall only be recommended when the City Council finds: a. Due to special circumstances, strict application of the ordinance would deprive you reasonable use of your land. b. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or detrimental to adjoining property. C. The vartanre is needed to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship. It could be argued that a variance is appropriate because due to annexation and City extension of sewer and water it became necessary to replat the property in order to achieve boot use. Duo to the dimension of the property it is not possible to plat the site for its beat present and future use without a variance to the street access requirement. Motion to approve variance request allowing lots to be plattod without access to a City Stroot and grant preliminary approval of a roplat of the Sandberg East Plat subjoct to replacing landlocked lots with four Council Agenda - 11/13/90 outlets as noted on attached plan and subject to City engineer approval of drainage plan for platted lots. If Sandberg is not willing to guarantee outlots A and B as future road right of way, then this option should be selected. Under this option, the Council finds that platting 9 lots without guaranteed future access to a street is not a good idea and recommends that the proposed interior platted lots to converted to three unbuildable outlots which could be further subdivided at some point in the future. Under this option, at a future date, the outlets could be re -subdivided into building lots that integrate with plans developed by Norell. A variance to the street access is required under this option as 3 lots would be created without access to a public street. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that alternative 2 be selected for the following reasons: 1. The variance request is justifiable and will not establish a precedent due to the unique circumstances. 2. The restrictive covenants will protect the city from future liability associated with platting of a landlocked lot. 3. Establishment of outlets A and B as a future right of way establishes a locks in a framework for future development. 4. Presently no drainage plan exists. This situation would corrected under this alternative. 5. Alternative 2 is more advantages to the City because under alternative 3 the need to provide for street access variances remains yet the City would have less leverage to require a drainage plan and preservation of outlet a and b as a street a. If the developer objects to preserving outlote A and B for street right of way then Staff recommends that Council select alternative 2. D. SUPPORTING DATA: ( Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Copy of proposed replat - alternatives 2 and 3. "I ws Li —:j er -- � -�, ►f.��..� ►i 0 1/ TL 0 S, 1EA S" 't-N- ..NN .Noun Iwav "not • lo."s N. fl. ju I'�==::.�Il- :J� � ll'�!�a��l e _ .�;� If.�.�,.� .SIIit iTr-- � � I ������Jj �c 'ice �����j�.�.�� - ��_... � ► a i � j 'T Z=� -aZOir 4 -F Rf 111*/. z L ZZ J, J L " . /�, —11 .. N", I R G JEA S vi own", fl. I • 1/.•N N. ft, 111" 111 GU%Me a • 8. 163 XS 11-5-1 11-5-2 CHAPTER 5 DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION: 11-5-1: Blocks 11-5-2: Lots 11-5-3: Streets and Alleys 11-5-4: Easements 11-5-5: Erosion and Sediment Control 11-5-6: Drainage 11-5-7: Steep Slopes 11-5-8: Wetland Systems 11-5-1: BLOCKS: (A) BLOCK LENGTH: In general, intersecting streets, determining block lengths, shall be provided at such intervals as to servo cross -traf- fic adequately and to meet existing streets. Where no existing plats control, the block in residential subdivisions shall normally not exceed thirteen hundred twenty(1320) feet in length, except where topography or other conditions justify a departure from this maxi- mum. In blocks longer than eight hundred (800) feet, pedestrian ways and/or easements through the block may be required near Lite center of the block. Blocks for business or industrial use should normally not exceed thirteen hundred twenty (1320) feet in length. (0) BLOCK WIDTH: The width of the block aholl normally be sufficient to allow two 12) tiers of lots of appropriate depth. Blocks intended for business or industrialuso shall be of such width as to be con- sidored most suitable for, their respective use, including adequate space for off-atreot parking and delivarios. 11-5-2: Lots (A) The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by rhn Znotng Ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the Pinal Plot. (0) Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the Zoning Ordinance. (C) Side linos of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. *(D) Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the Zoning Ordinance on a City approved street other than an alloy. Q. -M (E) Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. On those lots which ars intended for business use, tho setback shall be at least that required by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 11-5-3 11-5-3 11-5-3: STREETS AND ALLEYS, (A) Except for permanent cul -do -sacs, streets normally shall connect with streets already dedicated in adjoining or adjacent subdivisions, or provided for future connections to adjoining unsubdivided tracta, or shall be a reasonable projection of streets iu the nearest sukr- divided tracts. The arrangement of thoroughfares and collector streets shall be considered in their relation to the reasonable circulation of traffic, to topographic conditions, to run-off of stone water, to public convenience and safety, and in their appro- priate relation to the proposed uses of the area to be served. (8) Minor streets should be so planned as to discourage their use by non - local traffic. Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than six hundred (600) feet in length including the terminal turn -around which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty-five (45) feet and a right-of-way radius of not less than sixty (60) feat. (C) Where the plat to be submitted includes only part of the tract owned or intended for development by the subdivider, a tentative plan of a proposed future street system for the unsubdivided portion shall be prepared and submitted by the subdivider. (D) When a tract is subdivided into larger than normal building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate re- subdivision, with provision for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision. (E) Under normal conditions, streets shall be laid out so as to intersect an nearly as possible at right angles, except where topography or other conditions justify variations. Under normal conditions. t -.ha minimum angle of intersection of streets shall be sixty (60) dogroes. Street intersection jogs with an offset of less than one hundred twonty-five (125) fest shall be avoided. (P) Wherever the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to thea right-of-way of a U.S. or State Highway or thoroughfare,-proviolon may be made for a marginal access street approximately parallel and adjacent to the boundary of such right-ofsway, or for a street at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of land between such street and right-of-way. Such distance shall be determined with due cron- sidoration of the minimum distance required for approach connections to future grads separations, or for lot depths. (0) Alloys shall be provided in commercial and industrial districts, ex- cept that this requirement may be waived where other definite aced assured provision is made for service access, such as off-street-- loading, ff-streetloading, unloading and parking consistent with and adequate for the uses proposed. Mxcapt where justified by special conditions, suich as the eontLnuation of an existing alley in the same block, allays will not he approved in residential district*. Deadend alloys shell be avoided wherever possible, but if unavoidable, such dandand allays may be approved if adequate turnaround facilities are provided met the closed and. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 7. Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing a public sign in the form of a decorative banner to be displa ed on public prip-iRy. _(J. 0. ) - REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. As you recall, Council recently approved participating in financing 759 of the cost to place 60 four-color banners throughout the community. Approximately 40 of the banners will be hung from the streetscape light fixtures, with the remaining banners hung from lights on Highway 25 and from lights in the area of the community hospital. Selection of banner design and placement of banners is being managed by the Chamber of Commerce with the City providing final approval. In order to allow the banners to be displayed as proposed, certain sections of the zoning ordinance need to be amended to allow certain banners to be displayed more than ten days at a time. The existing ordinance does allow display of banners on a limited basis for private advertising purposes as follows: "A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel." The proposed ordinance would allow banners intended to fulfill a public purpose to be displayed from City fixtures for a period of one year. Initial display of the banner would need Council approval with an annual review thereafter. Following are pertinent sections of the ordinance that apply directly or indirectly to this issue. The proposed amendment is underlined. (B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: PERMITTED SIGNS: The following signs are allowed without a permit but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this subdivisiont (a) Public signs PUBLIC SIGNt Signs of a public, non- commercial nature, to include safety signs, danger signs, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques, and the Council Agenda - 11/13/90 i, like, when signs are erected by or on order of a public officer or employee in the performance of official duty. 2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are specifically prohibl ted by this paragraph. (d) Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices, except in case of Subsection [C), Paragraph 4. [C) GENERAL PROVISIONS: 4. The temporary us a of portable signs, decorative attention -getting devices, and searchlights shall require an annual or daily permit. (a) An annual permit for portable signs as defined herein shall be granted for a maximum period of twenty ( 20 ) days per calendar year. The applicant shall determine and specify on the application the days planned for display, i.e., twenty consecutive days, ten weekends, otc. (b) A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. (c) All portable signs and attention -getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just causo for revocation of the permit without refund . (d) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or alto whore the business or enterprise is situated. No placomoM shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 (e) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that barrars and strcamcra may he affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. (g) Not more than two (2) attention -getting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. (h) A decorative attention -getting device may bear the name of the business but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. (i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. (Amendment No. 150) �(j) A public sign or sions in the form of a decorative banner may be displayed on public proverty. Said cions may be hung r trom publicly owned liqht fixtures for a Deriod of one (11 year. Desiqn and placement of public sign/decorative banners must first be approved by the City Council and annually thereafter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve amendment as proposed or modified by the Planning Commission. Under this alternative, Council could take the position that the amendment is positive, as it provides the City with the opportunity to install decorative banners intending to beautify the City. Said banners are intended to build community identity, sense of place, and advertise business activity as a whole; therefore, such signs fulfill a public purpose. A special provision allowing a decorative banner display for a public purpose is, therefore, appropriate. The ordinance as written would not create a precedent that would allow private use of banners beyond what is already allowed by ordinance. { Council Agenda - 11/13/90 2. Motion to deny proposed amendment. Council could take the positiar. that the display of banners does not achieve a public purpose. Council could take the position that the banners as proposed promote a narrow commercial interest (Chamber of Commerce). Since no public purpose is served through the installation of the banners, a change in the ordinance is not justified. It could be contended that if the ordinance is adopted allowing a narrow group (Chamber of Commerce) to have signs placed on public right-of-way for a period of one year, then other private interests should be able to use banners in a similar fashion. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the view of staff that the amendment is appropriate if the Planning Commission and City Council view the display of banners as fulfilling a public purpose. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. 4Q� � U` i Council Agenda - 11/13/90 8. Consideration of liquor store financial report for the nine months ended September 30, 1990. (R.w.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Enclosed with the agenda you will find a financial report for the first nine months ending September 30th with comparisons for the same period ending in 1989. Mr. Joe Hartman will be available along with myself to answer any questions you may have regarding this financial report. Overall, the financial report appears to be in line with expectations. Although sales were up only $26,300 or 38 over last year's sales figures, more importantly the gross profit increase over $12,000 or 68 above last years. The resulting operating income totaled $87,200 which was an $8,000 increase over last year's $79,100 operating income. The operating income figure is the one important in analizing how the liquor operation is doing, as the net income includes interest earnings on investments and has no bearing on the actual store operation. Based on the first nine months operation, it appears that the liquor store will again show an increase in sales and net operating income at the end of the year. Typically the fourth quarter is usually our best quarter and it is anticipated that the operating income from the store will well exceed $100,000 again. No action is necessary by the Council other than review and acceptance of the report as presented. B. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of financial report. ACCOtINT e A L W .................. ............... ASSETS U 008.10101 CUQGEIrT ASSETS: CASM 07.160.99 •� 009.10)01 C.f GE FU.D - LI0V09 I.SOO.OD 000.10.01 Ir,vlSTMf uT4 '0!.774.00 0.0: 009.1150, CCREC f"ISL1 0.00 000.1150! A/R - 1151 CMEC1f 178.01 909.17101 SPECIAL • r. PEC - CURm E11T 0.00 ' 000.17701 SPECIAL • M OR DEL R,O 0.00 908.17101 SPfCI.I 145 r• R[C - OE Ff QPED 0.00 909.1!707 DUE FRC•+ 0TNEi 901E AUMEra T$ 0.00 609. IL 101 1r:VENTOi, 1'e. I1 I.,I 608.15501 Pc!PAID IiE+TS 0.00 508. 15!07 omfoa?0 luSrJ>a+CE 5.417.!0 TOTAL CVQ-101 •55115: 701.606.93 FI1ED ASSETS: 009. 1o1 e1 FIv(0 as 1l,S lan0 O.e 711.0' 600. 16151 elvfn Ae5(TS - P•9v luG LOT !9.151.08 909.1619' . OcFPI•: •S LOT oaEVILO1nSS 11,e00.00CD 609.1$701 cI1!0 144Er5 O.OD 909.1971, .0C 11 oil,-9UILO1r1GS 0.00 Soo. 16751 FI'ED ASSETS -9LnGS4 JHP9 105..'5.10 509.16701 aCCUN D(PP - 6lOGS 6 1"11 11, 111. e9C0 900. 10!01 FI I(D ASSETS • IMPROVE+E:,,4 0,00 OU11. 10111 ACCUM DEPR - IMPCOVEn!11TS 0.00 609.18.01 F11(D ASSETS . MACH m EOUTm 0.00 boo. 10111 •CCU✓ 0"' - M.C. a FOU Im 0.00 600.16471 Ff11D A!I(TS - rU9r, a EOV10 61.797.)1 909.104!1 AC[U. OEVR - 1Ur„ a IOUII 59.409. s9CF 000.14'.1 FI1f0 aM TS MOTOO U[ra lClE 0.00 609.16451 AC CUM OEPR - M01oP +'EM ICLES 0.00 600.10001 [Oral ACCUM OEP9ECt AT 10', 0.00 TOTAL FI.EO ASOETSI 111.37).17 TOTAL A$SETS1 016.070.30 L __. MES Ano FUMOOaL..C( - _ ""I", Liaelll IES Lrr D1n11 PArrlLf ',Too 6011.7570, 609.7`170 DUI r00T1.E000'/E mr,Mtn*S .___,. 0.00 609.19!0 600 .706,0 S,L[S TAI DLv1e1e I 1. 164.7]CP 699.7100• 1110 LuiES c /11.P7E! .A eL 1.657. OOC4 600.7161. ACCi V(O VAC A•;U,/S:CM 1[4./? 7.011.0]CP 0011.71111 F(p v aY.lL! 0.00 eno.7lrn 7 T1n/:,- D.Do 699.7110_' eon.7lrD:. >!r• P +•i•_e! 1u.00ta 099.1-1p;•r _ l.rlv.•y11 OCO 600. I1f06 650. 15 C0 :91.tv1 : N ,?7 0.10 6DP.?1104 !r.(•�, _ 1,2e� I.OIC. !99.:nn f 0.00 !J?•711p ; ?1Fe .! 0.00 594.1111 C9V!1A'„ Ov y;rr'%�1 ea. a!! 0.00 000.7`117 LI,1 1'•1.',:+nil m.1r 16'.t 0.00 6911.71109 MIlC R„<C.. eal �.. 0.00 100.1111. 1 •ICRU1) IFOGrIl6 0.00 509.7700 1 o(F911.11 - LIo,". A : 57!.90 600.77701 DO 14.0c1'111,U6s 0.00 191.1 CUR 9l ur LI.0 I L 1111 11 14.,16. 7 O CP ' TOTAL LIAOILITIEfI 54. ilL /LI CR FUND S•'•Aur, In 600.74401 R1111U(0 FO1 IuC UrS9ar, r,t5 0.00 600. 111.1 TOI0111TE0 1a i/}, 641.0004 500.76101 COv,41IU, 1OV/ NFO 0.00 ' 600. 16 r0, ..Tr 111E 1'/Ip DeTa7uF0 (ARu I„0/ 0.00 000.71701 111(/1,110 FIT.1,110 1•Fn IMO$ W.94r.97C. $00.70101 .111.0/ CC., -01 $10,611.1fC1 1 609.79601 1111u01T0e1 (A 111 5.. 114.p1$.5) 10111 FV,J 01LLVC11 111. )11.6 ]C1 1 ^,OT. •• !1.$111,1[! .� FV•.0 Ia4 .,CET IIe.070.1OC1 1C, -1L F • . , 0.00 U MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE CO1•IPARI30IJ rOR IE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 AND 1989 1990 1989 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES Prof. services (audit) 1,656 3,090 Communication 564 586 Travel -Conference -Schools 79 40 Advertising 3,236 3,237 Insurance, General 11,654 13,309 Utilities, Electrical 7,167 6,516 Utilities, Heating 588 756 Utilities, S 6 W 159 140 Maintenance of Equipment 2,525 2,264 Maintenance of Building 1,604 836 Taxes and Licenses 250 262 Garbage 1,777 1,346 Depr.-Acquired Assets 10,583 11,370 Miscellaneous 294 310 TOTAL OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES TOTAL GENERAL 6 ADIM. EXPENSES TOTAL OPERATING INCOME OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) Interest Income Other Income Cash Long/Short TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) NET INCOME 42,136 4.62% 44,062 4.97% 119,262 13.07% 114,988 12.97% 87,200 9.55% 79,127 8.92% 36,423 26,294 -0- 53 (154) ) 36,269 3.97% 25,537 2.88% 123,469 13.52% 104,664 11.80% MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR 706,624 REVENUE AND EXPENSES GROSS PROFIT MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE 194,115 COMPARISON FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 AND 1989 1990 1989 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT SALES 2,250 Liquor 247,634 237,188 Beer 531,370 524,032 Wine 99,318 94,313 Other Merchandise 33,537 29,595 Misc. Non -Taxable Sales 1,344 1,840 Discounts (117) (199) TOTAL SALES 913,086 886,769 C COST OF GOODS SOLD 706,624 692,654 GROSS PROFIT 206,462 22.61% 194,115 GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES PERSONAL SERVICES Salaries, regular 57,077 54,797 PERA 2,250 1,943 Medicare Withholdings 151 143 Insurance, Medical 6 Life 7,777 6,061 Social Security 3,998 3,377 TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 71,253 7.81% 66,321 SUPPLIES Office Supplies 779 105 General Operating Suppliss 5,094 4,500 TOTAL SUPPLIES 5,873 .641 4,605 21.89% 7.481 .52% Ir C. C MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT FOR IST NINE MONTHS 1990 AND 1989 SEPT 30, 1990 SEPT 30, 1989 Liquor 247,643 237,188 Discounts (117) (199) Cost of Sales -Liquor 190,677 181,776 GROSS PROFIT 56,840 22.96% 55,213 23.28% Beer Sales 531,370 524,032 Cost of Sales -Beer 431,598 422,674 GROSS PROFIT 99,772 18.78% 101,358 19.35% Wine Sales 99,318 94,313 Cost of Sales -Wine 57,056 62,070 GROSS PROFIT 42,262 42.56% 32,243 34.19% Misc. Sales 33,537 29,594 Coat of Sales-Misc. 22,437 20,953 GROSS PROFIT 11,100 33.10% 8,642 29.20% Misc.