Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 06-10-1991AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 10, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 28, 1991. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Public hearing and consideration of approving a resolution for modification of the Redevelopment Project Plan for Tax Increment Finance District Plans Nos. 1-1 through 1-11 and for establishment of Tax Increment Finance District No. 1-12 and adoption of the Tax Increment Plan relating thereto. 5. Consideration of a preliminary plat request of Outlet I, Meadow Oaks subdivision, to be entitled Briar Oakes Estate. Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. 6. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone Outlet 1, Meadow Oaks subdivision, from an R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to R-1 (single family residential) zone. Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. 7. Consideration of resolution accepting petition, ordering feasibility report, accepting feasibility report, calling for a public hearing, and ordering plans and specifications for Project 91-2 (Briar Oakes Estate). 8. Consideration of approval of developer agreement governing City/Doveloper -installed Improvements --Briar Oakes Estate Phase I. 9. Consideration of declaring the City of Monticello as the responsible governing unit, accepting environmental assessment worksheet, and ordering publication of the EAW associated with the proposed Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. 10. Consideration of resolution accepting feasibility report, calling for a public hearing on the improvements, and ordering plans and specifications for Project 91-3 (Fallon Avenue/ Cardinal Hills). 11. Consideration of adopting a resolution requesting the City of Monticello to hold Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Oakwood 4 Industrial Park Second Addition, for the H -Window Company. City Council Agenda June 10, 1991 Page 2 12. Consideration of an offer to exchange land in lieu of delinquent assessments --Outlot A of Country Club Manor. 13. Review of current status regarding delinquent utility accounts and payment policy. 14. Consideration of rebids for emergency generator for the water and sewer collection department. 15. Consideration of ordering signal justification study for the intersection of County State Aid Highway East 75, 39, and 118. 16. Consideration of a resolution approving gambling license renewal --VFW Club. 17. Consideration of a resolution approving gambling license renewal --American Legion Club. 18. Consideration of appointing a fifth individual to the parks commission. 19. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 28, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen, Clint Herbst, Brad Pyle, Ken Maus Members Absent: None 2. Approval of minutes. Shirley Anderson noted that under item #10, "Consideration of further action regarding police commission appointments," Anderson asked that the minutes be amended to note that she had volunteered to serve on the police commission. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 13, 1991, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Public hearino to consider the 1991 annual sidewalk inspection report. Mayor Maus opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Simola reviewed the sidewalk inspection report. Tom Bose reviewed the report. With no comments from the public forthcoming, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Shirloy Anderson to approve the report as drafted and order abatement of hazardous sidewalks. The 1990 sidewalks identified as hazardous are to be corrected by the City after June 1, 1991. The 1991 property owners are to correct hazardous sidewalks by July 1, 1991. 5. Public hearino on Sidewalk Improvement Proiect 91SW-1. AND 6. Consideration of a resolution accentinq bids and award of contract for Sidewalk Improvement Proiect 91SW-1. Mayor Maus opened the public hearing. John Simola reviewed the bids. He noted that the bids aro under budget by approximately $7,000. Don Doran was in attendance and had questions regarding the ` cost to install sidewalk. He thought his contractor could replace tho sidowalk for less. He also had questions regarding the location of the sidewalk along the boulevard. Pago 1 Council Minutes - 5/28/91 Ron Peters had questions regarding blacktop replacement across the sidewalk that crosses a driveway. Simola responded by saying that the blacktop would be sawcut, and no patching may be necessary. At this point in the meeting, the public hearing was closed. Dan Blonigen noted that sidewalk improvements should be done entirely as a City project and that portions of the work should not be done by individual property owners. Having the City do all of the work will assure consistent sidewalk construction quality and will enhance the ability of the City to obtain favorable bids. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint Herbst to accept the lowest bid submitted by DNCON, Inc., of Lakeville, Minnesota, in the amount of $30,077.05, including alternate B. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 91-12. 