-Non-Taxable Sales 1,344 1,840 Cost of Sales-Misc. NT 769 1,241 GROSS PROFIT 575 42.78% 599 32.55% TOTAL SALES 913,086 886,769 TOTAL COST OF SALES 702,537 688,714 TOTAL FREIGHT COST 4,087 3,940 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 206,462 22.61% 194,115 21.89% Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Consideration of replacement of Automatic Control Center at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. (J. S. ) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: When the wastewater treatment plant was constructed in 1981 the low bidder for the control center at the wastewater treatment plant was joint venture between two companies, Bentech Engineering and Edison Controls, Inc., both of Minneapolis, MN. Bentech Engineering provided most of the auxillavy equipment such as flow meters, totalizers, sensors, chart recorders, and alarm systems. Edison Controls provided the technological portion or brain if you will which controls and monitors the 60 pumps and various processes at the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, on the main control panel there are hundreds of microswitchea controling set points for pump starts and stops and the manual control for each one of the pumps and motors at the plant. When the control panel was originally installed at the treatment plant in 1981, weather conditions were such that the panel frosted up as the building was not heated at the time and the roof sections were not complete. The City staff and it's engineer were concerned with the longevity of the control panel but we were unable to reject any part of the control as there was a two year warranty on the electronic components and replacement of any portion of the panel would cost lengthy delays in the project. Throughout the last nine years there have been many occasions where there have been problems with the controls and switches. During those periods we found out how costly a joint between Edison Controls and Bentch Engineering was to the City. Almost every time there was a problem, both companies had to be called in for services, as many times, the interface between the two systems was at fault ano one company would blame the other company's equipment. Then in 1987 we learned that Edison Controls was phasing out the main control center or brain at the treatment plant. We purchased some spare parte in 1988 and 1989 that we would hoped would keep the system up and running for several years in the future. We did not learn until later, however, that the components used to build the control center at the treatment plant had boon phased out by another company prior to being purchased by Edison Controls. In late June and early July of this year, electrical storms created a power surge at the wastewater treatment plant that took out some minor motor startor equipment. Shortly after this time problems began appearing with the control center at the treatment plant. Certain phases of the controls would drop out for no reason. In addition, ghost or short duration alarms Bogan appearing. Prol iminary chocks of all Systems Council Agenda - 11/13/90 could find no fault. The system would come back on-line as easily as it took a section off-line. In late July and early August the problems began increasing. However, they continued to be random and untracable. At least three different electronics firms were involved in attempting to repair the controls. One major problem was perceived to be the environment that the control panel operated in and possible currosion of the various microswitches over the years due to the atmosphere at the treatment plant. An order was placed for new microswitches, but because they were outdated none have been received yet today. During our budget preparation sessions, it was decided that the panel should be replaced in the future. We expected to be able to operate long enough to spec and design a system to go out for bids to be operational by mid or late 1991. The entire spec, design, bid, build, and install phases could take 8 months. During September, the problems occurred more frequently and overtime was mounting at the wastewater treatment plant due to late night call outs and such. The various electronics firms had narrowed the problems to the main control center or it's interface. Edison Controls who designed an build that portion of the system was called on several occasions. No real progress was made and the problems continued on a random basis. After several thousand dollars was spent with Edison controls in attempting to make repairs they indicated that the next logical step would be to completely rewire the entire control center and it's interface, as the type of connections made were wire wrap only without solder and were highly susceptible to corrosion due to the environment at the wastewater treatment plant. Edison Controls indicated the wire wrapping would cost approximately $4,600 and with an additional 4-5 days of team effort of two technicians additional trouble shooting and start up could be performed and should got the system back up and operational. t;etimated cost was in the neighborhood of $10,000 with no guarantees. In late October after Rick and I reviewed the problems, we contacted OSM and asked them for their input regarding the possible repairs or changing out the system. OSM indicated that the $10,000 spent for a non-guarantood repair may be more wisely spent toward a now updated system more suitable for the environment at the treatment plant and certainly with a longer technological lifospan. While attempting to determine options with the various systems and how to retrofit the panel at the treatment plant, the entire system went down on Wednesday, November 7, 1990, during the change out of one of the spare electronic cards controlling the affluent flow motor by Bontech Engineering. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 As of the drafting of this agenda item, the entire wastewater treatment plant control panel has failed. A backup float system is operating two :ret wall pumps and thier variable speed pump drive and the intermediate wet well pumps. Every other operation at the wastewater treatment plant is by sight, sound, and hand operation. Bentech Engineering has determined that the problem lies within the Edison Control portion and Edison is attempting to locate and repair the problem to get the system semi -operational. We therefore request that the City Council declare that an emergency exists at the wastewater treatment plant and authorize City staff, PSG, and the City engineer to work together to obtain proposals for a new control center to be retrofitted into the main control panel at the plant at the earliest possible date. With a proposal for a design/build type of system we may be able to have the critical stages of the wastewater treatment plant back on automatic operation through a temporary system within a matter of a few weeks and shorten the overall time frame to two to four months. Attempts would be made to stage the system to spread costs out to speed installation time and to limit future failures to sections of the control system rather than to the entire wastewater treatment plant. Expected costs could range from an initial step of $15,000 to $45,000. No concrete cost information is available at this time. These hardware and installation costs would be over and above the amount alotted at the wastewater treatment plant for annual repair and maintenance and therefore would be direct City expense. The sewer hook-up or access fund has a sufficient balance to cover this amount. It is expected that the proposals could be received in 7-10 days. We can therefore bring the proposals back to the City Council for review at the November 26th meeting. If the proposals can be put together quicker and the City, PSG, and OSM can agree on the system, we may request a special council meeting to speed up the process. H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative Is to have the City Council declare that an emergency exists at the wastewater treatment plant and authorize City staff to obtain proposals for the replacement of the main control center at the wastewater troatmont plant with those proposals to be reviewed at the November 26th meeting of special council meeting as needed. C, Council Agenda - 11/13/90 The second alternative would be not to authorize proposals but to design specify and bid the system for the treatment plant. This does not appear to be appropriate as it would result in higher costs and delays which would unreasonalble to the City and PSG. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the recommedation of the City Administrator and the Public Works Director that the City Council declare an emergency and authorize the City staff to obtain proposals as outlined in alternative il. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of alarm logs for the past two months. OCT 16 '?0 1 114 EDISCU PC. 483 P02�02 a, 0d a O ° Q im. 2570 East ler Avenue. North St. Paul, Mimresote 65YOS (612) IMS122 FAX (812) 770.7838 PS d G WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT MONTICELLO, MN ATTNS KELSIE MCGUIRE OCTOBER 16, 1990 REt BASKET REPLACEMENT KELSIE, PLEASE FIND IN THIS LETTER, THE CONFIRMATION ON ECI REPLACING THE EXISTING CARD BASKETS. PRICES $ 4525.00 ECI SHALL SUPPLY THE FOLLOWINGS QTY. DESCRIPTION 4 NEW CARD BASKETS - ASSEMBLED AND WIRE WRAPPED I NEW IMP BRACKET AND INP CARD CONNECTOR I LOT CHECK-OUT I LOT FIELD INSTALLATION AND CHECK-OUT KELSIE, IT WILL TAKE 2 WEEKS FOR ASSEMBLY, WIRE WRAPPING, AND FACTORY CHECK-OUT. I ALSO BELIEVE IT WILL TAKE ONE FULL WEEK AT LEAST, ON THE JOB SITE FOR INSTALLATION AND CHECK-OUT. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS LETTER, PLEASE CALL. 9SI CERELY A ES EDI N, JR. S ES/MARKETING MA ORR 1 SON CONTROLS, INC. J EJ/kb OCT 26 190 11:28 EDISOIJ INC. 516 P02/07 inc 2570 Easl 71h Avon". NOM St Pad. &Uwsoa 6:102 (612) 770.5122 FAx (612) TMMS PROFESSIONALS SERVICE GROUP 1401 BART BLVD. MONTICELLO, MN 55362 AT'fNs KELSIE Mr.0111RE OCTODrR 2b, 1990 DEAR I,rLSIE, PEI.DW, PI.EASE FIND A TABULATION OF ECT `S EFFORTS TO CORRECT THE RELlCCIJRtt4G PROBLEM IN YOUR SYSTEM. ALSO ENCLOSED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, ARE COPIES OF FOIIR SERVICE REPORTS INDICATING WHAT OUR TECHNICIANS DISCCIVEREI) IN OUR RFCEN'I' FIVE TRIPS. IST TRIP — 9/2R/90 — SERVICE TFCIINICTAN — BRYAN IASLER (IN IN13 BRYAN DISCOVERED THAT TRE RIBBON CABI F CQNNC-CTOR 17 -OR TIIC I)II DIGPI AY NECDCO TO BE RrPAIRCD (SOMrDNE INGIAL I.rD AN INCORRECT PART) . RE AL3n DISCOVERED THAT WIRES WERE LOOSE ON SOME ANALOG INPUT AnAl"IF11'.11. OtPlrR 'TASKS PERFORMED ON TIIIS TRIP INrl,1111171) CHECKING WIRE rnNNFc-r(ONS. TIGHTENING SCREW enmrci'ms, MCASOR17f) AND ADJUSTED POWER t .,tipri tics, AND PI ACED A MI -TER ON THE SIGNAL FROM THE FLOW TO PRIMARY Ill. AR I F 117.11. PRIAN 14ONITORCI) TlflS FLOW SLIP 00SCAVED NO RAPID 170711111AI'1111NO. HE ALSO 041-17KED ALL T14LIMPWIIFUI S. Al L (IF THE 11,111MOW11170 S WrR[-." wronxiNG PnnpEnLv AT TIIIS TIME. ?ND TRIP — 10/3/90 — DERVICE TFCIiNICIAN — 13RVAN TAqI FR ON THIS TRIP, BRYAN nPSFRVEI) THAT 14111'1%1 TWO cmINTFR RELAYS WERE UNFR('412FO. THAT NOISE WAS PVArll) (IN THE: CIIJIPLIT OF THE, D.C. POWER SlIPWI01. IIE' PLACED PACK BIAS 011101"3 ACROSS T14C COILS OF IllrGE DELAYS TO Al I I-VIAIF 1111S PROY41 F". 1117 CALIBRATED TIIr PH SIONAL AND *IHE WET Wrlt. II-VI'L 101f)NAt, RE f7PSrRVFD THE R9P AND IIP Ptimpe (AILED In RESPOND '111 THF GETPOINT8. RRYON SWAPPED IN SPARE CARDS IN AT7CfIPT 10 SOI .VC: I I I I U. 31M TI,(IP — 101/4/90 — SFRVIC17 TrCHNICTAN - snVAN TAP-I.ER nN TIIIS TRIP. BRYAN RETIoRNU.D WrTtj MORE DIODES TO HI: rl AC17D ACROSS Tor:. moo I; Or TWI-I VP' nmrn RCI AYS IN THE SYRIC-M. lill,'SU Ill()DUG MUST HAVE IlrF-N Al-MnVFI) IN TIIE PAST. BRYAN ALSO INSTALLED NEW IMP I/(1 CARDS AND Rri'Aturt) A wiRF ON THE CARD PASkFr. p OCT 26':90,11:30 EDISON'INC' 516 F93/O7 I� COD muc is ind — — — 2570 Es11 71h Avamio. Nosh SL Paul. Albwsma 55108 (612) 770.6124 FAX (6121 7T0.7M 4TH TR: IP — 10/17/90 — SERVICE TECHNICIAN — DAVE SCOI:ES DN 1'11I S TRIP, DAVE INSTALLED PROGRAM CHIPS THAT ELIMINATED THE THIIMB6JIWELS THAT PERTAINED' TO THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE CICCLIRINO. DAVE DISCIIVF.RED THAT THERE WAS CORROSION ON THE PROM CARD SO_UFT. HE APPI.IED SOLDER TO THE PROM CARD EDGE TO IIELP ALLEVIATE 7111S PROBLEM. STH TFc1P — 10/18/90 — SERVICE TECHNICIAN — DAVE SCOLES ON TIIL li 1 -RIP, DAVE REPLACED THE MICROPROCESSOR OCIARD. HE ALSO INVEST IOAI'ED 'THE LOW OIL PRESSURE ALARM AND FOUND IT TT] BE AN ACTUAL ALARM CONDITION. 1F Y(II! WOULD LIKE TO DISCIISS THE ABOVE INFORMATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE ID CM_I.. 0 CEFUR-Y . �+ T ISOP[ BYSTE"S ENGINEER EDISON CONTROLS. INC. TE/Ilb OCT 26 190 11:30 EDISM IMC. 516 PO4i07 G O OQ FIELD SERVICE AND INSTALLATION U D Q mc 1714 Larval, Avenue. 7oM S1. Paul, Wnraela 55109 (612) 7746122 308 NAMES __l_+fAf IG LLP 7EC141JICIA7JS NAMES DATE: REASON FOR CAI.Ls ___________----__---•----_-_------ n 2.-_LC1L� 1LltIL7EL_____._.._____ s... j'�_.f_�'.!"._.` klr+__' _'_'_._{`firV 'i. --- _----------__---_____ ________»__- PRDPlIEIJS ENC04MTEREDs �'• _.1.+;? '?»__ `_7/_J ._lltn_cA-49U-__-_—»_-___--_____ _------_--- Q,,, s• _»__.. __»_...»»,...-----------------------------------------------------..- 4. + a. . , » _.. __..__-...--.- _..----------------------------------------------- 1IOI.I.I I I ON TO P'RC)PI_ EMS, s...>�..:StjiC!�....,1.,'.ib�t'!�_��e}.tltl(,c•te+�__�['i__�.1Sfi flX�..___.».__. _»_........__....... rd pj� S....�'rti�'iE+''.!}j!._...!'F:�r_.i�.�L'1�____•�±�.t.��>;,,.G:__t. +;JAS _.('1{lsr%!Nt"„_._. 4. ,._»_.`i"rttif�{•Fc�ti;._.�'.l.f.'S.�'.' .�-_.T:,__t•llflx�l__ tcr7l� r�o�-------------..v J• r. » ,. .- ---.- .,-..--_»._.,--_-»---------••_-_--_--------.,_-••_----••__--_._.__- • TRAVEL 1IME, SERVICE TIME, ----------- MATERIALS }CU32UMER C17NTACTBDa` « DATBs -_?!! sEPja«».. OF I F.1. D SERV 1('F AIID I PISTftLI_n'1 IUM C��J ..._ _--- o ° o inc 1714 Gervela Avenue. NOr111 SI PMul. MMMM 59109 1017) 770-5177 anb 1•IArI[1 P1Y!l•_':�'�.s'ts_.._...--- —I - '1':+fid DATE= TECINIrIAr.151 NfTAME1 .---•------------•---......_.. - r+FA5rIN FUR ri+l.l_s -�-•----:.:H-----------------4. - • 1'I .IIULF 13 EPICQLII.1'rf .71, Q�.._tiJ�+.�iY�:.-..C/il•::yinri....J:�:'�CC;=?_4lC�.C.___LkSa.C'�SAJ�'e4KCi__..--••--.----•-•-----..___._ �C. GOLLIT 1 ON TORODLEMS1 1. ..L'1''�---•-�_�:��1:. r!%�crr.,���/��__,Act'o�._....iC'c��y.•��.E�...__"!�'_A4:,_��6.__ .,..1�`%�•-r_--.��f.7:_I'l��c:._.��`iE.'C,:(.2�-,.T��_..�r.�IQ.-E?lfll_rR _C.��!�r.�� f_�c71i>,r 11tnliCt. TIMET_?,�.k_fU�S.....,1--•------•------ /-.._..------- --.... GFSrvICC T1I1e1-:Y►(i__...�J�' !`���.6__110- ..��4.[_c.!4f �G�C�: ._------------.. i woo STi' 1•S FOR U711.11164 AND INDUSTAY • ' Wo n FIELD SERVICE AAD -INSTALLATION aan inc i 1114 Geral$ Avenue. None Si. Paul. Minnesota 55109 (611) 1145122 ,r(,1D ItAtIE1 _ _AOTKEIP? rcclUdIcIANS MArIEa —�'ij'�rn1TFX_ DATEs RFAS3ON PDR I:ALU 2. ..._. --- - ---- ---- -- ---.. ----------- -- -...r-------------- 3. ......---....... ------.._..__..._- --- ------------------------ - 4. PRODMIS I NMWIINTEREDa -------------- 2. __..._..._ -- ..._..,._... . .. ------------------------------------- 4. 1 Ii01.11rICIN TO PROM EMSa s. ��13Uf.tyrJCwic4� .?I••I0.dIC�s...-4.X__Ay__dN.:c..t9.._.,.._._....—.....---.,......_. �....... n«bl+sir.,.__.��s• . nc.�'1Q,._.41.I...rrnrsl�3s._�� AW1W 70 St 4 t TIIAVEI rIMF4 ?'lei) _......._ _..---•-..__.,.--_--._. __.__..._..----..__._.... S,LRVIM- TIf1F4 ..�..>.. !Ir.), ... ---------- __ --- ----------- ------ DAUi PY..Pc.i 2r, ••- .. "AIS ""' ILS FON UTILIVES AND INDUSTRY OCT 26 190 11,33 EDISOt4 INC. S16 P07107 MDFIELD SERVICEANDAINSTLLATION inn 1711 anw A,lnua, 0 s,. raw. uunmaou silos Ia�1i nas,11 JOB NAMEi __ /!F•li4F �F t'"-,! =_(r�(„1r TECHNICIANS PIAMEt _�r4(rC _^t DATES REASON FOR CAI.Ls t• _4A4'Efc7__ ------- ------------------------ 3. PROBLEMS ENCC3UNTEREDi v z.�dt+f►�'_..t�D.4CC IM"/.e'_cls •4. SOLWIDN TO PROBLCMS. I •..,1.�fe'.�IJ�4.��-.�Q__.���Y©..K� _...ease.2'./f_.,_rQe�':1[lc.•.T_:_g..,�l =1°!%s 2. a• _�c=�ot,�,�',a,_-�-� _.�irTlf--..LGL__�,7�,r���__..___...._____.______ TRAVEL TIME. SERVICE TIME. _ .,_�%�., _____»l HATERIALo ,CUSTOMER CONTACTED-- _- -»--DAI'E� _,/�p/_/�sQ__--_- ! 0 �,k !;-4.11)3 C?) ,nom !JJs.. 1.7r �tr.v-s rl rsr� h nra �l��� 1 Jiro -I!&- A— urp o..r s o•ti t. ro.� w P i0/Ji.+ "_..-�j /�����' «�,� `Ire Plu' �, , !� � �:e+ +!'�r!•� ins+ ��'/�� JFI a (lurn'•11`/ uri �4,zz,X /4n'S' ,l7ttlrin aatT �. '404 Vic.• bb jj//ff 1 /sem J, p�,���, tz VI° I 'l �11-rbov r4-fd 1,14 — ,to -/,// /a/tl�J mo AQ QL's., —to 11-J td-+oNr- JFD W (� 8 ar �M/•.. c...:rrl Giro p.,. A/ai.u. C..•. .... /w Ar •% 7 : • � � .� ✓FV fa; i. d hcl.,, fI•:s baf.a.r. s:Yf •. 4..... a 1.4 .1 al..., r... ✓.J*or . taw. i+ to .I.,1 ;I ,.r. . 11.1... .ht. /Io_, ' rl4.w. ta.iy h.oi . 1 yr Ara �4/vr.y- /0— '04 i/fJ �.a: to � £..r. Pr.�/ yw••f a J : Yc q... vara .� s Fn o yi a—.t. eb. t..:, Af f/.r r—.a wY 9r°„ fir.. •o ♦.:...,y cL.: C<r. Almat Ogg %!� Drive %7/Pr rldoi.' ` t!!✓� / f%/'tr�P fit/% %toe 3 en - 'Fir✓ .t/d�.:lf ,61�uC/•��> � .�j(o�, fJn.� P4�. Y�,,4 LpLO O (sr t" YrtJ Ci.•t Ntf Aj -ze Olt& vY'.t A..t X.• 0. P< ii1! "'I ��lH 14 i i(li(i .o..eLulus, yio ski...• I --T--- T,1 be /s� � �� 11 -16.� �� �� Gil' hiu.l�•���5- !o/%. K - rt ,/��j et, 7/K ��ill"Cf�tlltlt� X1.4. <IsiuQ ,Q� 11•.��inC� rF�I1F�o,.� q last o� e/Jl'l' iMj //05 /u�19 !'.fru[ a� i� !•c�.� o41r'µ•�- 4cl,l i I 1 J J , N n4 :awe! ,fir . I A- /U/3fiat/ola4 ,�tiPr ITP Z7 l L`J.os CAL Id jj ti// •L4 !j/ .^•'1O.Nr[t.'[Y, C LI' n!r�C/1i� . '16�.. d[li.L� •l'IIn li�.•Glf) Jio-llCt;lL� r/// ,J/ �' Floe c^K I)/•l1 • e:V CJjK / /f/'�� l ! a T • lZ SJ r//II ii! �IL��tR!? - (�= '/ �� `!n,</r[ k/� nS� luau l�rt�L�f .fi�te:L (�! •��/'�, 124ti�t(`•vrr��y'1 12•i`I /1Lot, �11 1'liC'L `(�..1 •µ�1�f•�lec�1 I:�i��.y'•� (.HL� �,it� ;.� r�`g 131Cr' �yr" t,,//:��'ur�ll/ a•a� ut��' � n% /} itl9<*14r �t .11� �r, L''/ntf.� GJtg9.• [ jPt /� 1313 p�/fti+-ulitBwcl cults 4'6x �jatcv G# i 12u".�fit=���9ry+�• F/ I'- r2t�aO+� • 13'�- nj flr f U•m G�.� �'Gl' f� GJ�L/J�.l� �.L stir ��,�"fr3rjk�r.�/i .+.'•r•YrLt ,.[a-LiCF . 13 -)in, aa 1 SSU t,BW f � � lli�i(�J1,UI I � 1`'IC• nnl,J r k�►j ,d�, Uit �l , ld+`+� ill �C�l �'� C . L CA Ji .+ti., �pp -Cf�C Lr7w LJ eti •. d U e. /'Wu plei ��,�"fr3rjk�r.�/i .+.'•r•YrLt ,.[a-LiCF . t�i� �tP �l:d �Ai••LatLlt I7I(J. lrrLri LI ec ,c�ttPi ��acaa n Ct�(� u,. • �� � l� X aL �irdl �I� is J j ,t r13c. •— (I r 4. Qri �j1� II (.'Y� . - 4, l••�• rtUnr�,� //�I � � t.Lr� • J (llel./til - r��'r . �lydr� a� L,L 1. • (r([,L,!(i f 6l.; lr rLee�(ie� Li/�jlle %c,nrs_ [,: (J o rr I1L6k(f IL.V WA -),L -:. i i hen:, rI r.: - - --• ,(I`'-�•� LG �. tJ.l ..tel dr.. .r 44: L / �- f• �, L lril.7rJ•1 -li�� I � r-'�Jt.• n l(rtn�cn�pra�c %r rc (•. +L<:c; !•4,•��a uLl L.�lir' (L�lillOIT . �CLINu �' (fir./�•,��:� :tet LUL .ti lv C??~�•L� i. a..'� 1 PL,,„,pJ,, ti � iIYLLL (ib,l.,I(' -IL �G/J/ll Lti� �(f O�dL .11 n// L LLi LLL[:., raj llt L i le, A C Lr11.�6�1c M 4/w '- "Ae /P, eL A)ifell- I'w�a� Mf' Lt6�1N6' GtlC�.—``t�5 s ��t� A&4tJ ,[/ o a� ,�ivc "� 2�1 f✓ I X411 GldL� i �t � d!✓uC' o JbI�u al �� � , SOK . �. �.g, • ., : r/��� Cf3L 1r(C lraaL. 4G1.Cc� Or ���irt� �t� 1��� {!1j /� n 1, �!''r• 1237 � •i!� aG�e. 1� ,,v,���.D lard ;�. / r s3 /Uaw Pr+�.•e iw � !ems � / aasf �'•�r" . /�. �t�.w./etc- r �G a+u✓u5�w.- /e+a O;/f►•�Yx.�A. u Irli 4;t� ��J 11 �• .�► dui-., � r� !.'n4 4'd�•. �.g, awe `�r.� ,�d-a.►4t-. �. or ASA.C -, Ll(� F- �" C'r�.en/-� �1,uu n� �dea.Qe�., d► � L�.rl i � J I �lrn. rlcGw�6 /�! lfeadc or�/lU 1315 �``"`l �+,►t, -h .d�' IbaU i�w � ruM 1/4 sus �o CID 19/ Olen Sto'y. ♦ yr ct G1-� 'ra Tdr.— Vd.ot t 411 ;. ;,d ala��vr� AAr dL— -- &- sa/oo . 0 f zl �r '10 +' Cq 'f to ',es, = 33C,,o A Z' eta -f . tori �Vjl -re, "d 4 3960 "e 9.44 - ZS170 .JW—V fl o mfe; riJ? 04va - 06-00 = . t7 = AO y - o-4,0 — 0600 = . eB = 195" %do#, w. 2S�10 C�tra.yQ, (�' �� of Ir...'f Cbn,i WLi'41C'1. ('; � f►awL Com? 144-.Or�. �o�v � r Bjp10 3$ ari .e� 04 ,,Je 9 ,ol 140 It X !2 I'G N1.�o 4/�.r../ �vr 1•:4/[- � Cyr.... /`U T�I....t i-rp✓"rte I?Y tPII��'^l 14✓+dtRt . �i� j2ToAw po ,cj' 040446 to (F.~;OS Euty MI.,, iQA� S�NACv" #01 /f ,#SCE Rtt+t dw .0/4.47- 0*0 07co At IIAFivt LJbf�9 S% .irlS d l'UvrRY %syn ,;:5, ex-, ,l ptWl�.e G a�QQ.6rrr.lt !1l �� �/rr�FJ�6 /L�r:J ��.Cu.c /kfp�i��%q liK c�i�c'Fvlt1 � /ea. 4ur� C�:,t �1tfClc, y� lta . 14/14 1/ l.�/ r el- ,!!/ w i/��//tr}rf/ /lrfJrsr�A 'Oi Ae-0* ,f**,#f Jr+t" .woe .T A- .,4 IV -J -i J.u4,A- fir+ CrAcr4 51a e-4- ;J + Aeq 'o �.ai,t u9v,'t W Jx +t Sa /0/6 avvi &1160 AVZV ,4A6-" /G�/3 �'�//EO rdli /l(i7?itnvG •S�G�wiv� /4,0r�/�iTHlhf�- J 4/'y d %r�SfrsGiS /3Gr+[r(L LrKr [e6?/E` /G//! o� /a. %N fsr srpL Rlxs pct f.=,/ R..<l i/s,� kr.<t.v�r•Y otic' j�H, �fD Ioo✓ luK1 ,, fJr61, CevcL r/, ' f /f10 �/�le.'%'t �t/oTi/ it .�/C.✓rtitv�' � �+(< fGR ire .�" \"a�0�� p�/f f�f9f�/Lt Gff✓.tG rt/e/t "VA ,00 /$//1- 0710 4&., jmo a,. r 4.o,, o/ r / "7` rll:lYlY L�ls'i// %1<�,/ //7/����/t/r,�, c/rl,.x„. 1t� Js�at % [t£tr�(.!'' �lt �✓�t �.1 /�" 7%IW r„jjvscl�r'fo ,•%. ALc--' [tr ;011 fewpl�l/'D �,rt..� .�aw/I ir�x%rr•�,� A, '414R'c/,t. /TYT ._Pfaff�%GQs.- i�LcwCcr�c 1 U4/ir �4=0 a.,-r %.(Flt -e-yAw e~ 6;or f-✓C a &,n, de,< A Geo a woi Ack a.,dl /51-fr AGA o r ✓ l,.e ..+ d . r u ��tf%fib 0410 jnTF. 1k4V1?TEwET 4Etc -AS' 4-- vED RAL, 52Fc.1,166 w -Cr 9.wE41-0' ,d,,7-4f-„rAv4 ;1 r'a�ew./hf B•r' A/:e Of TER /�•�, .6... /-'/, /bt. / r�+ oa/✓ /a�. 6.4s i ,� I ,�i. le c / A/wr•�, s c.e..y a c� =...1 01/3,2 PFD /, y,c r ukV7' ota /Lo Al o,. Q91-1 44-466 l✓t7 t.rl67[L 0' /94,1- QornTRo/ ij 3. c.' , /t/.0 .414 t'1. O!/Ya 11fO ;rAIO 1-/JE.4.1 ;� Sary ;-/,r,Tr.ur4s ac -,T 7AI,r /e4, X5r44j4E /,E r VEIL wAs AT .2! ' a, ( yt Pov/A-L [/ACAs s. 7', A%fi- -cre oc 1A Tejo tiCw.T CA- , lo— OW , Lau 6 -wt �iriL� SEr/qbE �E`EL ",4C,*d ?& %!t ZnTlR ,.p,/!t SrAy44 ow AU T/ir(, , 02,41✓ SEw,4e—E /s "7 7R44kJXd- tri ;'Al 7/,/cr &z t7,4+LER . Ali.,. n. 0. aik P,+4 21aVw , 73 o N/ t', Iry ,r7sb '41,,944) 1/i0 &,-I- /&-c, ,-T /&-c, //fn —,kP pro ,w7 perc7' ,Trtr/F A /r•., -Of,— .6y Of,— dy Q') PA LtLe 1 3. 1', 6, �r IHA 3.8 ' IW-- AAO,fpv A...pa yr,? hr QN4-. W AIwaw.. I1/ M,w cw I. aA,, ee.• I s 7 / it 'e.-4&,., -.VP ,QAN 4w/ /•o ' l.f' ow 712Aek/bb &lwS a.,,e. rrs ,�Ne,h 41t ►6 IOIt4l90 ._ _ Lo-.' r{.-- AMARM / /!•' ?✓_%J, /22j - —'/' /� /H//7 oy, T2 . l�ri�fl� la LM4ti[(Gu ��l /`Qlclie2.,��.�c WN I yz :sn'! Cw'' — &lA (/fO _-WfAr...p -j" AL./., -wc ^.ANON T Tp/+ckc. S 4F ,O/vf Rol✓ oiww&e avel em-lrrd 7RArk'.S j�, CorTl�l , a5rw • - o/rr f rvnt7 o ovti4 . J.,, /�V •4 J 1 a Council Agenda - 11/13/90 10. Consideration of Chance Order •1 for Prosect 90-04, Sandberq East utility imarovcmcatc. (J.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: During the installation of the water main on the west edge of the project on the Robert Krautbauer property, the groundwater table was higher than was originally anticipated. The soil borings which were performed prior to the project and presented in the specifications indicated the groundwater was at or near the water main elevation. In reality, during the excavation, the contractor discovered the groundwater table to be at least 3-1/2 feet above the proposed pipe elevation. The contractor, Annandale Contracting of Annandale, Minnesota, has requested a lump sum payment of $2,250 to cover his cost due to excessive dewatering because of changed conditions at the site. The contractor has indicated that the plane and specifications made It difficult for him to foresee the conditions that were encountered. After 6-8 hours of fighting the groundwater, we were able to relocate the remaining portions of the pipe as to keep the groundwater problem to a minimum. After several discussions with the contractor, Bret Weiss was able to reduce the requested amount from the original $2,600 that was asked for by the contractor. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to approve change order Al for Project 90-04 in the amount of $2,250 to cover the cost incurred by the contractor for excessive dewatering due to changed conditions at the site. 2. The second alternative would be not to approve the change order or further negotiate the price. This may not be realistic, as City staff feels the contractor has a valid claim, and the amount is reasonable for his down time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONt It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director that the City Council authorize and approve change order it for Project 90-04 as outlined in alternative 41. D. SUPPORTING DATAt Copy of change order I1. r• j P.c tic"rJ Citi '"'r0 1��58 �'c-3•t i'�15•CN1 On r Lu Hcncpm nnue scklen Mrl—j;wAs.'-0N S5e13 Enrmt-•r OA 0 S%t i A,�Je un. it_.3 1.3646 PUnft,S .ORDERKYCH u.[0jfA* PROJECT: 5andborg Ea& and Add'ufon OWNER: C1Y of Monticeilo DATE OF ISSUANCE: November 6. t390 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN SSW I OWNER'S PROJECT NO. 90.04 CONTRACTOR: Annandale Cortrscting, Inc. ENGINEER: OffScholen-Mayeron Rwo I. Box t9 & Associates, Inc. Annandale, MN 56302 CONTRACT FOR: L talty improvements and OSM COMM. NO. 4557.20 Appurtenant Work You are d ♦octad to maks the following changes to the Contract Documents: Description: A lump sum payment of $2,250 to Cover costs incurred by the Contractor for excessivo dowatering duo to changed conditions at the sko. Purpose of Change Order: The actual eowltions encountered in the field with rogard to the water tablo were more wm4satve than anticipated. The soil borings, taken prior to bids, dict ret aeeurstoly rollect the depth of the water lablo. The Contractor exporienced down dmo boLause of the uxcosstvo water oundhions. Attachments: (list documents supporting change) ' CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:' CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Price Original Controct Ttmo I 1187,9t36Od N/A Previous Change Orders No. to No. Not Change From Previous Change Orders _ „ If 0.00 N/A Contract Price Prior to this Change Order Contract Time Prior to this Change Slider lt6T,08a0o N/A Net Incroaso (Decrease) of this Change Order Not Increase (Decrease) of Change Order S 2,250.00 N/A Contract Price with all Approved Change Contract Time with Approved Change Orders Orders N/A t/7ozaoo 'I RECOMME;APPROVED: i` APPROVED: By: By: By, Brot A. Weiss. P.E. City of Monticello Annandale Contracting, — .... .. Inc. w. /cmw I t /00AM7.20 Council Agenda - 11/13/90 11, Consideration of final payment on Project 90-02, street and uLiiiiy impruvemt-nLft fur U. SLr.cL uAd niiu:o6Gtd ui.�deL. (i.S. ) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The R.L. Larson Excavating Company, Inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota, has completed the work on 7th Street and Minnesota Street. The original contract amount for this project was $242,581.93. The total cost of the project, excluding change order #1, was $238,749.48, approximately $4,000 under the estimated cost. By adding change order #1, however, which Included an additional 8,782.3 sq ft of sidewalk, excavation of organic material and granular fill at Locust Street, and the sewer service connection for Kmart, the total cost of the project comes to $256, 339. 39. The contractor has already been paid $238,761.24: therefore, the final payment due is $17,578.15. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to authorize final payment to the R.L. Larson Excavating Company, Inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota, in the amount of $17,578.15 pending receipt of t lien waivers and required state forms. 2. The second alternative is not to make final payment at this time. This does not appear to be appropriate, as the contractor has satisfactorily completed all the work required by the project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public works Director that the City Council authorize final payment to the R.L. Larson Excavating Company, Inc., of Sr— Cloud, Minnesota, In the amount of $17,578.15 as outlined in alternative 11. The City staff and engineer are well satisfied with tho work porformod by R.L. Larson Excavating Company and his subcontractors. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of final payment request and change order #1; Lotter from OSM recommending final payment. On 21)21 CJ?1 Ilennepm Avefte Schelen MinnrJlulhs, .M., 5541.1 F.ngmocrs nlayeron& 112.331.8-0 So y0AW&ore Associates, Inc. f A\ 331 380n PL-- PROJECT: Sandberg East 2nd Addition I OWNER: Clry of Monticello DATE OF ISSUANCE: November 6, 1990 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55062 OWNER'S PROJECT NO. 90-04 CONTRACTOR: Annandale Contacting, Inc. ENGINEER: OrrSchelen•Mayeron Route 1, Box 19 & Associates, Inc. Annandale, MN 55.702 CONTRACT FOR: Utility Improvements and OSM COMM. NO. 4557.20 Appurtenant Work j You aro directed to make the following changes In the Contract Documents: Description: A lump sum payment of $2,250 to cover costs Incurred by the Contractor for excessive dewatering due to changed conditions at the site. Purpose of Change Order. The actual conditions encountered In the field with regard t0 the water table were more excessive than anticipated. The loll borings, taken prix to bids, did not accurately reflect the depth of the water table. The Contractor experienced down time because of the i oxcosslvo water conditions. Attachments: (List documents supporting change) CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Price Original Contract Time $167,966.00 N/A Previous Change Orders No. _ to No. _ Net Change From Previous Change Orders s 0.00 N/A Contract Price Prior to this Change Order Contract Tlmo Prior to this Change Order I $167,986.00 N/A I Not Increase (Decrease) of this Change Order Not Ineroaso (Decrease) of Change Order 6 2.250.00 N/A Contract Price with all Approved Change Contract Time with Approved Change Ordors Ordors N/A $170.296.00 RECOMMENDEp: _- APPROVED: APPROVEIP: By:. W11.:- By: ey: Brat A. Weiss. P.E. City of Monticello Annandelo Co aing, Inc. /cmw 11/90-4557.20 to NOV 06 '90 15:59 0511 MPLS, ni P.3 C. CAS& .bw- 2021 east HGMepin A'Nn4e MienapnUS, MN 55413 512.613, -syn FAX 331.3806 Er4pnccrs Surveyors Ple .rcrs Novelties, 6, MO City of ftw4collo 250 East Broad■af St. P.O. Bo: RIA Monticello, Minnesota 56302 At: STREET top uTILlfy IMPROVEMENTS and A'rPORfEAAYT boo 7TH STREET AND MINNESOTA STREEI CITY PROJECT NO. 90-02 OSM Car. No. 4534 1 4535 �I City Council : Inclosl0 are tour IU copies of construction Payunt Voucher No. 3 a Final an that referenced project in tnt +count of 1 11.511.15. Pursuant to our field obisMralion, 4s perfor"d 1n accordance atto our contract, ate eare0y certify that this satertsls are satisiactory and the •ort properly pertoreod in accoraance •ith the plans and Speirlutions. upon raeiipt ,yt i ft,daret, "late of Minnesota rare IC 114, and ilea Betaipt and Waiver of Lir Rights free O.l. LArwn Escavattag,lnc., please sate pdfeent to R.L. Larson Elcivatio0, Inc., 100 Hwy. 10 S.E., St. Cloud, Ma. 56304 at your url-it convenience. Very trult yours. ORR•SCMELEN•MAVERON i ASSOCIAIES, INC. Pratt A. Yllss,P.E. Project Engineer BANIRGD Enclosures I cc 1 R.L. Larson Escnatinl, lot. 6114 PIOV 06 190 15:59 OSM PPLS.PY4 P.4 Estiaate Voucher do. 3 6 Final CIL45TRUCTIGN PAYMENT VOUCHER Date s Novesber 6, 1990 For Period Ending s October 23, 1440 Project No. 1 90-02 Class of Work STREET and UTILITY INPRONElOIiTS and APPURTENANT WORK To : R.L. Larson Excavating, Inc. .............. ................ «..................... 000 Hey. 10 S.E. Location t 7TH STREET AND MINNESOTA STREET St. Cloud, Minnesota :6304 ----------- ----------- ----- —__------------------ PM 16!2) 654-0709 For CITY OF NONTICELLO, CAIGHT C61641Y, MINNESOTA A. Original Contract Ramat 1 242,591.93 .• 3. Total Additions 1 15,901.00 C.O. No. 1 ........... Total Deductions a 0.00 ..................... Total Funds Eocusoared 6259,482.93 ...... ........ ......... E. Total Value of fork Certified to Date 1 :56,:34.:9 ........................ F. Less Retained Percentage Y a 0.00 ............ ». 3. Las Total Previous Paymn s a 218,76!.24 d. Total Payeeots Including This Voucher 1 256,339.;4 1. Balance Carried Forward / 2,043.54 J.APPRDVEI FOR PATAENI, 1X19 VOUCHER 1 �378.IS ................. •. APPRDVALS ._ — 1 was uoawwwwas......... .. awuaa au was s:a:aazus a:• •'ai auaa uYu n awunwa.. w u.................... ORR•MEN-f1AHRON A ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant to our field observation, as perforaed in accordance with our contract, so hereby Certify that the eaterials are satisfactory and the work properly oerforeed 1A accordance 11th the plane and specifications lad that the tots: mark is 100 t co"Ieted as of October 23, 1490 . We hereby recaaend paysent of this voucher. .............. «..... .. signed : Signed : Construction Observer _....».«_._............ »_-.».«.......»........................ ........................................... This is to certify that to the bat of by knowledge, Inforatien, and belief, the quantities and values of Sari certified herein 1s a fair spprotleAte e4titats for toe period covered by this vouther. Contractor : A.L. Lamn Excavating, toe. Silaed By Bate Tito eeY.aatwwwaawwwe..... .............................ww............Y.wimauYw[itwaii 111411lt[tttiti i [aa City of FZIICELLO Approval for payeest .«...«.....r..... ........................ Checked BI i Autharited Represeatatire _..... --•• »».... Bate : Date :.«....«................................... .« ►age f of 4 -... 43:4 a 4333«..»..«««. I/ NOV 06 190 16:040 05x1 T'FLS,m P.S ESTIMATE VOUCHER 00. 3 A Final CONi1ACT0.9 R.L. Larson E,:avating, Inc. ---- - 600 Hwy. 10 S.E. 'ATE : 4ove46er 6, 1990 St. Clcuo, Minnesota 56'0; Ph (612) 654.0709 �IREE1 and UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS uid AFPURTEMANT NORK 7TH STREET AND MINNESOTA STREET MY iiueECT RO iv -02 for the CITY OF MONTICELLO, 016AT COUNTY, MINNES011 CONTRACT DATE I May 29, 1990 NORK STARTED : Juno 8, 1990 NORM COMPLETED : Octo or 23, 1990 CW LEETNA DATE : August 15, 1990 WORN COMPLETED SPEC. MmTRACT THIS AMOUNT TOTAL TO OAT: N0. ITEM O WTITY UNIT UNIT FkICI TOTAL FRECE MONTH THIS 11ONTii QUANTITY TOTAL PRPC: --' -- - SCHEDULE 'A' - 7TH STREET 445 LOCUST STREET - STREET CONSTUCTION 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB 6 GLITTER 660 L.F. 1.00 660.00 0.00 660 650.00 2304.505 RENVE BITURINDUS PAVEWI-r 1.270 93. 0.30 191.00 0.00 1270 ;31.00 2112.501 SUBGRAOE PREPARATION 14 R.S. 100.00 1,400.00 0.00 14 1,400.00 2?:1.501 ATi6AESA7E BASE CL 5 3350 TON 3.80 12 ,730.00 0.00 :0:0 11,514.00 23.31.504 AITUMINOU9 MATERIAL FOR MIIIURE 151) 40 1011 125.00 5,000.00 0.00 37.75 4,118.15 2'31.514 2331 BITUMINOUS IASE COURSE 800 TON 10,15 9,120.00 0.00 745 7,561.75 ?341.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR FINTORE (6.21) 50 TON 125,00 6,210.00 0.00 47.75 5,968.7S 2341.508 2341 BITUAI.W NEAR CGURSE 800 TON 11.15 8,911.00 0.00 740 81251.00 2341.521 IRREBLLAA NIOTH PAVINS 375 S.Y. 6.00 2,150.00 0.00 I50 1:500.00 , (3' BIT. AND 6' CLASS 51 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACT COAT 350 SAL. 1.00 150.00 0.00 262 262.00 2422.500 RETAINING NULL(NORTH SIDE) 4200 S.F. 9.00 37 ,6A.00 0.00 313; 28,117.00 2422.500 RETAINING NAL1160UTH SIDEI 1650 S.F. 1,00 14 ,814.00 4 36.00 1790 16,110.0) 2521.500 4' CONCRETE WALK 1100 S.F. 1.70 1 ,813.00 0.00 'ICO 1,670.00 2521.500 CONCRETE STAIR] 14 EACH 100.00 1 ,400.00 0.00 18 1,EOD.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB 6 GUIIER (B6•I01 3100 L.F. 4.60 14 ,260.00 0.00 3155 14,511,00 2611.500 RELOCATE HVIRANT I L.F. 600.00 600.00 1 600.00 2 11200.03 DIV. 11 SODDING IINCLUDINB 4' TOP SDIII 4100 S.Y. 2.13 9,215.00 0.00 --w636.00 5930 - 12,749.53 TOTAL SCREW 'A' -7TH ST. AND LOCUST ST. - SIMI CONSTUCTIGN 1 �12&,0Ei.00 4 s 118,di.71 SCHEOULE 'B' - MINNESOTA BTREEI - 11KET CDAIIUCTION 1501.500 COW EICAVATION 3000 C.Y. 1.15 3,450.00 0.00 IIID 4,404.31 1112.501 IUISAADE PREPARATION 1 R.S. 100.00 10.00 0.00 1 100.03 2211.501 A66AEGATE BASE CL 5 1200 TON 2.10 44,360.00 0.00 1015 4,123,01 2211.501 MAMIE IASE CL 5 FOR RIVENAYS 75 TON 3.8) 15.00 0.00 25 45.00 2211.501 ASGAE6ATE BASE CL 511002 CRUSNEDI 220 TON 1.60 1,112.00 27 232.20 271.45 2,334.47 2311.504 IITVMINBU9 MATERIAL FOR MIITURE 151) Li TON 125.00 2,600.00 0.00 54.6 1,62S.0 2331.514 1331 IIIJIINU IASI C211M 1I0 TON 10.15 3,111.00 0.00 292.2 2,965.81 2341.504 1112IRM MATERIAL FOR -41ITM (6.21) 15 TON 123.00 1,113.00 0.00 14.6 1,825.0 2141.508 2:41 BITUMIN00S NEAR COURSE 240 TON 11.15 2,411.00 0.00 235.6 2,626.14 .'341.521 IRAE; LAR NIDTN FAVINS 70 S.Y. 6.00 470.00 0.00 70 4:0.00 13' 111. AND i' CLASS S) 2157.302 IITAIMIUI MATENIAL FOR TACT COAT 14S BAL. 1.00 145.00 0.60 N 11.07 2531.301 CONCRETI CAI I NUTTER ( m-11) 1160 L.F. 4.60 5,376.00 0.00 1295 5,957.0 DIV. 11 SODIINI (INCLU110 4' TOP IDILI 600 I.Y. 2.15 1,210.00 0.00 125 1,143.75 DIV 11 PERMANENT IARAICAOEI 1 FAIR 400.00 140.00 0.00 1 4A.0 OIJ. I7 IEEDINI 0.1 ACRI 1000.00 171.00 1.1 1,100.00 - - 1.4 1,44V.0i - TOTAL BCNEDULE '1' - MINKISOIA STREIT - STREET CONSTUCTIDIN s 21,411.00 1 1,;32.:0 K :0,.01,11 Fele I of 4 - 45:4 1 455 r 10 06 '90 16 01 CGI WL,9.r91 P.6 EST!MAIE VOUCHER. N0. 3 COh!RACIOR H.L. Luso., Esca,ti nq. !a_. ---------------- 809 Hrr. l? E.E. 14TE : Novesber 6, 1990 St. Clow, Minnesota 55,04 - Ph (612) 654-0769 ',.MEET ir.6 UT:L:1Y IMPROVEMENTS end APPURTENANT NDRL 7TH STREET AND MINNESOTA STREET for tae CITY OF MONTICELLO, dRISHT COUNTY, Mif1NESDIA Pap 3 of 4 - 4534 6 4535 P) YDRI( COMPLETED SPEC. CONTRACT THIS AMOUNT TOTAL TO DATE NO. ITEM ---------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUANTITY UA!! UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE MD573 THIS MChTH DUAN!!T'i TOTAL SC3EDU!E 'C' - 77H ST., LOCUST ST. AND EASEMENT STORM DRAIN ----------------------- 2104.501 REMOVE AND SALVAGE PIPE(ALL SIZES) 88 L.F. 3.00 264.00 0.00 BE 264.90 2104.SO9 REMOVE CATCH BASIN 2 EACH 244.00 488.00 1 244.90 3 12.00 2503.541 ' 12' A.C.P. C.B. LEADS CI. IV 85 L.F. 14.00 1,190.00 3 42.00 85 !,190.00 2503.541 15' R.C.P. CL IV 117 L.F. 14.44 1,689.48 D.00 117 !,689.49 250.541 24' R.C.P. CL lV 81 L.F. 26.68 2,!71.28 0.06 80 2.159.40 250:.S/1 I3' A.C.P. CL. 111 342 L.F. 32.23 11,022.66 0.00 338 10,891.14 2503.541 33' P.C.P. CL. IV 245 L.F. 38.00 9,310.00 0.00 ?41 9,158.00 2506.508 STANDARD 4' DIA. SIM. MH (0 - B') 1 EACH !268.00 1,268.00 0.00 ! 1,253.00 2506.508 STANDARD 5' D!A. STM. Mh 10 • 8'1 3 EACH 1;91.00 ;,573.00 0.00 I 31573.00 2506.508 EXTRA S' DIA. AN DEPTH 9 L.F. 100.00 900.00 0.94 94.00 9.32 432.99 2506.508 4' DIA. CATCH BASIN MH 10 - 8'1 2 EACH 772.00 1,544.00 2 1,544.00 3 2,3!6.00 2506.508 STANDARD 6' DIA. STM. RH (0 - B') 1 EACH 1176.00 1,176.00 0.00 1 1,176.00 2506.509 CATCH BASIN 4 EACH 607.00 2,428.00 0.00 5 3,0;5.00 262!.500 4' INSULATION DIV ii BREAK INTO MH 160 S.F. 2 EACH 2.68 200.00 424.60 400.00 0.00 0.00 2011 2 557.44 400.00 Div 11 LSBI 3-A 1 L.S. 2345.00 2,345.00 0.00 ! ?,145.00 Div !! MH P.ECON3TRUCT!DN 3.19 L.F. 112.00 357.28 5.36 600.32 10.49 1,1174.88 DIV :I SDODINB EASERENTIIRCL. 4' TOPSOIL) 800 S.Y. 2.15 1,720.00 0.00 300 1,720.00 DIV !I ADJUST FRAME AND RIND CASTING I EACH 100.00 100.00 0.00 1 !00.00 .-_•--...... TOTAL SCHEDULE 'C' - 7tH it., LOCUST ST. AND EASEMENT - STGRM DRAIN _1 12,30;.50 ....-------- 1 2,524.32 ------------ 1 44,674.94 SCHEDULE 'D' . MINNESOTA STREET - STORM DRAIN 2503.341 12' R.C.P. C.B. LEADS CL IV 9! L.F. 14.00 1,274.00 0.00 86 1,?04.00 2503.54! 15' R.C.P. CL IV N L.F. 16.15 460.60 ! 16.45 29 417.05 2503.511 21' R.C.D. CL. 111 22 L.F. 23.00 506.00 2 46.00 26 SWOO 2503.541 24' R.C.P. CL 111 78 L.F. 20.86 1,627,08 0.00 75 !,564.50 2503.511 24' R.C.P. CL. IV 370 L.F. 15.:8 91590.60 2 $0.76 372 9,441.36 2506.508 STANDARD a' 014. STM. MH (0 - B') 2 EACH 958.00 1,916.00 0.00 1,916.00 2506.508 4' DIA. CATCH BASIN RH (D - B') I EACH 80!.00 805.00 0.00 l 805.00 2506.509 CATCH BASIN ; EACH 472.00 1,116.00 0.00 3 i.476.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE 'D' - RINNE60TA STREET - 6TOR9 BRAIN 1 17,155.28 4 113.21 1 17,481.91 SCHEDULE 'E' - NATERMAIN 2101.521 REMOVE 490 SALVAGE PIPE(ALL STIES) 60 L.F. 2.00 120.00 0.00 60 !20.09 2611.500 12' DIP NATERMAIN 528 L.F. 15.85 8,368.80 0.00 501 7,940.85 2611.500 10' DIP NATERMAIN 25 L.F. 16.89 422.25 7.5 116.68 44 741.16 2611.500 12' BUTTERFLY VALVE I EACH 723.00 723.00 0.00 l 72:.00 761:.500 6' GATE VALVE EIIENSIONS I L.F. 100.00 100.00 6.00 1 100.00 2611.500 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL HYDRANTS 2 EACH 600.00 1,200.00 0.00 I 600.00 2611.500 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL 6' VALVE 1 EACH 150.00 150.00 0.00 1 150.60 Pap 3 of 4 - 4534 6 4535 P) NOV 06 '90 16:01 OSM MPLS,"A ESTIMATE VOUCHER ND. 3 DATE i NavelOer 6, 1990 CirREET Ind UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS and APPURTENANT NORM 71H STREET AND NINSWiR STREET ell'; Fn6ZE1i e0. 9d -6i for Lne CITY OF AONIICELLO, 1216NT COUNTY, MINNESOTA P.7 TOTAL TD DATE C - Page 4 of 4 - 4536 1 4535 aasxaasasa nanaana�s ... ...uu. t 258,382.93 1 6,812.53 / 236,339.:9 11 KORA CONFIETED SPEC. CONTRACT THIS AMCUNT TOTAL TO DATE e0. ITEM GUANTIIY UN:T UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE MONTH THIS NONTH DOM iY TOTAL PRICE 2611.500 HYDRANTS 1 EACH 129!.00 1,258.00 0.00 1 !,298.00 2611.500 HYDRANT EITENSIONS 2 L.F. 289.00 578.00 0.00 1578.04 2611.500 ADJUST GATE VALVES 4 EACH 77.00 300.00 0.00 4 -00.00 2611.500 FITTIN65 2000 LBS. 1.18 2,;60.00 0.00 1760 2,076.80 26!1.500 CONNECT TO EIISTING Y.M. STUB I EACH 200,00 200.00 0.00 1 200.00 2611.500 SALWE 8 REINSTALL 12' BUTTERFLY VALVE 1 EACH 250.00 250.00 0.00 1 250.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE 'E' - NAIERMAIN t 16,070.05 6 126.68 1 15,079.81 SCGULE 'F' - SANITARY SEVER 2104.521 REMOVE A SALVASE PIPE(ALL SIZES) 15 L.F. 2.00 70.00 0.00 30 60.00 2621.500 12• PVC PIPE SAN STIR SDR 35 505 L.F. 11.61 7,378.05 0.00 518 1,567.98 2621.500 8' PVC PIPE SAN SVR SIR SS 15 L.F. 11,83 $19.05 0.00 36 533.83 2621.500 STD SAN GWR NANIIDLE 4' CIA. 10 - 10'1 2 EACH 1014.00 2,028.00 0.00 2 2,029.00 2621.500 EITRA NH DEPTH OVER 10 FEET is L.F. 56.00 728.00 1.52 65.12 12.12 678.72 2621.500 8' - TYPE 'A' DROP SECTION I EACH 809.00 809.00 0.00 1 809.00 DIV II CONNECT TO EIISTING STUB I ED 50.00 50.00 0.00 1 $0.00 DIV 11 REM41TRUCT NO 1.40 L.F. 300.00 00.00 0.00 1.4 420.00 DIV 11 ADJUST FRRRE AND RINB CASTING I EICR IN= 100.00 0.00 1 100.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE 'F' - SM17ART SINEA ............ t 12,102.10 ............ 6 85.12 ............ 1 12.247.58 GRAND TD1AL - SCREDULES 'A', '8'. 'C', 'D', 'E' 1 'F' 1 242,581.93 1 ~•1,817.53 nuss.nsu 1 238,149.10 CAinge Order No. 1 13,801.00 1,993.00 17,569.91 TOTAL TD DATE C - Page 4 of 4 - 4536 1 4535 aasxaasasa nanaana�s ... ...uu. t 258,382.93 1 6,812.53 / 236,339.:9 11 MW 06 '90 16:02 OSM r1PLS.P44 Change Order No. 1 �' TE : NavesLer b, 1440 J STREEI and UTILITY iNPR49EME411 and APPURTENAN? NDRt 7iH STREET ANO MINNESOTA STREET CITY PROSECT 40. 90-02 for the CITY OE MONTICELLO, YRIgHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA SPEC. NQ. ITEM 11 V Concrete Sidewalk 21 Excavation of Organic Material and Cospaction of granular iiia 31 Sewer Service Connection Total Page i of 1 4534 4 4533 P.8 CONTRACTOR : R.L. Larson EaCavating, !fie. 800 Hay. 13 S.E. St. Claud, Mlnneaota 56304 Ph (612) 654-0709 YORK COMPLETED CONTRACT THIS AMOUNT TOTAL TO WE OUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE MONTH THIS MONTH QUANTITY TOTAL KICE „.— --------- -- ........__. __—_.. .�.....�---'.... 0,530 L.E. 1.70 14,501.00 0.00 8,702.J 11,929.9! 400 C.Y. 3.40. 1,200.00 665 I,94s.00 020 2,460.00 1 Ea. 100.00 100.00 0.00 2 200.00 ; w— "- ...... 4— .....sago... 4 15,601.00 t 1,995.00 a 1731109.91 1! Council Agenda — 11/13/90 12. Consideration to amend Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guideiines. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Upon the request of the City Council, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) has reviewed and adjusted the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) Guidelines. The GMEF was an idea which originated with the Industrial Development Committee (IDC) and was written by a committee appointed by the IDC. That committee was Linda Mielke, Dale Lungwitz, Don Smith, Jeff O'Neill, and myself. The IDC reviewed the GMEF Guidelines prior to City Council approval on April 10, 1989. The EDA reviewed the adopted GMEF Guidelines on May 16, 1989. On October 30, 1990, the EDA noted the purpose of the GMEF is to encourage economic development by supplementing conventional financing sources available to existing and new businesses. Additionally, all loans must comply with four or more of the public purpose crlterias, of which, criteria it is mandatory. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE 1. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that create now jobs. To comply with the Council 's request to clarify the definition of what constitutes creation of a full-time versus part-time job, the EDA added the following definition: a) One Job is equivalent to a total of 37.5 hours per week. 2. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that would increase the community tax base. ]Vo adjustment necessary. 3. To assist new or existing industrial or non-competitive commercial businesses to improve or expand their operations. Loans wi 11 not be provided for buslnesses in direct competition with existing businossos within the City of Monticello. At the time, the EDA roviewod the adopted GMEF Guidolines in ]Nay, 1989, they recognized the grey area of this criteria and rocognizod the potential of a tough decision. Although, the C EDA agrees with City Council that the main thrust of the loan program should be oriented toward industrial development= they also make no rocommondation to oliminato the possibility of Council Agenda - 11/13/90 funding a non-competitive business as this allows no - iioi�l`uility - - ..y-. - ...=_:., r�....,tyCXEF Guidelines as vguidelines to follow and not as hard -carved policy. In addition, the EDA prefers to evaluate each GMEF application for approval on the basis of project merit and project benefit provided to the community and it's people. 4. To provide loans to be used as a secondary source of financing that is intended to supplement conventional financing (bank financing). No adjustment necessary. To provide loans in situations in which a funding gap exists. The EDA approved the Muller Theatre Expansion Loan as they determined a funding gap did exist. Mr. Muller, acting in good faith, reduced his construction cost from $405,000 to $310,000 through submittal of three separate bidding processes; a theatre does not qualify for Small Business Administration or State Funding Programs; and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) did not apply to this project because the $50,000 loan was for raw land acquisition, expansion construction, and machinery and equipment; and not for demolition of a substandard building. The $50,000 loan caused a domino affect which encouraged another developer to demolish a substandard building. Therefore, no adjustment necessary. To provide funds for economic development that could be used to assist in obtaining other funds such as Small Business Administration loans, federal and state grants, etc. No adjust necessary. The remaining GMEF Guidelines were also reviewed by the EDA and one correction was made on page 3 under Loan Fee: Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 1.5% (replaced It) of the total loan project. This recommendation comes because the EDA was advised of the cost to the EDA for the Tapper project: Attorney's fee, approximately $1,300 and the banks service fee of $20 per month. One addition was made on page 6, Item 7, the City Attorney shall review and/or prepare all contracts. This recommendation comes from the EDA because in addition to reviewing all documents, the attorney prepares necessary documents for the GMEF. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 The EDA submits to the City Council the adjusted GMEF v ail uclliae6lor t-: zrand. �:..J. j::u �.:.. .,a.... Guidelines enclosed as supporting data.) B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To amend the GMEF Guidelines as adjusted by the EDA. 2. To deny amendment of the GMEF Guidelines as adjusted by the EDA. 3. To deny amendment of the GMEF Guidelines and City Council adjust the GMEF Guidelines. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendation is to amend the GMEF Guidelines as adjusted by the EDA (Alternative Action 81). D. SUPPORTING DATA: 1. Copy of the adjusted GMEF Guidelines. , 2. Copy of the October 9, 1990, Agenda Item. 3. Copy of the October 9, 1990, Council Minutes. Chia GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND GUIDELINES CITY OF MONTICELLO 250 ZAZT MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362 (612) 295-2711 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) is to encourage economic development by supplementing conventional financing sources available to existing and new businesses. Through this program administered by the Economic Development Authority and participating lending institution(s), loans are made to businesses to help them meet a portion of their financing needs. All loans must serve a public purpose by complying with four or more of the criteria noted in the next section. In all cases, it is mandatory that criteria Al be satisfied, which requires the creation of new jobs. It is the responsibility of the EDA to assure that loans meet the public purpose standard and comply with all other GMEF policies as defined in this document. Along with establishing the definition of public purpose, this document is designed to outline the process involved in obtaining GMEF financing. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE 1. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that create new jobs. u One iob is equivalent to a total of 37.5 hours per week. 2. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that would increase the community tax base. 3. To assist new or existing industrial or non-competitive commercial businesses to improve or expand their operations. Loans will not be provided for businesses in direct competition with existing businesses within the city of Monticello. 4. To provide loans to be used as a secondary source of financing that is intended to supplement conventional financing (bank financing). 5. To provide loans in situations in which a funding gap exists. 6. To provide funds for economic development that could be used to assist in obtaining other funds such as Small Business Administration loans, federal and state grants, etc. GMEF GUIDELINES: 11/1/90 Page 1 '� THE GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISES REVOLVING LOAN FUND POLICIES • Industrial businesses • Non-competitive commercial businesses which enhance the community • Businesses located within the city of Monticello • Credit worthy existing businesses + Non-credit worthy start-up businesses with worthy feasibility studies (Deny all historical non-credit worthy businesses) • $10,000 loan per each job created, or $5,000 per every $20,000 increase in property market valuation, or $5,000 per every $20, 000 increase in personal property used for business purposes, whichever is higher. 11. FINANCING METHOD • COMPANION DIRECT LOAN - Example: Equity 208, RLF 30%, and bank 50%. (All such loans may be subordinated to the primary lender (s) if requested by the primary lender (s) . The RLF loan is leveraged and the lower interest rate of the RLF lowers the effective interest rate on the entire project.) • PARTICIPATION LOAN - RLF buys a portion of the loan (the RLF is not in a subordinate position, no collateral is required by the RLF, and the loan provides a lower Interest rate). • GUARANTEE LOANS - RLF guarantees a portion of the bank loan. (Personal and real estate guarantees handled separately.) III. USE OF PROCEEDS • Real property acquisition and development • Real property rehabilitation (expansion or improvements) • Machinery and equipment GMEF GUIDELINES: 11/1/90 Page 2 Jo'k, IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS • LOAN SIZE - • LEVERAGING - • LOAN TERM - • INTEREST RATE - • LOAN FEE - + PREPAYMENT POLICY • DEFERRAL OF PAYMENTS - Minimum of $5,000 and maximum not to cxaccd 500e ra alning revolving loam fund balance; for example, if the remaining revolving loan fund balance is $50,000, the maximum loan issuance is $25,000. Minimum 609 private/public non-GMEF Maximum 309 public (GMEF) Minimum 109 equity EDA loan Personal property term not to exceed life of equipment (generally 5-7 years). Real estate property maximum of 5 -year maturity amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years. Fixed rate not less than 29 below Minneapolis prime rate. Prime rate per National Bank of Minneapolis on date of EDA loan approval. Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 1.59 of the total loan project. Fees are to be documented and no duplication of fees between the lending institution and the RLF. Loan fee may be incorporated into project cost. EDA retains the right to reduce or waive loan fee or portion of loan fee. No penalty for prepayment. 1. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote. 2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, verification letter from two lending institutions subject to Board approval. • INTEREST LIMITATION ON GUARANTEED LOANS - Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA. • ASSUMABILITY OF LOAN - None. GMEF GUIDELINES: 11/1/90 Page 3 � • BUSINESS EQUITY REQUIREMENTS - Subject to type of loan; Board of Directors will determine case by Casa, analysis Under nc'zrnalending guidelines. • COLLATERAL • Liens on real property in project (mortgage deed). • Liens on real property in business (mortgage deed). • Liens on real property held personally (subject to Board of Directors - homestead exempt). • Machinery and equipment liens (except equipment exempt from bankruptcy). • Personal and/or corporate guarantees (requires unlimited personal guarantees). The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is operated as an equal opportunity program. All applicants shall have equal access to GMEF funds regardless of race, sex, age, marital status, or other personal characteristics. ORGANIZATION The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is administered by the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA), which is a seven -member board consisting of two Council members and five appointed members. EDA members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Formal meetings are held on a quarterly basis. Please see the by-laws of the EDA for more information on the structure of the organization that administers the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund. PARTICIPATING LENDING INSTITUTION(S1 1. Participating lending institutions(s) shall be determined by the GMEF applicant. 2. Participating lending institution(s) shall cooperate with the EDA and assist in carrying out the policies of tho GMEF as approved by the City Council. 3. Participating lending institution(s) shall analyze the formal application and indicate to the EDA the level at which the lending institution will participate in the finance package. GMEF GUIDELINES: 11/1/90 Page 4 LOAN APPLICATION/ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES The EDA desires to make the GMEF loan application process as simple _ _ccrtan.prCc,.a....... a,., , .. ..a _ EDA consideration of a loan request. Information regarding the program and procedures for obtaining a loan are as follows: City Staff Duties: The Economic Development Director, working in conjunction with the Assistant City Administrator, shall carry out GMEF operating procedures as approved by the EDA and Council. Staff is responsible for assisting businesses in the loan application process and will work closely with applicants in developing the necessary information. Application Process: 1. Applicant shall complete a preliminary loan application. Staff will review application for consistency with the policies set forth in the Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. Staff consideration of the preliminary loan, application should take approximately one week. Staff will ask applicant to contact a lending institution regarding financing needs and indicate to applicant that further action by the EDA on the potential loan will require indication of support from a lending institution. 2. If applicant gains initial support from lending institution and if the preliminary loan application is approved, applicant is then asked to complete a formal application. If the preliminary loan application is not approved by staff, the applicant may request that the EDA consider approval of the preliminary application at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the EDA. 3. If the preliminary loan application is approved, applicant shall complete a formal application. Formal application shall include a business plan which will include its management structure, market analysis, and financial statement. Like documentation necessary for obtaining the bank loan associated with the proposal is acceptable. Attached with each formal application is a written release of information executed by the loan applicant. 4. City staff will meet with applicant and other participating londer(s) to refine the plan for financing the proposed enterprise. GMEF GUIDELINES: 11/1/90 Page 5 AA 5. City staff shall analyze the formal application and financial statements contained therein to determine if the proposed business and finance plan is viable. Staff may, at its -c-- accept the :..-.'.yc C. bar.'' ..y - - regarding applicant credit and financial viability of the project. After analysis is complete, City staff shall submit a written recommendation to the EDA. A decision regarding the application shall be made by the EDA within 60 days of the submittal of a completed formal application. 6. The EDA shall have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidelines. 7. Prior to issuance of an approved loan, the City Attorney shall review and/or prepare all contracts, legal documents, and intercreditor agreements. After such review is complete, the City shall issue said loan. ORIGINAL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDING "LETTER OF CREDIT" FROM MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL - $200,000 SOURCE - City Liquor Store Fund City shall transfer needed loan amount from existing accounts at such time that individual loans are approved. Revenue created through this program shall be under the control of the EDA and shall not be transferred to City funds unless the City Council determines that reserves generated are not necessary for the successful operation of the Authority. If such is the case, such funds must be transferred to the debt service funds of the City to be used solely to reduce tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City (see Section 5 B of the ordinance establishing the Monticello EDA). REPORTING Staff shall Submit quarterly summaries and/or annual report detailing the status of the Monticello Enterprise Fund. FUND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No changes to the GMEF guidelines shall be instituted without prior approval of tho City Council. LOAN ADMINISTRATION C 1. City staff shall service City loan, shall monitor City position with regard to the loan, and shall assure City compliance with intercreditor agreement. GMEF GUIDELINES: 11/1/90 Page 6 C 2. All loan documents shall include an intercreditor agreement which must include the following: notification of default.. B. Agreements between lending institution and City regarding reproduction of pertinent information regarding the loan. 3. All loan documentation shall include agreements between borrower and lenders regarding release of privacy regarding the status of the loan. GMEF GUIDELINES: 11/1/90 Page 7 Council Agenda - 10/9/90 12. ConsiderAtAnn to ravipw r:reater Mnntirplln 4ntnrprjzt (GMEF) approval. (O.K.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On September 28, 1990, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) met with the four members present and reviewed the GMEF loan application from Mike Muller for the Muller Theatre expansion. Mr. Muller explained the theatre expansion plans to the EDA and responded to questions. Mr. Muller expects the demolition of the Stoke's property and the beginning theatre construction to occur simultaneously. The planned parking lot to the west of the theatre expansion will not receive hard surfacing until the frost is out of the ground in the spring. Mike hopes to open the new addition in the spring. Kevin Doty, Commercial Lending Officer for the Muller project, determined and so stated that Mike and Bob Muller, an informal partnership, to be a credit worthy partnership. Jack Maxwell, Century 21, appraised the total new expanded facility at $900,000. The anticipated loan structure would consist of: Wright County State Bank, $360,000; Another Bank, $35,000; GMEF, $50,000; and the family, $112,000. Mr. Muller has already invested $110,000 for theatre seats, projectors, etc. EDA Attorney, Tom Hayes, viewed the expansion as a good GMEF project as it meets the criteria of our loan policies, and agreed with Mr. Doty on the difficulty for businesses to obtain adequate commercial funding at this time. Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve the GMEF loan application for Michael and Robert Muller, an informal partnership. The loan amount is $50,000 at 88 interest, amortized over 20 -years, with a balloon payment in five years. The GMEF will be in second position on real estate and M S E. Loan fee not to exceed $500. Mr. Hayes is to draft appropriate documents and a commitment letter with terms and conditions. The motion was seconded by Harvey Kendall. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The loan was approved because the Muller loan application met the GMEF public purpose policies, the partnership was determined to bo credit worth by the lending officer, the project creates six new full-time jobs, assists in maintaining a more vibrant downtown, supports streotscape, increases utilization of the property, adds aesthetic value to the downtown, increases the local tax base (project net gain approximately $8,350 annually), assists a non-competitive commercial business within the City limits, and will assist an existing business expansion. 13 /a Council Agenda - 10/9/90 vntcn cne approval c t. - ijW. situ Michael Muller, $88,000 and $50,000 respectively, the remaining balance of the loan fund is $62,000. This means the maximum we can consider for our next loan applicant is $31,000. In accordance with the GMEF policy, "The EDA shall have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidlines". Therefore, unless the Council determines the EDA approval for Michael and Robert Muller to be in violation of the GMEF guidelines, no action is necessary. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The Council determines the Michael and Robert Muller loan to be in violation of the GMEF guidelines; therefore, reverses the EDA loan approval. 2. The Council determines the Michael and Robert Muller loan not to be in violation of the GMEF guidelines; therefore, no action is necessary. C. STAFF RECOMMENMATION: Staff supports the EDA approval; however, gives no recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. C 14 Council Minutes - 10/9/90 12. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund approval. Economic Development Director, 011ie Koropchak, reported that on September 28, 1990, the EDA reviewed the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund loan application for Mike Muller for the Monticello Theatre expansion. Koropchak informed Council that the GMEF loan application in the amount of $50,000 was approved. The terms include 8% interest amortized over 20 years with a balloon payment in five years. Koropchak reminded Council that the EDA has the authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA approval, City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such a loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidelines. Council was then asked to discuss whether or not the proposed loan to a theater is consistent with the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund guidelines. Dan 8lonigen noted that he did not support the use of the revolving loan fund for this type of commercial operation. It 1 was his view that the revolving loan fund should be reserved for industrial uses only. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the use of tax increment financing to help defray excessive redevelopment costs associated with demolition and land acquisition is no longer available to the City due to recent action by the state legislature. In addition, the loan applicant has worked hard at obtaining financing from private sources but is unable to obtain the full amount needed to conduct the project; therefore, the money requested should be considered as gap financing. Without the added assistance by the City via the revolving loan fund, this project would not proceed, and the redevelopment of the site could not occur. Ken Maus noted that if the City utilizes the revolving fund to supplement the theater expansion finance plan, we should better define under what terms and circumstances the City would utilize this fund to finance commercial development. He noted in this case, with the state removing our ability to use TIF for redevelopment of an under-utilized area, use of the fund is acceptable. This criteria for use of the fund is not noted by our fund guidelines; therefore, the guidelines should be updated. In addition, he noted that the guidelines should provide a clear definition of what constitutes creation of full-time versus part-time jobs. Page 7 Council Minutes - 10/9/90 After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve the GMEF loan application for Michael and Robert Muller in the amount of $50,000. The commercial loan is approved only because it provides gap financing that will result in redevelopment of a blighted property. The main thrust of the loan program is to continue to be oriented toward providing gap financing for industrial development. Motion to include a request that the EDA adjust the GMEF guidelines accordingly. Voting in favor of the motion: Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Ke n Maus . Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Other matters. 011ie Koropchak and Jeff O'Neill reported that the City of Monticello received the Star City Marketing Award for 1990. Star City Marketing Award judges commented that Monticello had overall a very strong, well thought out marketing campaign. The repeat appearance of the logo reinforces Monticello's image and is easy to identify. It also neatly ties in all of the various elements used in a strong markets ng campaign. The materials in the brochure were excellent and very well coordinated. The consistency and attractiveness makes the program work. The brochure was tasteful end not overdone. Ken Maus requested that staff consider putting together detailed information outlining the basis or- each department budget. He is interested in going through the logic behind how each department budget is developed. Da n Blonigen agreed that additional detail and a review of department service delivery methods would assist Council in development of the 1991 budget. John Badalich reported that the City Is nearing a population of 5,000; and in fact, if the City's challenge to the census figures is validated, the City will be eligible to receive a minimum of $80,000 in state highway aide for 1991. Staff was directed to provide the Minnesota Department of Transportation with information needed to expedite the acquisition of state aid funding in 1991. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Page 8 Council Agenda - 11/13/90 13. Consideration of adoption of urbanization plan by joint resolution Detween the 'rown of Monticeiio and the Ciiy vC Monticello. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to review the attached urbanization plan and consider its formal adoption. Although Council has provided general support of the plan, a formal approval has never been granted. Now that Monticello Township has adopted the plan, the time is right for the City to consider the same action. Attached you will find a staff report submitted as part of an earlier presentation. The only changes made to the plan since this date have been made to the second to last paragraph of item N4. Staff is pleased to report that Monticello Township has formally adopted the urbanization plan. At the Council meeting held October 10, 1989, Council reviewed the urbanization plan and indicated general support of the document. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello concerning the Orderly Annexation Area. If Council is comfortable with the concepts supporting establishment of the plan and if Council sees no problem with the language, this option should be adopted. 2. Motion to deny adoption of joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello concerning the Orderly Annexation Area. If Council is not comfortable with the concepts supporting development of the plan or if major changes need to be made to the language within the document, this alternative should be selected. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports adoption of the resolution for a number of reasons. The City and Township have spent many hours and tax dollars arm wrestling over annexation issues. This agreement will establish certain understandings that should limit some future conflicts. In addition, the agreement provides a framework for annexation that will allow landowners to plan for future development. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 Staff does not pretend that conflicts regarding annexation wili not continue to occur Qespite Lne eataoilshment or this agreement. It is hoped, however, that this agreement will establish certain understandings that over time will promote a cooperative and efficient annexation process. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of joint resolution; Staff report associated with earlier review of the document. M URBANIZATION PLAN `L JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO CONCERNING THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA WHEREAS; reoccurring boundary adjustments have occurred between the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for the last twenty years and uncertainty as to future adjustments has resulted; and WHEREAS; responding to requests for boundary adjustments on a case by case basis, apart from an overall plan for urbanization, is expensive, time consuming, and counterproductive; and WHEREAS; it has been difficult for the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello and property owners within the Orderly Annexation Area to plan separately for development and growth; and WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has requested that the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, the City, and the Town work cooperatively in re-examining the future of the Orderly Annexation Area to determine if development is being properly focused; and WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has urged the City and Town to approach the orderly annexation issue with a spirit of cooperation; and ` WHEREAS; it appears to be in the best interest of both parties that joint cooperation and planning between the parties be conducted; and C WHEREAS; the parties want to stabilize and enhance the predictability of boundary adjustments; and WHEREAS; there is a basis for agreement between the parties for accomplishing these goals, and the parties hereto do set forth the terms of this agreement by the following: The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree to the following: CONTINUING THE MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA That the following Orderly Annexation Area In the Town of Monticollo was established by a Minnesota Municipal Board Order on December 8, 1972, as in need of orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 414, of al. URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 1 n/3 j 2. LAND USE GUIDE PLAN l The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, upon their adoption of this policy, approve the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Plan which is attached as Exhibit "B" (hereinafter referred to as the Guide Plan). 3. URBAN SERVICE AREA The area identified within the Guide Plan as the "Urban Service Area" is an area that abuts the City of Monticello and is presently urban or suburban in nature or is about to become urban or suburban. Further, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area. 4. ANNEXATION PROCESS Annexation should be allowed to occur upon the following terms and conditions: A. The property must be located within the above described "Urban Service Area"; B. The property owner must petition both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for annexation; C. The property owner shall submit a development plan to the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; D. The development plan must be of sufficient detail to show it will meet the standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, comprehensive plan, utilities plan, assessment procedures, and financing plan; E. Municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for use within two (2) years from the date of annexation; and F. There Shall be no future petitions for annexation until all provious conditions In the development plan have been compiled with. Prior to final City approval of the development plan, said plan Shall be submitted to the Town of Monticello for review. Concerns expressed by the Town of Monticello shall be addressed prior to formal approval of the development plan by the City of Monticollo. URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 1 03 All efforts will be made to establish development plans that incorporate the land use planning efforts of both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello. No development plan shall be considered by the City under this agreement without written summary of comments submitted by the Town of Monticello to the City of Monticello. If the City receives written approval of the development plan from the Town, a joint petition for annexation shall be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board. If the Town of Monticello does not approve the development plan, the City shall then either reject the development plan, or the issue may be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 414. 5. TERMS The term of this agreement shall be ten (10) years from the effective date of this agreement. Both parties reserve the right to terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days' written notice. The effective date shall be upon the approval of the City Council of the City of Monticello and the Town Board of the Town of Monticello and acceptance by the Minnesota Municipal Board and said subsequent order approving this agreement. 6. LAND USE/ZONING AND PLANNING The zoning and planning throughout the Orderly Annexation Area as described above shall be under the control of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board until annexed to the City of Monticello. If the property is annexed to the City of Monticello, the property shall be designated as agricultural according to the City of Monticello Zoning and Planning Ordinances. Any alteration or change to the zoning classification shall be subject to a public hearing to be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission. The City of Monticello shall notify the Town of Monticello of said land use classification hearing. 7. TAXES Any and all of the property taxes collected in the Orderly Annexation Aroa shall remain the property of tho Town of Monticello. Any and all property taxes collected from annexed properties shall be the property of the City of Monticello after such time that said property actually receives City sewer and water service or after expiration of a period of three (3) years, whichever occurs sooner. URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 3 /J C 8. ISOLATED TOWN PROPERTY Any property within the "Urban Service Area" that becomes or is about to become isolated as a result of annexation proposed under Section 4 shall be submitted for consideration to the Minnesota Municipal Board along with the proposed annexation for consideration by the Minnesota Municipal Board. In general, the creation of such isolated parcels should be avoided. 9. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED ON THE ANNEXATION PLAN AS THE AGRICULTURAL AREA. No development should occur within the orderly annexation area which is outside the "Urban Service Area" as described in the MOAA Annexation Plan unless said development meets the standards of the zoning and subdivision requirements of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, the City of Monticello, and the Town of Monticello. Said development can only occur if all local government standards are complied with or are capable of being complied with in the future. The intent of this paragraph is to strongly discourage development outside the "Urban Service Area" as identified in the Orderly Annexation Plan. CITY OF MONTICELLO Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this day of 19 By Its Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 TOWN OF MONTICELLO Passed and adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Monticello this day of 19 By Its Chairman ATTEST: Town Board Clerk Page 4 .*3 For For For A,ppl cantz City To reship Use Use Use CITY OF MONTICELLO/MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP DEVELOPME,"1T PIAN REVIEW WORKSHEET 8. Approximate acreage and dimensions of lots. 9. Location, right-of-way width, or other public ways, parks, and other public lands. 10. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within three hundred fifty (350) feet, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the subdivider. 11. Sewer and water feasibility study completed by a registered civil engineer. 12. Layout of proposed streets showing the right-of-way widths. 13. Preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks, and dimensions of street frontage. 14. Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and utility easements, intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of such area or areas in acres. 15. Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestion of population. 16. Provision for surface water disposal, drainage, and flood control. 17. Proposed zoning plan for the areas. Comments Page 2 7/89 1i For For For Applicants City Township use Use Use CITY OF MOR'ICELLO/MONTICEI.LO OWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET 18. Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being proposed for the annexation, the Planning Commission shall require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationship between the proposed subdivision and the future annexed subdivision. 19. Other information requested by Engineer, Surveyor, Planning Consultant, Planning Commission, and/or staff. (Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Conmoents Eva Statement of Planning Consultant attached? yes no Statement of Engineering Consultant attached? yes no Pago 3 7/89 Council Agenda - 10/10/89 �®.4 i. 15. Consideration of adopting an agreement authorizing a contract with Township of Monticello outlining annexation process. W .O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to review the proposed joint resolution which spells out understandings and agreements pertaining to lands suitable for annexation and it outlines criteria for annexation. Council may wish to adopt the resolution at the Tuesday meeting. However, it is recommended that it be adopted at a subsequent meeting which would allow you more time to analyze the implications of the agreement. This agreement in its present form was created through the cooperative efforts of City staff, the OAA board, and Tom Salkowski, the County Planner. The Town of Monticello has reviewed the document and adopted it in its present form. As you recall, the OAA has been working on and has adopted a land use/annexation plan which outlines those areas within the OAA that are ripe for annexation versus those areas that should remain agricultural in nature. This plan paves the way for development of the joint agreement, which establishes coimnon understandings regarding the annexation of land identified as being ready for annexation. The OAA plan and the joint agreement are coinpanion documents in that the OAA plan defines the areas ripe for annexation and the joint agreement details specific criteria for annexation. Please note that the document has been approved by the Town in its present form; however, I have suggested a slight change in the language which I have penciled in on your document on page 6. I have approached the Town supervisors with the proposed changes, and it appears that they do not object to the modification. However, the Town has not fornally approved the changes either. I will be attending an upcoming meeting of the Town to gain input from the Town on the final wording. The inejor goals of this agreement are as follows: Reduce cost of individual boundary adjustment decisions by developing overall urbanization plan which provides the framework for efficient decision making. Provide direction that will enable Town, City, and individual property owners to plan separately for development and growth. Provide a framework for development of a cooperative relationship between City and Town which will enhance the potential for proper development of OAA area. 0 40 Council Agenda - 10/10/89 � B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Although Council may wish to adopt the agreement at this time , Staff requests that Council review the document only in anticipation of aioption at a subsequent irzating. This Will give Council sc:.-- time to absorb the document and allow staff time to work with Town Supervisors on final wording. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed joint resolution concerning the OAA. I will be reviewing the document in some detail with you at the meeting. 19 �3 Council Agenda - 11/13/90 14. Consideration of a petition for annexation of the West Klellbcrq Mobile Name. Park. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A number of months ago the MN Pollution Control Agency determined that the on-site sewage disposal system for the west mobile home park was not meeting PCA standards and would need to be upgraded if the mobile home park was to continue it's operation. Earlier this fall, the PCA began the process of issuing Mr. Kjellberg a permit for constructing an on-site conforming system. The City of Monticello was notified of the PCA's intent to issue a permit and asked for comments from the City and effected neighboring residences. The City Engineer, John Badalich, along with Public Works Director, John Simola, met with PCA representatives to review the proposed disposal system and as a result of that meeting, the PCA determined that they had made a mistake in the design criteria and indicated that the mobile home park would be required to develop an on-site system consisting of a two -cell stabilization pond with spray irrigation of the domestic waste water instead of allowing it to be developed into seepage basins as originally proposed. It was also noted by the City representatives that our wastewater treatment plant was originally designed and had the capacity to service not only the mobile home parks but a large area within the OAA area. The PCA agreed that the best solution would be for Mr. Kjellberg to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system which inevitably would require annexation. For the past few months, the City staff has been negotiating and discussing possible annexation with Mr. Kjellberg. Mr. Kjollborg had many concerns including the cost of connecting to the City system, financing of the improvement, and the costs associated with our hook-up charge. Since there did not seam to be any benefiting property owners that could help defray the cost the sanitary sower to the mobile home park at this time, it was determined and agreeable by Mr. Kjollborg that the installation of a force main would be at his expense. The City did have a used lift station that we could offer to sell to Mr. Kjollborg for approximately $10,000 to help defray his cost, but we indicated that we were not agreeable to financing any part of the Improvement at this time. In regard to the normal hook-up foo for a sower connection, the staff proposed a financing plan allowing Mr. Kjollberg five (5) years to pay off the hook-up charge at an interest rate of 6.59 These terms were similar to the terms in the developer's agreement concerning the oast mobilo home park as Council Agenda - 11/13/90 part of the Evergreens subdivision. Additionally, the estimated $20,000 hook-up c ndrge would be adjustdble dL Lhe end of one year based on actual flow into our system. After arriving at these basic understandings that the staff would present to the Council for ultimate approval upon an annexation request, Mr. Kjellberg presented a petition for annexation. From the City's standpoint, it certainly will be beneficial to have the additional sewage flow from the mobile home park into our system as it will provide additional revenue for our sewer fund. On the other hand, annexation of the mobile home park will not generate a large amount of tax revenue but immediately the City would incur an additional $16,000 plus in expenditures for garbage service annually. With the addition of over $1,800 in recycling container costs, our costs are expected to exceed the revenue generated from an economic standpoint. At this time, Mr. Kjellberg has not made any firm plans on how he would connect to the system as we have discussed a force main connection along Highway 25 to a point naar Dundas Road and also he has indicated a possibility of extending the force main across Highway 25 to connect both the east and west parks at the same time. A concern the City should have is whether annexation should occur without some sort of gaurantee that the sower hook-up will occur. While we believe it's environmentally sound to have the mobile home park connected to the City's system, and the resulting sewer fund revenue is certainly welcome, if an actual hook-up did not occur for a number of years there really is no advantage to the City annexing this property without some assurance that the connection will be made soon . It is my understanding that the Township may also have the same concerns about allowing annexation to occur without some sort of guarantee. The joint resolution between the Township and the City concerning annexation procedures provlocsly discussed was intended to primarily cover undeveloped parcels of land and roquired submission of sufficient detailed plane, plate, and utility plans before an annexation petition would be considered. While this petition concerns an already developed mobilo home park, there is logic for following similar guldolines established in the joint resolution. While financing of the utility improvement is not expected to involve the City, an actual plan or time table on how the hook-up would occur has not been presented yet. The joint resolution also allows for the Township Board to review any proposed annexation plans and to provide written comments regarding the plan. The first area that should be addressed before considering the potition for annexation is whether or not the Council is in basic agreement with the conditions outlined and nogotiated in Council Agenda - 11/13/90 regard to the letter of October 30th to Mr. Kjellberg. If the Council is not agreeable witn the staft's recommendation in regard to financing the hook-up charge and other issues in the letter, consideration of the petition may be premature. Assuming the Council is agreeable to the conditions outlined in the letter, the following alternative actions are available. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Council could accept the petition presented by Mr. Kjellberg and forward the request to the Township asking them to enter into a joint annexation agreement resolution. 2. The Council could accept the petition and request the Township to enter a join annexation agreement provided some sort of guarantee is provided by Mr. Kjellberg that 5 the actual hook-up will take place or that the hook-up is 11 actually completed before final approval of the annexation request. C</ ((3y Acknowledge receipt of the petition and tab any action ��%% at this time and forward the petition request to the Township Board for their consideration and comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to follow the intent of our recently adopted urbanization plan with the Township, I feel that it's important that the Township is comfortable with the annexation based on the fact that it will eliminate an environmental problem and result in an immediate hook-up of the sanitary sewer system. I believe the Township representatives will require more evidence that an actual hook-up will occur before approving a joint resolution on annexation. It's also in the beat interest of the City to insure that a hook-up does occur within a reasonable amount of time, otherwise this annexation will really cost us more than we receive. In my discussions with Mr. Kjollborg regarding a guarantee, I do not fool comfortable that this will be obtainable from Mr. Kjollborg and possibly the cleanest way would be to indicate support for the annexation upon Mr. Kjellberg's completion of his construction connection. Likowiso, I fool the Township would also fool more comfortable in allowing annexation to occur if the connection was made first or a guarantee was in place to Insure the connection. As a result, it's the staff's recommendation that the Council adopt alternative #2 or U. By acknowledging the petition and tabling any action until the comments are received from the Township, I believe the Township will also request the same type of guarantee or Council Agenda - 11/13/90 actual hook-up be commenced before their approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Petition for annexation, and copy of letter outlining conditions and understandings concerning annexation. C C November 13, 1990 City of Monticelli Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Construction plans for sewer hookup of K,Iel',berg's M.H. Park Dear Rick, On behalf of the Kjellberg's lnccorporated, I would like to thank you for accepting my application for annexation in to the City of Monticello. We are very happy to become a part of the City In the near future. Our construction plans and budget for 1991 call for us to install a force main from our West Mobile Home Park to the City sewer system. To run easterly from our West Park to Highway 25 and cross the highway. From that point, the main will either run along Highway 25 north to Dundas Road, or east to the easterly hookup of the East Park. I understand this is all subject to engineering approval. Any questions, please call. Thank You! Sincerely, t Kjellb4 Presiden Kjellberg's Inc. ' C� KMK/bas Hwy. 25 South • P.O. Box 999 • Monticolb, MN 55362 Phone (612) 295.2931 • Metro339.2231 • FAX(612)295-299i +I�PZZ23e' 0661 • ; PETITION FOR ANr4EXA' ION - To the Council of the Citv of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota: 1• the undersigned, the owner of the territory described below, hereby request the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, to annex this territory to the City and to extend the City boundaries to Include the same, and for that purpose respectfully state: 1, -The territory to be annexed consists of approximately 120 acres. All of this land lies entirely within the County of Wright, Minnesota, and the description of such land is as follows: SECT -15 TINP-121 RANG -25 UNPLATTED LAND SE S OF A LINE BEG 100.20 RDS S OF SE POST W 19 ROADS N 28D E 14 RDS W 147 RDS TO 1-4 LINE EXC S 2 RDS W OF RD. 2. The territory described above abuts upon the City hrnits at the east boundary thereof and none of it is presently included wi thin the corporate limits of any Incorporated city. 3. All of this territory Is or Is about to become urban or suburban in character. Kent Kj llb g,-Rr.esl Kiellberg's ncorporated Oji, e of the Cita Admimstraror 250 East Broadwav October 30, 1990 Monticello. MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Mr. Kent Kjellberg 1000 Kjellbergs Park Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Kent: This letter is a follow up to our recent discussion and understanding concerning your possible petition to annex your West Kjellbergs Mobile Home Park into the city of Monticello and hook up both your east and west mobile home parks to our sanitary sewer system. In regard to the existing west mobile home park, the City does not intend to require that the existing facility meet the City's current R-4 (mobile home park) zoning requirements. The existing park would be grandfathered in and would be allowed to be regulated by the rules established by the Minnesota Department of Health. At the present time, any expansion proposed to enlarge either the west or east mobile home park would have to follow the City's zoning and regulations concerning mobile home parks. In addition, should significant infrastructure improvements be necessary, the City's regulations may apply if the utility systems are connected to the City's system. Assuming annexation took place for your west mobilo home park, the present hookup chargo established by the City would apply. The present hookup charge is based on a maximum flow of 250 gallons per day for each residential unit, which equates to a $300 per unit hookup charge. I would recommend that the City establish a hookup formula initially for each mobile home based on a $100 charge per housing unit with the understanding that the actual flow would be measured and adjusted at tho and of one year if the $100 charge is not sufficient. The City would agree that each unit could be adjusted to a maximum of $150 depending on the actual flow after the one-year time period. This $100 charge equates to a maximum average usage of 83 gallons per unit per day. /f/ Mr. Kent Kjellbe rg October 30, 1990 Page 3 The general terms and conditions noted in this letter will be supported by the City staff upon your submission of a petition for annexation, but all conditions listed are subject to final City Council approval. Sincerely, C/C F MONTICE,LI,A/ Rick Wolfs eller City Administrator RW/kd cc: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator John Simola , Public Works Director Ken May s, Mayor File ✓ (. ly Council Agenda - 11/13/90 15. Consideration of fund transfers for 1990,. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the end of the year rapidly aproaching, a few housekeeping items should be approved by the Council concerning fund transfers to close out unneeded construction funds/bond funds and other transfers for the budget. Enclosed as a supplement is a listing of all the transfers recommended for approval. The following is a brief explanation of each transfer requested for approval: 1. This transfer of $138,000 is needed to cover the two loans made by the EDA to Tappers, Inc. for $88,000 and $50,000 to Mike Muller for the theater expansion. These funds up to $200,000 were initially authorized by the City Council in last year's budget appropriations. 2. A transfer of $4,639.37 is needed to close out the Park/Recreation Fund which was initially setup to account for all expenditures relating to the NSP Softball Field Development. This fund currently has a deficit of this amount. 3. A transfer of $33,305.78 is recommended from the Capital Outlay Fund to the Highway 25 Bridge Capital Project Fund to eliminate the deficit that has accrued over the past few years. The deficit is a result of the City's share of the Highway 25 Bridge Project which includes the installation of signals and related work at River Street and Highway 25. 4. Annually, the HRA receives all tax increment revenues associated with all districts and the HRA is required to transfer funds to each tax increment bond issue so that each bond has sufficient funds in the amount of 1058 of the next annual payment duo. 5. A surplus balance of $26,601.02 is remaining in the 71 General Obligation Bond Fund and it is recommended that this fund be closed out with the surplus transferred to the 78 General Obligation Bond which currently has a fund deficit. �1� DV Council Agenda - 11/13/90 6. A surplus balance of $79,792.09 remains in the 73 General Objigatjo.—.icnpr has any debt and it is recommended also that this surplus balance be transferred to the 78 General Obligation Bond . Typically, surplus within bond funds cannot be used for other general purposes other than transferring the funds to a similar type bond issue. a. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the transfers as recommended. 2. Do not approve the transfers. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I recommend for accounting purposes that the above transfers be approved prior to the end of 199 0. Without official action, some unneeded construction funds and/or bond funds will have to remain on our books for another year or our funds will show deficit balances. D. SUPPORTING DATA: List of proposed transfers. 1' 171 G.O. Bond 178 G.O. Bond To close out bond fund - debt paid 26,601.02 '73 G.O. Bond 178 G.O. Bond To close out bond fund - debt paid 79,792.09 (S Recommended Transfers 1990 From To Purpose Amount Liquor Fund EDA Fund For funding (2) GMEF loans $138,000.00 Capital Outlay Park/LCMR To eliminate Fund Fund fund deficit for NSP Ballpark Construction 4,639.37 Capital Outlay Hwy 25 Bridge To eliminate Fund Capital Proj. deficit created by City share of Bridge Const. incl. signal coat 33,305.78 HRA Fund TIF Bonds Annual trfs. of tax increments collected to support debt pmts. 134,725.00 171 G.O. Bond 178 G.O. Bond To close out bond fund - debt paid 26,601.02 '73 G.O. Bond 178 G.O. Bond To close out bond fund - debt paid 79,792.09 (S Council Agenda - 11/13/90 16. Consideration of setting a meeting for the purpose of CD 14U11DIIl IIy i iii baiuPri::ouv pollcy fcr nr. nuniar. pC S.^.GLIIC1 (R.W) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With only two regular meetings scheduled before the end of the year, the Council may wish to set a special meeting for the purpose of establishing the 1991 salary/wages for nonunion personnel. The procedures used by the Council have varied from year to year with no set formal policy on how the wages were considered. In some years, the Council established a pool of money that consisted of the coat -of -living increase and additional funds for performance related salary adjustments, with the City Administrator reporting back to the Council with recommendations for each individual. There have been some differences of opinion on this method. In other years (the last two years), the Council has merely established a cost -of -living percentage that applied to everyone. Under this method, performance evaluations have little value or effect in relation to pay adjustments although evaluations in general are still valuable for other purposes. While the purpose of this item is to determine when the Council wishes to discuss 1991 salaries, I believe the City should seriously consider adopting a general salary or wage policy guideline. This policy would be in addition to our obligations under the comparable worth law. From my observation, n►ost employees do not know what to expect as far as possible salary adjustments each year, as to whether it will be based on a cost -of -living adjustment across the board for all employees or whether other factors may come into play. In regard to the comparable worth law, the City will have to be addressing the comparable worth plan again in 1991. A new report will have to be submitted to the Department of Employee Relations and the City will be under now guidelines to be in compliance. At this point, I am not sure if we aro still in compliance with the law as the new regulations stress that female employees in a comparable job class with ma to employees can not be consistently paid less than their male counterparts. Further study will be needed to see if any adjustments are nocessary to avoid being penalized $100.00 per day. Since our comparable worth plan is now almost fivo years old, it may be nocossary to again utilize outside consultants to review our job evaluations to insure that we can comply. Regardlean of comparable worth plan revisions, wo have never had a true salary policy that the employees understand. I believe many eluostions can be addressed and answered through a salary policy such as: What to the starting pay for each position? When can an employee expect any adjustment other Council Agenda - 11/13/90 than annually? Does the employee move up within a pay range, ::r.Q.-, and ,..-...ia..c. V .^. .. _ the gad range _ adjusted or does itstrictly reflect cost -of -living adjustments granted, etc.? Are there any adjustments for seniority, longevity, performance accomplishments, etc.? 1 really think the City needs to establish a general policy that all employees are informed of and understand. Unfortunately, at this time I am not in a position to even make a recommendation on a policy, I only know that I believe one should be established. With the enactment of our current comparable worth plan, we have never adjusted any pay ranges established in 1986 and no method has been created for any individual to move upward within this pay range other than through coat -of -living adjustments. With only coat -of -living being considered, the effect is that every employee stays at the same position they were at when the plan was originally adopted. I'm not necessarily indicating that this is wrong, only no policy has ever been established that indicates this and if the intent was to have some flexibility within a pay range, I'm not sure how anyone is to accomplish this. While the overall general salary structure for employees may have to be discussed by the Council next year because of the comparable worth revisions, the action needed tonight by the Council is to establish whether or not a special meeting is necessary for considering salary adjustments for next year. If the same procedure is used to adjust salaries as in the past two years, i.e. a percentage adjustment for everyone, it may not be necessary to set a special meeting for this purpose. It could be handled merely as an additional agenda item at a future Council meeting. If the Council wishes to discuss in more detail the entire salary package including benefit cost etc. and performance related issues, then it is suggested a seperato mooting may be nocessary. B. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Council Agenda - 11/13/90 11. Consideration of resolution authorizinq execution of tax A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the recent tax increment bond sales approved for Tappers, Inc. and Remmele Engineering, a pledge agreement between the City Council and the HRA is needed to allow for the tax increment revenue received annually to be transferred from the HRA to the Dept Funds. A similar type pledge agreement has been authorized by both the City Council and HRA for all of our tax increment financing district bonds. The pledge agreement must be executed by both parties prior to the closing of the bond sale scheduled for November 20, 1990. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the pledge agreement for the $305,000 G.O. tax increment bonds between the HRA and City Council. 2. Do not adopt. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the resolution and accompaning tax increment pledge agreement be approved. The HRA will be meeting next week to also approve the pledge agreement. Without approval, the bond proceeds will be delayed from this sale. D. SUPPORTING DATA, i,,Af/ Copy of resolution. ��� CI November 1, 1990 Mr. Rick Woifsteller City Administrator 250 Broadway P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: City of Monticello $305,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990D Our Pile No. MN190-34 Dear Rick: Enclosed please find forms of resolutions for the City and the HRA to adopt approving execution and delivery of pledge agreements relating to the captioned bonds. Would you see that these are considered on November 12th? If you have questions or comments regarding this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, 1 Barbara L. Portwood BLP:kg Enclosures HOi.MES & CRAVEN I'1I.\RI I.R fU BARBARA L. Powwoo) ATI—y al Law 1;0 PiI1 burl Crmr:, �tinmvpaN .�tinmwrr'V0: lekpe«me INI! 1lt.vS00 Di— DW16121 ))7921! 16131!)7.0)10 November 1, 1990 Mr. Rick Woifsteller City Administrator 250 Broadway P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: City of Monticello $305,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990D Our Pile No. MN190-34 Dear Rick: Enclosed please find forms of resolutions for the City and the HRA to adopt approving execution and delivery of pledge agreements relating to the captioned bonds. Would you see that these are considered on November 12th? If you have questions or comments regarding this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, 1 Barbara L. Portwood BLP:kg Enclosures CERTIFICATE OF MINUTES City: Monticello County: Wright State: Minnesota Governing Body: City Council Meeting: A meeting of the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City") held on the day of November, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers, 250 Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota. Council Members Present: Council Members Absent: Documents: A copy of the Resolution Authorizing Execution of Two Tax Increment Pledge Agreements Certification: I, the City Administrator of the City dohereby certify the following: :Attached hereto Is a true and correct copy of a resolution on file and of record In the offices of the City, which resolution was adopted by the Council at the meeting referred to above. Said meeting was a regular meeting of the Council, was open to the public, and was held at the place at which meetings of the Council are regularly held. Council member moved the adoption of the attached resolution. The motion for adoption of the attached resolution was seconded by Council member . A vole being taken on the motion, the following voted In favor of the resolution: and the following voted against the resolution: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly pawed and adopted. The attached resolution is in full force and effect and no action has been taken by the Council which would in any way alter or amend the attached resolution. Witness my hand officially as the acting City Administrator of the City, this day of November, 1990. City Administrator CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA RESOLD nON NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TWO TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10 (together, the "Districts"), prepared Tax Increment Financing Plans (the "Plans") for the Districts, and has heretofore approved the Plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello (the "City") has heretofore approved the Plans; and WHEREAS, in order to finance certain public redevelopment costs of the HRA's Redevelopment Project No. 1 relating to the District, it is necessary that the City enter into a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 489-178, securing $305,000 aggregate principal amount of the City's General Obllgation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990D and the interest thereon, issued to finance such public redevelopment costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: That the Mayor and the City Administrator of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Tax Increment Pledge Agreements (the "Agreements") on behalf of the City In substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and incorporated herein by reference. Adopted this day of November, 1990. Attest: C City Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA and THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA THIS AGREEMENT Is made and entered into on or as of the day of , 1990, by and between the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), and The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "HRA"). WHEREAS, the HRA established Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 (the "District"), prepared the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for the District, and approved the Plan, as modified, on August 13, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City approved the Plan, as modified, on August 13, 1990; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority conferred by Minnesota Statutes, Section 489.178, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, the City has agreed to finance certain public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the HRA In Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project") through the Issuance of general obligation bonds of the City, designated the $305,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990D (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the HRA has agreed to pledge certain tax Increment revenues from the District and from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10 to the City for the payment of the principal of and Interest on the Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, subd. 2, any agreement to pledge tax increment revenues must be made by written agreement by and between the HRA and the City and must be filed with the County Auditor of Wright County; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the HRA mutually agree to the following. (1) The City will sell the Bonds. (2) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds and the earnings from the Investment of such proceeds will be made available to the HRA to pay or reimburse the HRA for public redevelopment costs paid, Incurred, or to be paid or Incurred, by the HRA In the Project, $140,000 of which are to be used by the HRA In connection with the District. (3) All tax Increment generated by the District from and after the date of this Agreement shall be deposited In a special fund (the "Project Fund") held by the HRA. The HRA hereby pledges to the payment of the principal and Interest on the Bonds, tax Increment from the Project Fund in an amount equal to 105% of the following annual principal and interest payments due on the Bonds: A-1 (4) Not later than five (5) business days prior to each February 1 and August 1 debt service payment date for the Bonds, there shall be transferred from the Project Fund to the Debt Service Account maintained by the City for the payment of the Bonds, an amount which when taken together with amounts already on deposit in the Debt Service Account, is equal to the principal and Interest next due on the Bonds. If at any time the Project Fund contains an amount in excess of the amount to be transferred to the Debt Service Account for the payment of the Bonds on the following two debt service payment dates (excluding debt service payment dates for which interest is payable from proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Debt Service Account), then such excess amounts shall be available to the HRA to pay or reimburse the HRA for public redevelopment costs paid, incurred, or to be paid or Incurred, by the HRA in the District. (5) Without regard to anything In this Agreement to the contrary, tax increment generated by the District shall be available to pay principal of and Interest on both the Bonds and any other obligations Issued by the City, HRA or any other public body to finance public redevelopment costs paid or Incurred by the HRA In the District. (6) When the entire public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid and all principal and Interest on the Bonds and other obligations issued to finance the public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid, and the City has been reimbursed from collections of tax Increment from the Project for collections of general ad valorem taxes used to pay principal of and Interest on the Bonds, then the IlRA shall report such fact to the City Council of the City and the HRA shall submit a final statement of such payments. Upon audit of this statement and approval thereof by the City Council, lhepayment of the expendituresof the LIRA In the Project shall be reported to the County Auditor of Wright County. (7) An executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor of Wright County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the HRA have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto affixed and such signatures and seals to be attested, as of the day and year first above written. A-2 Total Year of Principal Maturity Principal Interest & Interest 1992 $ 0 15,326 $ 15,326 1993 15,000 12,261 27,261 1994 15,000 11,005 26,005 1995 15,000 9,730 24,730 1996 15,000 8,425 23,425 1997 20,000 7,120 27,120 1998 20,000 5,340 25,340 1999 20,000 3,560 z3, 560 2000 20,000 1,780 21,780 (4) Not later than five (5) business days prior to each February 1 and August 1 debt service payment date for the Bonds, there shall be transferred from the Project Fund to the Debt Service Account maintained by the City for the payment of the Bonds, an amount which when taken together with amounts already on deposit in the Debt Service Account, is equal to the principal and Interest next due on the Bonds. If at any time the Project Fund contains an amount in excess of the amount to be transferred to the Debt Service Account for the payment of the Bonds on the following two debt service payment dates (excluding debt service payment dates for which interest is payable from proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Debt Service Account), then such excess amounts shall be available to the HRA to pay or reimburse the HRA for public redevelopment costs paid, incurred, or to be paid or Incurred, by the HRA in the District. (5) Without regard to anything In this Agreement to the contrary, tax increment generated by the District shall be available to pay principal of and Interest on both the Bonds and any other obligations Issued by the City, HRA or any other public body to finance public redevelopment costs paid or Incurred by the HRA In the District. (6) When the entire public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid and all principal and Interest on the Bonds and other obligations issued to finance the public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid, and the City has been reimbursed from collections of tax Increment from the Project for collections of general ad valorem taxes used to pay principal of and Interest on the Bonds, then the IlRA shall report such fact to the City Council of the City and the HRA shall submit a final statement of such payments. Upon audit of this statement and approval thereof by the City Council, lhepayment of the expendituresof the LIRA In the Project shall be reported to the County Auditor of Wright County. (7) An executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor of Wright County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the HRA have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto affixed and such signatures and seals to be attested, as of the day and year first above written. A-2 ATTEST: CITY OF MONTICELLO By Administrator Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST: THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA BY Secretary Chairman A -J EXHIBIT B TAR INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA and THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOORITY IN AND FOR THEE CITY OF MIONTICELLO, MINNESOTA THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on or as of the day of , 1990, by and between the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), and The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "HAA"). WHEREAS, the HRA established Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10 (the "District'), prepared the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for the District, and approved the Plan, as modified, on , 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City approved the Plan, as modified, on ,1990; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority conferred by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, the City has agreed to finance certain public redevelopment costs to be Incurred by the HRA in Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project') through the Issuance of general obligation bonds of the City, designated the $305,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990D (the "Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the HRA has agreed to pledge certain tax Increment revenues from the District and from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 to the City for the payment of the principal of and Interest on the Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, subd. 2, any agreement to pledge tax Increment revenues must be made by written agreement by and between the HRA and the City and must be flied with the County Auditor of Wright Countyl NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the HRA mutually agree to the following: (I) The City will sell the Bonds. (2) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds and the earnings from the Investment of such proceeds will be made available to the NRA to pay or reimburse the HRA, for public redevelopment costs paid, Incurred, or to be paid or Incurred, by the HRA In the Project, $165,000 of which are to be used by the HRA In connection with the District. (0) All tax Increment generated by the District from and after the date of this Agreement shall be deposited In a special fund (the "Project Fund") held by the HRA. The HRA hereby pledges to the payment of the principal and Interest on the Bonds, tax Increment from the Project Fund In an amount equal to 105% of the following annual principal and Interest payments due on the Bonds: B-1 (4) Not later than five (5) busine.s days prior to each February 1 and August 1 debt service payment date for the Bonds, there shall be transferred from the Project Fund to the Debt Service Account maintained by the City for the payment of the Bonds, an amount which when taken together with amounts already on deposit In the Debt Service Account, is equal to the principal and interest next due on the Bonds. If at any time the Project Fund contains an amount in excess of the amount to be transferred to the Debt Service Account for the payment of the Bonds on the following two debt service payment dates (excluding debt service payment dates for which Interest is payable from proceeds of the Bonds deposited In the Debt Service Account), then such excess amounts shall be available to the HRA to pay or reimburse the HRA for public redevelopment costs paid, incurred, or to be paid or incurred, by the HRA in the District. (5) Without regard to anything In this Agreement to the contrary, tax increment generated by the District shall be available to pay principal of end interest on both the Bonds and any other obligations Issued by the City, Ii RA or any other public body to finance public redevelopment costs paid or incurred by the HRA in the District. (6) When the entire public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid and all principal and interest on the Bonds and other obligations issued to finance the public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid, and the City has been reimbursed from collections of tax increment from the Project for collections of general ad valorem taxes used to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds, then the HRA shall report such fact to the City Council of the City and the HRA shall submit a final statement of such payments. Upon audit of this statement and approval thereof by the City Council, the payment of the expenditures of the LIRA in the Project shall be reported to the County Auditor of Wright County. (7) An executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor of Wright County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the HRA have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto affixed and such signatures and seals to be attested, as of the day and year first above written. B-2 Total Year of Principal Maturitv Principal Interest diInterest 1992 E 0 18,083 $ 18,083 1993 15,000 14,466 29,466 1994 15,000 13,210 28,210 1995 20,000 11,935 31,935 1996 20,000 10,195 30,195 1997 20,000 8,455 28,455 1998 25,000 6,675 31,675 1999 25,000 4,450 29,450 2000 25,000 2,225 27,225 (4) Not later than five (5) busine.s days prior to each February 1 and August 1 debt service payment date for the Bonds, there shall be transferred from the Project Fund to the Debt Service Account maintained by the City for the payment of the Bonds, an amount which when taken together with amounts already on deposit In the Debt Service Account, is equal to the principal and interest next due on the Bonds. If at any time the Project Fund contains an amount in excess of the amount to be transferred to the Debt Service Account for the payment of the Bonds on the following two debt service payment dates (excluding debt service payment dates for which Interest is payable from proceeds of the Bonds deposited In the Debt Service Account), then such excess amounts shall be available to the HRA to pay or reimburse the HRA for public redevelopment costs paid, incurred, or to be paid or incurred, by the HRA in the District. (5) Without regard to anything In this Agreement to the contrary, tax increment generated by the District shall be available to pay principal of end interest on both the Bonds and any other obligations Issued by the City, Ii RA or any other public body to finance public redevelopment costs paid or incurred by the HRA in the District. (6) When the entire public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid and all principal and interest on the Bonds and other obligations issued to finance the public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid, and the City has been reimbursed from collections of tax increment from the Project for collections of general ad valorem taxes used to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds, then the HRA shall report such fact to the City Council of the City and the HRA shall submit a final statement of such payments. Upon audit of this statement and approval thereof by the City Council, the payment of the expenditures of the LIRA in the Project shall be reported to the County Auditor of Wright County. (7) An executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor of Wright County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the HRA have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto affixed and such signatures and seals to be attested, as of the day and year first above written. B-2 L ATTEST: CITY OF MONTICELLO By Administrator Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST; THE HOUSING AN D REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA By Secretary Chairman H-1 CITY OF MONTICELLO Monthly Building Department Report Month of n_h_ r PERH:TS Ali unes l\ PEAR! to ISSUED Month Leat Year Ti,l. In— tI..thh MT�hlten „''F,17FiliRY.R tta°•Pnhcr t5- Uctrf rar To Data To Data RrSIDENTIAL 11 bar 15 IB 12 99 123 V:* S 109,200.00 S 214,000.00 S 192,300.00 0 2,873,100.00 S 2,084,200.011 roes 980.49 1,841.26 1,579.14 20.949.27 17,209.75 a.rrnarge. 24.35 104.00 95.20 1,427.10 997.30 COMMERCIAL flualmr 4 7 2 22 26 valuation 40.8[R7. no 19.51 )0.00 9.500.00 1,747,900.00 2.744,300.00 Fe.. 411.70 326.85 95.00 11,772.55 14.104.36 S-1-gao 48.90 9.50 4.75 872.20 1,399.40 INIRISTn I AL Mcab.r I A vetoer ion 22.400.00 2.A58. 3D0.00 Feer, 228.60 17,761.70 Surcharg.. 11.70 1,429.15 PLUMBING Nu.ber 2 4 2 33 39 Faon 33.00 77.00 48.00 1,037.00 1,076. o0 surcharges 1,00 4.00 1.00 16.50 21.50 OTHERS Number 1 T 7 valuation x0.00 00.00 95,0011.00 year, 10.00 70.00 1,110,80 OurchergaA ,50 3.50 $0.00 TOTAL 110. Pr3U11TO 21 26 16 161 2113 TOTAL VALUATION 1150.000.00 255.900.00 201.800.00 4,621,000.00 7, 7fl 1, 800.011 TOTAL FrEB 1,422.19 2,483.71 1.122.14 33,828.82 52.762.61 TOTAL BURCIIARCEII 17,75 129.211 10D.95 2.319.30 3,897.35 CRIRAMPT MDNTII ►'.'EO NumUeT to flat. Pt31MIT MATIIAF. Rum Der PERMIT SURCHARGE valuation Thle year fa.t V. - single r.elly 3 01,255,11 S 71,70 0 155.400.00 26 22 will.. 0 O Mutti-raelly Y 2 Com.roI 1 6 1 Indus ural 4 .7 R... Cmegaa 1 94.50 3,75 7,500.00 1 RlVrte 0 0 Pubs/o Building. 1 0 ALTERATION OR RT.PA/R Dwll/ng. 13 416.65 27.05 49,600.00 72 55 Camer.f.t 2 326.85 9.50 19,5.0.00 20 21 In&MI Al 1 228.60 11.20 22,400.00 4 0 PLUMAIND Ali TFPae 4 77.00 4.00 39 33 AC1:E118ORY BTRUCTURES D.tmiag Poole 2 O Decks 1 iS.Oa .50 1.sou. 00 16 13 Tru"I'momy PERMIT 0 0 UEMOLITIOM 1 10.00 .50 5 7 TOTALS 26 2,483.71 129.20 255,900.00 - 203 161 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT Menti of nrmsrm . 19Jtn PERMIT ="ER OEBCRIPT:ON TYPE NME/IGCATION VALUATION PERMIT rE SURCHARGE PLUKBI,`rG SURCHARGE 90-1581 Xauea R-1,1.11. AD Laurance 6 Lucille Clausen/109 Linn St. 1.!00.00 15.00 .30 90-1582 gouaa 6 Garage Ra reel AD Clara Anderson/519 E. River Sc cast 1.700.00 IS.00 .50 90-1587 8aaenent PSnish AD Jack 4 Rare Harran/2801 0 kvIaw Lane 1,700.00 13.00 .50 90-1584 Attached Corsgm RG rilka 6 Dolly Schmidt/1805 V. giver Street 7.700.00 94.50 7.75 90-1583 Nouse Be root AD Tad Pernm/524 E. 3rd Straat 1,500.00 15.00 .30 90-1386 R. A Garega SP Velua Plue Xomasl121 Croeus Lane 31,000.00 177.50 25.55 20.00 .50 90-1587 Oack AD A- artmsmo/710 Y. Broadway 1,700.00 15.00 .SO 90-1588 9torags Building AD Mnrk 6 Wanda Rraanar/1009 Golf Course Rd 1,500.00 I5.00 .50 90-1589 Nouse end Garage S/ Value Plue Hames/125 Crocus Lana 53.200.00 186.01 26.60 27.00 .50 90-1390 Caregs Add Stlon AD G.rald 6 Mertens Xaliman/418 ...3rd Street 1.500.00 I5.00 .30 90-1391 gouaa Ra cool AD Rtchord Cerlsan/400 E. 7cd Bt root 1.500.00 I5.00 .50 90-1392 Additton,ln[. 6 Est. Remodel AD Ron 6 Candt Michaelis/623 Y. 3rd Stra.c 31,100.00 291.65 13.35 14.00 .50 90-159] Garage Add Stlon AD Art bitter/213 Naw Straat 2.000.00 20.00 1.00 90-1194 Heuaa 6 Care{e ..roof AD Adeline P/arco11129 V. R1vsr Str.at 1,500.00 IS.00 .50 90-Il93 Building RaraaP AI Bunny Prssh Poodsl206 Y. 4tM1 Straat 22.400.00 128.60 11.20 90-1396 Xouae 6 Ga role SI Payne Bul Ida rs/2740 Rad Oak Lano !1,100.00 377.50 25.50 20.00 .30 90-1597 Nouse 6 Garage Rashingla AD Lae 6 Marvel Tlun0all/11 II Y. Rtwar Bt. 1.500.00 15.UU .50 90-1398 Storega Bu Slding AD Ca rel Anundsen/501 V. Broadway, 1.500.00 15.00 .50 90-1599 Oemollsh Building AC Wright County State Bank/117 V. groodway 00.00 10.00 .50 90-1600 Interior Resadel AC The Valnut Seven120, V. 7th Straat 1,500.00 15.00 .50 90-1601 9ersIn in Osck AD Willis. glnker/2701 Red Oak Lan. 1,500.00 15.00 .50 90-1602 Building Addlt ion Foot logs AC Mlke Muslla r/119 E. Broadway 18,000.00 I89.00 9.00 TOTAL$ 955.900.00 3,169.76 125.20 77.00 4.0( PINI REVTEV 90-1386 Nous: A Cargs 91 Value Plus Romeo/121 Crocus Lan. 77.75 90-ISB6 Nouse A Corsge SI Ve1ue Plus llomes/125 Crocus Lana 3..60 90-1596 House 6 Cara. SI Payne guildere/7160 gad Od Lan. 31.75 90-1602 Bu tiding. Addition Footings AC Mlke Muell.r/119 E. Broadrry 122.95 TOTAL PLAN REVIEW 1 736.95 TOTAL REVENUE 2,612.91 COUNCIL UPDATE November 13, 1990 Variance requests approved by the Planninq Commission. (J.0.) The following variance requests were approved by the Planning Commission 11/7/90. If any member of the Council objects to this action, please let staff know and we will place the item on the next Council agenda. If no objections or appeals are submitted within six (6) days of the Planning Commission Recommendation, the variance stands approved. C' C Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow construction of an attached qaraqe within the side va rd setback requirement. Applicant, Mark and Joanne Burandt. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mark and Joanne Burandt are proposing to construct an attached garage to within 5 feet from the side lot line from the northeast portion of the proposed garage addition. Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the placement of the house on the lot, the Burandts would have been able to construct only a 21 -foot wide garage. The garage, as noted on the enclosed site plan, is set back from the front most portion of the house to allow entrance from the outside through a garage entrance door and up a set of steps to enter the existing entry located on the east side of the house. The Burandts are proposing that the garage be placed 5 feet from the side lot line. We have a 6 -foot drainage and utility easement on that side of the property and would like to request that if the variance is approved, it be approved for only a 4 -foot variance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the side yard setback requirement. 2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the side yard setback requirement. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow placement of the proposed garage addition to within 6 feet of the side lot line. Placement 6 feet from the property line will ensure that the northeast corner of the proposed garage would not be placed on a public utility easement. The rationale for approval of the variance request is that the hardship was created by the placement of the house on the lot. A garage could he constructed within the minimum setback requirement of 10 feet, but that would allow only a 21 -foot attached garage and would not provide enough interior space for an entrance platform. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan; Copy of tho ordinance section on the mini mum Csetback requirement. 1 D `/ eon ,�'..,I U".r-.r .. (I ".,-,I ------------ G nnu ----------------- T I J I'rV 7 A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the side yard Setback requirement. MARK AND JOANNE SURANDT 1i, L 11 T u PeJ IaNr lTGdm/i^ Gq^G /Yle y; , i In, M. DoT 2 (3 /, < k 3 13glbo�l Gfr,,-r,-S y �V q rl i i Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 3. Public Hearing -•-Consideration of a variance request allowinq expansion a nonconforminq structure in an R-1 zone. AND 4. Consideration of a variancc request allowing construction of an attached garage within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant, David and Dianne Hyttsten. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The variance associated with item #3 was re-evaluated and determined to be unneccessary, as the existing structure does conform to even the strictest interpretation of the ordinance. The remaining portion of this memo applies to item #4 only. Mr. and Mrs. Hyttsten request a variance to the front yard setback requirement that would allow development of a garage within the minimum front yard setback. The Hyttstens propose to construct a 24' X 30' attached garage that would result in a setback of 35-1/2 feet. Under normal circumstances, a 35-1/2 foot setback as proposed would be sufficient; however, in this case, the site is neighboring a homesite with a setback of 107.5 feet --far in excess of the minimum setback of 30 feet. The minimum setback for properties adjacent to properties with a deep setback is established via the formula noted below. When the formula is applied to this situation, the minimum setback is 57.4 feet. SETBACK FORMULA "In residential districts where the adjacent structures exceed the minimum setbacks established in subsection [C) above, the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures within the same block." Setback Formula Applied Setback adjacent house A (Jim Maus) - 107.5 Setback adjacent house B (Vokaty) - 35.5 Average setback - 71.5 Difference - Ave SB/min setback - 41.5 41.5 X 2/3 - 27.4 Minimun setback 30'+ 27.4 - 57.4 Existing setback - 59.5 Proposed setback with addition - 35.5 Degree of nonconformity - 19.9 Why was this forumula developed and what purpose does it serve? This formula was establishod a few years ago to eliminate the potential of placomont of homes on the front of river lots when most, if not all, of the adjoining lots have homes placed in the Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 rear. The ordinance was developed after a home located at 409 East River Street was located at the front of the lot amongst structures placed at the rear of adjoining lots. In response to placement of this house in the front of the lot, area residents and City staff protested the placement of the house in the front of the lot because the house obstructed sight lines and disrupted the continuity created by adjacent homes placed consistently toward the rear of each lot. Despite urgings to move the house back, the house was legally constructed at the 30 -foot setback line. The zoning ordinance was subsequently amended to limit this from happening again. Adoption of the ordinance had an interesting side affect in that depending on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the ordinance, it may have made additions to the front of the Hyttsten property impossible without a variance. The proposal before the Planning Commission is somewhat similar to the situation that instigated the ordinance amendment with the following exceptions. In this case, the subject property is on the corner of the undeveloped Chestnut Street. The home to the east on the other side of Chestnut Street is set back 30 feet, which is close to the proposed addition setback of 30 feet. In other words, the sub ject home is at the edge rather than the middle of an area where homes are placed at a deeper setback. In addition, the home to the east of the site is not actually on the same block; therefore, an argument could be made that the ordinance does not apply, as only one adjacent structure in the same block (Jim Maus house) has a setback in excess of the minimum. The Planning Commission and City Council need to determine if the ordinance was intended to apply to this situation. Has the C ity through creation of the ordinance amendment inadvertently imposed a hardship on the proporty owner, or wan the ordinance devolopec! to address this type of situation? According to Mr. Hyttsten, Jim Maus supports the variance request. Staff has not confirmed this information. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve allowing devolopmont of an addition within the front yard setback. Undor this alternative, Planning Commission could make the motion based on the finding that the variance will not impair the intent of the ordinance because it was intended to apply i to properties where structures on both adjoining properties a are set back greater than 30 foot. 2. Motion to deny the variance requests based on the finding that the applicant falls to demonstrate a unique circumstance' or significant hardship that can be used to justify granting the variance. t Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 Under this scenerio, the Planning Commission would interpret the ordinance regulating setbacks to apply to this situation and find that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated reasons why the ordinance cannot be followed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Given the history behind the development of the section of the ordinance that applies, it appears that it was intended to limit the ability of a property owner to place a home in the front of a lot when adjacent structures are set far back. In this case, only one adjacent structure is set back; therefore, it could be interpreted that the ordinance as not applicable. Finally, it is the view of City staff that construction of the addition as proposed will not tend to depreciate the value of adjoining structures. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map of location of variance request; Excerpt from zoning ordinance; Site plan . 3 1 ` ' T A variance request to a12av expansion of a non -conforming structure in an 8-1 (single family residential) zone. A variance request to allov v construction of an attached garage 1 v ,within the front yard setback requirement. \ t 111 VID @ DIAHM 9YTTSTEN .=r• � I � ,� cSi t0�a ~SRS! nH- Gn s. ule5� a' s�- f j I 3.4 COUNCIL UPDATE November 13, 1990 County Road 75 traffic problems. (J.S.) On October 8th at the request of the City Council, I drafted a letter to the Wright County Highway Engineer and asked him to respond to the letters to the editor and also the petition regarding the speeds and traffic along County Road 75 in Monticello. We received his response on October 22nd. Basically, Mr. Fingelson points out that the City really has no authority over County Road 75 at this time other than to see that existing laws are enforced. In speaking with Don Lindel from the Wright County Sheriff • s Department, enforcement has been stepped up in this area and some restructering in the schedule of the squard cars in our area may provide for additional enforcement beginning on November 10th. I have enclosed copies of the letters for your review. Also, when I spoke to Mr. Fingelson about this matter, I reminded him that the City had requested replacement of the east bound section of bituminous on County Road 75, from Highway 25 to Hart Boulevard. This section has never been replaced and traffic, especially truck traffic east bound, is much noisier due to the condition of the street. Mr. Fingelson indicated that he would like to see this �. section replaced prior to the City meeting it's state aid requirements, as funds mey not be available at that time duo to the County's inability to use the Municipal Maintenance Funds in Monticello after we reach a population of 5 ,000. Mr. Fingelson Is also concerned about completing the traffic signal at County Road 75 and 39 as well as safety improvements to west County Road 75 prior to the City becoming qualified for direct state aid. We have had no response as of yet from Tony Kompanich the district traffic engineer in regard to traffic problems on the east end of County Road 75 on Old Highway 52. I have enclosed a letter written by the Mayor to MNDM on September 20th. 1 will be following up on this in the near future. WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS `i- "E. KAY NE A,High FAL. 68:.738h Wright County Public N'orks Building DAVID K. MONTEREW.f1, P.F.. 1 Huulr No. l Box 97-8 A. isbnl Highway Enp— '� 7� Buffalo. Alinnesota 55313 6927387 Jet. T.H. 2.5 and C.H. 1:i9 RICHARn E. MARQUFTTE R.ght of K'ay Agent Telephone (61 _') 692-7393 6927396 October 29, 1990 Anthony Kempenich District Traffic Engineer Mn /DOT 301 Laurel Street Brainerd, MN 56401 Re: Request for Future Signal Controller Maintenance Agreement CSAH 75/CSAR 39/CR 118 Monticello, MN Dear Tony: Wright County has been monitoring the above referenced intersection since it was reconstructed in 1988. Since that time traffic has increased and th:re has been more requests for signaltzation of the intersection. The intersection was reconstructed to accommodate a future signal and the County feels that it may be justified through the warrant process. One factor, however, is that currently Wright County does not have the personnel or the equipment necessary to maintain the signal controller. We have discussed this situation with some of the other Counties who have signal systems and their response was one of the following: 1. They contracted with nearby large City who had the personnel and equipment until the County had enough signals to justify the equipment and personnel costs. 2. They were close enough to a signal equipment manufacturer whom they cuutracted with t0 maintain the unit. Wright County does not hnv- either one of these options and is reluctant to pursue nignalization until it can obtain the necessary controller maintenance. We would like to be able to formalize an agreement with the State or work off of our technical assistance agreement. This seems to make sense to us due to the fact that Mn/DOT hos several other signals to the City of Monticello it must maintain. Tony Kempenich Oct. 29, 1990 Pg. 2 We request that you respond to us so that we can either start the signal justification process or continue to look elsewhere for potential maintenance arrangements. Since rely, Dave Montebello Assts tant County Engineer pc: Wayne Fingalson, County Engineer hn Simola, Public Works Director DM/Jas IA L WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1Vright County Public Works Building Route No. I - Box 97.8 !o, Buffalo. ,%ftnnesota .55313 E •p� Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 Telephone (612) 6827383 October 22, 1990 Mr. John Simola Public Works Director City of Monticello P. 0. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Subject: Traffic Concerns on CSAH 75 in City of Monticello Dear John: WAYNE A FI::OAI:ON, P F. High—y Engi—, 662-738A DAVID R. MONTE REIA.0. P.F. A..i.— High..y Engs—, 6g2 —.3A7 RICHARD E. MARQUETTE Right of W.y Agent U..2 .3:6 This letter is in response to the letter I recently received from you regarding traffic concerns on County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 75 in the City of Monticello. As I understand it, the discussion was prompted by a petition which was concerned with truck traffic on CSAH 75 east of T.H. 25. The area of concern has been expanded (from letters to the editors and City Council discussions) to include the portion of CSAH 75 on the vest end of the city near Pinewood Elementary School. I will first respond to concerns expressed in the petition and then will respond to some of the other concerns you mentioned in your letter. Response to Petition The following statements summarize our thoughts an this petition. 1. A County State Aid Highway, by definition, "is projected to carry a relatively heavier traffic volume or functionally classified as collector or arterial as identified on the County's functional plane.... 2. According to the state statutes (Chapter 169.87), "Local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit the operation of vehicles upon any such highway or impose restrictions no to the weight. of vehicles to be operated upon any ouch highway, whenever any such highway, by reason of dateriorntion, rain, snow, or other climntic conditions, will be seriously damaged or destroyed unless the use of vehicles thereon is prohibited or the permissible weights thereof reduced." An example of the described weight restrictions would be seasonal axle land restrictions, due to possible damage to the rondway. In short, this means that trucks can be restricted on a CSAH only if there to damage potential to the road. John Simola Oct. 22, 1990 Pg. 2 This statute also states "Municipalities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may also, by ordinance, prohibit the operation of trucks or other commercial vehicles normally imposed limitations as to the weight thereof, on designated highways , which prohibit ions and limitations shall be designated by appropriate signs placed on such highways." 3. The City of Monticello could prohibit trucks if CSAH 75 became a city street, since the city could then pass an ordinance to limit trucks. CSAH 75 has been a main route for many years dating back to the pre -1-94 days, when it was TH 152. Traffic is increasing and will continue to increase with the development of Monticello and the surround Ing areas. Therefore it does not seem very appropriate for this to be changed to a city street. 4. State Aid (motor fuel tax and vehicle registration fees) monies have been used to improve and maintain this facility. Monies would have to be paid back to the state if this roadway was removed from the County State ALd Highway system. J 5. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) could possibly sign TH i 25 as a truck route but it would not be able to enforce it legally. As we have discussed, John, some trucks apparently prefer CSAH 75 to avoid the recently -added traffic signals on T.H. 25. The key point is that CSAH 75 cannot be posted as a "no truck route". Response to other Concerns Mentioned 1. The "This Is Not A Truck Route" sign which was previously located at the west bound ramp leading to CSAH 75 was removed by Mn/DOT in May of this year. This sign was not enforced and cannot be enforced per the etotutee3. It to unknown why the sign was placed there initially. 2. We feel that the inplaco signing, including the speed limit signs, are appropriate for these sections of CSAH 75. This was verified by Mn/DOT in 1985 when they studied the CSAH 75 segment between T.H. 25 and I-94, in response to requests by the County, City and School District No. 882 _ Enforcement is what to needed, I feel, to help with the problem that people are experiencing. I personally talked today with Lloutenrint Don Lindell of the Wright County Sheriff's Department. He indicated to me that he and Shoriff Hozempa have restructured their schedule for squad care which will provide for much better enforcement In the City of Monticello area. This new plan is scheduled to begin on November 10, 1990. .john Simola Oct. 22, 1990 Pg. 2 This statute also states "Municipalities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may also, by ordinance, prohibit the operation of trucks or other commercial vehicles normally imposed limitations as to the weight thereof, on designated highways, which prohibitions and limitations shall be designated by appropriate signs placed on such highways." 3. The City of Monticello could prohibit trucks if CSAH 75 became a city street, since the city could then pass an ordinance to limit trucks. CSAH 75 has been a main route for many years dating back to the pre -I-94 days, when it was TH 152. Traffic is increasing and will continue to increase with the development of Monticello and the surrounding areas. Therefore it does not seem very appropriate for this to be changed to a city street. 4. State Aid (motor fuel tax and vehicle registration fees) monies have been used to improve and maintain this facility. Monies would have to be paid back to the state if this roadway was removed from the County State Aid Highway system. 5. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) could possibly sign TH 25 as a truck route but it would not be able to enforce it legally. As we have discussed, John, some trucks apparently prefer CSAH 75 to avoid the recently•added traffic signals on T.H. 25. The key point is that CSAR 75 cannot be posted as a "no truck route". Response to other Concerns Mentioned 1. The "This Is Not A Truck Route" sign which was previously located at the west bound ramp leading to CSAH 75 vas removed by Mn/DOT in May of this year. This sign was not enforced and cannot be enforced per the statutes. It is unknown why the sign was placed there initially. We feel that the inplace signing, including the speed limit signu, are appropriate for these sections of CSAH 75. This was verified by Mn/DOT In 1985 when they studied the CSAR 75 segment between T.H. 25 and I-94, in response to requests by the County, City and School District No. 882. Enforcement is what is needed, I feel, to help with the problem that people are experiencing. I personally talked today with Lieutenant Don Llndoll of the Wright County Sheriff's Department. He indicated to me that he and Sheriff Hozempa have restructured their schedule for squad care which will provide for much better enforcement In the City of Monticello area. This now plan is scheduled to begin on November 10, 1990. John Simola Oct. 22, 1990 Pg. 3 I hope this information is helpful to you, John. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any comments or questions regarding anything in this letter. Sincerely, Wayne Fingalso Wrig County Eng neer pc: Don gozempa, Wright County Sheriff Basil Schillewaert, Commissioner File WAP/jas We, the undersiggn=d, would 1 ike to request that East aroa.awav of ronticello, MN, be designated as a residential street. free of trucks.^ _ present, nany tru=ks turn east at the stoplight on Highway 25 end thunder past the many residences. shaking the ground until dishe=_ rattle. This disturbs the main]y residential status of the street. We Feel the trucks should stay on Highway 25 until they get tc I-94 instead of taking a "long -cut" to I••lid an Broadway. � L •l�rc.-r-1 U/11 L- �Z, �.t�,� •`�i ,,],L .�' `.`amu-;'�. .�- �- . Ov-d-a t�Lr�nx. Y111, ,U � �c � • �4. ,� � „� .�.%...1.97 � :.F' ��• ' o Q .� tha'.*underzi d ould like to request that East Broadway y of 0A D. a a sign at ed as ! - .• %*.,!.,�t i a straet ;' free of trucks. At present, many truc),s turn east at the stoplight" an Highway 25 and thunder past the many residences, shaking the ground until dishes rattle. Trits disturbs the mainly residential status of the street. We feel the trucks should stay on H1,3hway =5 until they get to 1-94 instead of taking a "long --cut" to l-" on Sr7 d L It" - "-..rt ax 3�, E- --y,\ CL L/Y%A__t r �i 'We; the7 underai?�}nedr,'wouid i ike to requesti that East 'k�• 6r-aadway of McnLi�..,,o, Flu, ce do% gnated ae s rc:dential street;• free cf trucl,s. At present, many truck= turn east at the stoplight on Highway Z5 and thunder past the many : residences, shaking the ground until dishes rattle. This disturbs the main) y residential status of the street. We feel the trucksshout d- stay on Highway :¢ until they get to ; 1-94 instead of taking a "Iong-cut" to I•-�(gJ/gJ� on Gro dwIY LIA 1 gu C� Ti Mit v�-L �,�yw 1. w✓� D P C `,1�y+l, /, ��LG�ufcE cl cr,�.�f-nv�,�-c. S��n..r�'n..aJLL �' J . • � i C '71 ee r'v1a Ovyl tee a,...,u� �, �- ��-•r .tet,, 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 295-4404 Minnesota Department of Transportation PO Box 370 St. Cloud, MN 56302 September 20, 1990 Attn: Mr. Tony Kempenich District Traffic Engineer Re: Two-way traffic on old Highway 152 on the east end of Monticello Dear Mr. Kempenich: Over the past several years, the City has become increasingly aware of traffic problems on a section of old highway 152 on the eastern portion of our community. This section of old 152 serves as an entrance ramp for eastbound I-94 and serves as a major outlet for the Meadow Oak development. Prior to the construction of the Meadow Oak development, almost all the traffic on this section of read was eastbound and served primarily as an entrance ramp for 1-94. Since the mid -198019, however, the amount of traffic westbound on tnls section is Increasing with each additional home built in Meadow Oak. The City has received numerous reports of eastbound traffic occupying both lanes, and some near misses have occurred. City staff has also observed this situation. City staff has discussed this problem in the past with representatives of MN/DOT and also with Mr. Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County Highway Engineer. It appears that the road design and/or signing is Inadequate; and unless something is done in the near future, a major traffic accident could occur on this section of highway. We insist that MN/DOT again study this Mr. Tony Kempenich September 20, 1990 Page 2 area and take appropriate corrective action. If you have any questions, or if we may be of any assistance in this matter, please contact us. Respectfully, CI?eh MONT+'cy��/�%�� Lw KeMaus Mayor KM/ kd cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator John Simola, Public Works Director./ Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer File c_ 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monficello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 295.4404 Minnesota Department of Transportation PO Box 370 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Attn: Mr. Tony Kempenich District Traffic Engineer September 20, 1990 Re: Two-way traffic on old Highway 152 on the east end of Monticello Dear Mr. Kempenich: Over the past several years, the City has become increasingly aware of traffic problems on a section of old Highway 152 on the eastern portion of our community. This section of old 152 serves as an entrance ramp for eastbound I-94 and serves as a major outlet for Lhe Meadow Oak development. Prior to the construction of the Meadow Oak development, almost all the traffic on this section of road was eastbound and served primarily aa an entrance ramp for 1-94. Since the mid -1980'x, however, the amount of traffic westbound on this section is increasing with each additional home built in Meadow Oak. The City has received numerous reports of eastbound traffic occupying both lanes, and some near misses have occurred. City staff has also observed this situation. City staff has discussed this problem in the past with representatives of MN/DOT and also with Mr. Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County Highway Enginoor. It appears that tho road design and/or signing is Inadequate; and unless something is done in the near future, a major traffic accident could occur on this section of highway. We insist that MN/DOT again study this J 250 Easr Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 295.4404 Wright Co. Dept. of Highways Wright Co. Public Works Bldg. Route 1, Box 97-B Buffalo, MN 55313 October 8, 1990 Attn: Mr. Wayne A. Fingalson, County Engineer Re: Traffic Control on County State Aid Hwy. 75 ill Dear Mr. Fingalson: As per our recent conversation, the City of Monticello and its residents are concerned about the increasing amount of traffic on County Road 75 through Monticello. Most of the concerns stem from periods of high volume truck traffic and speeds in and about the Pinewood Elementary School on the west and the Monticello High School on the east end of town. We have contacted the Wright County Sheriff's Department and asked for their assistance In enforcing the existing traffic regulations. It is our unclorstanding that a few years ago a "No Through Truck Traffic" sign was located near the west bound I-94 exit ramp for County Road 7 5 on the eastern edge of the community. This sign has since disappeared. We would like to know if is possible to place further controls on the type of traffic on County Road 75. In addition, are there any additional approaches that we can take in regard to signing or speed limits in and about the Monticello schools that would increase the level of safety for both pedestrians and motor vehicular traffic in these areae? - I have enclosed copies of Council minutes, letters to the editor, and a petition, which pertain to traffic on County Road 75. Please give our concerns your earliost attention. C Traffic Control Page 2 10/8/90 If you have any questions or if we may be of any assistance in this matter, please contact us. Respectfully, CITY OF MONTICELLO "'4Z John Simola Public Works Director JS/pk Enclosures cc: Mayor and Council, City of Monticello Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Sheldon Johnson, Monticello School Superintendent Don Hozempa, Wright County Sheriff File ✓ C 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, tiAN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Mc-rc: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 295-4404 Wright Co. Dept. of Highways Wright Co. Public Works Bldg. Route 1, Box 97-B Buffalo, MN 55313 Copy October 8, 1990 Attn: Mr. Wayne A. Fingalson, County Engineer Re: Traffic Control on County State Aid Hwy. 75 Dear Mr. Fingalson: As per our recent conversation, the City of Monticello and its residents are concerned about the increasing amount of traffic on County Road 75 through Monticello. Moet of the concerns stem from poriods of high volume truck traffic and speeds in and about the Pinewood Elementary School on the west and the Monticello High School on the east end of town. We have contacted the Wright County Sheriff's Department and asked for their assistance in enforcinq the existing traffic regulations. It Is our understanding that a few years ago a "No Through Truck Traffic" sign was located near the west bound I-94 exit ramp for County Road 75 on the eastern edge of the community. This sign has since disappeared. We would like to know if is possible to place further controls on the type of traffic on County Road 15. In addition, are there any additional approaches that we can take in rogard to signing or speed limits in and about the Monticello schools that would increase the level of safety for both pedestrians and motor vehicular traffic in these areas? K I have enclosed copies of Council minutes, lettere to the editor, and a petition, which pertain to traffic on County Road 75. Please give our concerns your oarlieet attention. J 250 East Broadway Monticello, NIN 55362-9243 I'hone:(612) 295-2711 \leiro: (612) 333-5731) Aamr�h \lae Wright County Department of Highways co C-11 Wright County Public Works Building Dan ahonigen Route 1, Box 97B NnFai, Buffalo, MN 55313 5hide, Ande,wn u'u..en Smnh Attn: Mr. Wayne A. Fingalson Rid WalJeulle, County Highway Engineer AAd....­­.L C"mn nn+D...tn n,n, Re: Five-year highway construction and bridge l O;.Nedl Improvement meeting r„m. u•nt, John Simnln Dear Mr. Fingalson: c^n Amir^°^ We wish to thank you for your recent notification of the upcoming five-year highway improvement plan public al., Anmp,-ha4 hearing scheduled for March 15. The City of Monticello asks that your office and the Wright County Board of Commissioners consider the following improvements within Lhe city of Monticello for IncorporaLloll into your five-year plan. 1. Completion of the traffic signal system at the intersoetion of County Road 75, East County Road 39, and County Road 118. 2. Safety improvements to the two-lano portion of west County Road 75. 3. Roplacoment of the bituminous surface on the mllling/overlay test portion of eastbound County Road 75 from State Highway 25 to Hart Boulevard. The City asks that a representative be permitted to nddreas these Issues during the public hearing portion Of Lhe upcoming meeting. -t. �1�� t �L� March 13, 1990 MON710ELLO 250 E:w BroaJ{{•ac \Lmcicell.a \1V 553b2•1_145 Ph,mr:(612) 295.2711 Mar,,: (612) 333-5731) Wright County Department of Highways c.,.c.. .a Wright County Public Works Building n BI—g,. Route 1, Box 97B Fa„ Fan Buffalo, MN 55313 ShA, A.J...... n'­;,,Smi,h Attn: Mr. Wayne A. Fingalson .{Jm'""" County Highway Engineer A,•n,anr .{Jrn�rr, c,mm�,,,.,.�k,,,,;m,,,, Re: Five-year highway construction and bridge mi O',Nedl improvement meeting J.h., Si 1. Dear Mr. Fingalson: P�dJ�n� (`a�, �,l , LAmi.•.,^r We wish to thank you for your recent notification of e..,,wR,,,t4.i.a•,..�. the upcoming five-year highway improvement plan public hat, hearing scheduled for March 15. The City of Monticello asks that your off ice and the Wright County Board of Commissioners consider the following improvements within the city of Monticello for incorporation into your five-year plan. 1. Completion of the traffic signal system at the intersection of Cmint•y Rnad 75, FAAt. County Road 39 , and County Road 118. 2. Safety improvements to the two-lane portion of West County Road 75. 3. Replacement of the bituminous surface on the mil ling/overlay test portion of eastbound County Road 75 from State Highway 25 to Hart Boulevard. The City asks that a representative be permitted to address these Issues during the public hearing portion of the upcoming meeting. l "x Mr. Wayne Fingalson March 13, 1990 Page 2 If you have any questions, or if we may be of any additional assistance, please contact us. Respectfully, C)S/ITY OF MONTICELLO John E. Simola Public Works Director JES/kd cc: Ken Maus, Mayor Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator JS File J