7. Consideration of reviewing evaluation of properties discussed at the Board of Review --City Assessor. At this point in the meeting, the Board of Review reconvened. Peggy Stencel was in attendance and reviewed the adjusted Er -Tv of 11 residential and 6 commercial properties. After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Brad Fyle to approve the proposed adjustments to the estimated market value as prepared by City Assessor, Peggy Stencel. Motion carried unanimously. Stencel informed Council she would inform property owners of their right to continue their appeal to the county level. Ken Maus was concerned that properties owned by Jay Morrell (M & P Transport) and Al Larson (Coast to Coast) may have been inadvertently left off of the list of properties to be reviewed by Peggy Stencel and the Board of Review. In response to this concern, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Brad Fylo to add properties owned by Jay Morrell and Al Larson to the list of properties eligible to be reviewed at the county level. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of authorizing logal action to remove construction oquipment illoaally stored on property located in a PZM zoninq district. ` Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that a largo collection of construction equipment related to the asphalt paving process is being stored on property along Highway 75 Page 2 Council Minutes - 5/28/91 across from the Bondhus Corporation. Equipment repair, oil changing, and vehicle sales are also being conducted at this site. O'Neill noted that the site is zoned for PZM uses. In the PZM zoning district there is no provision for outside storage of construction equipment. In addition, O'Neill noted that the City has received complaints regarding the presence of the construction equipment at one of the major entrances to the city. O'Neill went on to ask the City Council to consider further action regarding the matter. Floyd Kruse, owner of the property, indicated that he has leased the property to Lee Larson and has allowed the equipment to be stored there because he was informed by the Building Inspector that the property could be used for such purposes. O'Neill noted that the Building Inspector may have given approval to store a single dump truck at the site some time ago; however, this informal approval should not be construed as approval to store the numerous vehicles and other equipment at the site. Mayor Maus noted that the site may be difficult to develop under the PZM zoning district because of its nearness to the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, it might be possible that this area might be better zoned for industrial uses. Maus also suggested that some type of screening could possibly be used to obscure the view of the construction equipment from the street. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to submit this item to the Planning Commission for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of bids and award of annual soalcoatinq project,. Public works Director Simola reported that this year's sealcoating project involves the eastern portion of the core city oast of Highway 25 and up to Dayton Street. Simola reviewed the bids and notod that Allied Blacktop submitted the lowest bid at $38,043.26; and since this amount is less than the budget amount of $47,500, Simola recommended that the City Council award the sealcoating project to Allied Blacktop of St. Cloud. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fylo and seconded by Dan Blonigen to award the 1991 sealcoating project to Allied Blacktop. Motion carried unanimously. Pago 3 O oZ.. Council Minutes - 5/28/91 10. Consideration of reviewinq first quarter liquor store report. Rick Wolfsteller reported that sales for the first quarter were up 9.3% over the first quarter of 1990. He also noted that gross profit also increased $14,600 or 24% over the same period last year. Wolfsteller noted that the operating income is excellent for the first quarter considering our first quarter is usually the lowest for the liquor store on an annual basis. Council reviewed the liquor store report and accepted it as presented. 11. Consideration of rentinq or demolition of the recently - acquired house adiacent to City Hall. Rick Wolfsteller reported that the City purchased the Cole property near City Hall for $50,000 to allow for future building expansion or parking requirement needs. At the time of the purchase, the Council chose to postpone a decision regarding possible rental of the dwelling until this spring to determine whether the building could be demolished for parking lot or building expansion needs. The property was winterized and the garage was utilized by the public works department for storage in the meantime. Wolfsteller noted that the cost to rehabilitate the Cole building to a point where the building could be used by renters would cost approximately $6,000. Wolfstoller suggested that it may not make sense to invest $6,000 in the property when the City may be demolishing it relatively soon to make way for City Hall parking. Dan Blonigen suggested that the City may be able to find an individual that would be willing to do some repairs to the structure while they are living there which would provide the City with time to decide on how the parking lot should develop. Ken Maus noted that it might not be fair to allow someone to move in and fix it and then turn around and require that they move out when the City has decided that the building needs to be demolished to make way for a parking area. Maus noted that he would like to see it rented but not in its present condition. Clint Herbst noted that the cost of $6,000 to rehabilitate the structure is too high. It was his view that we should rent it out and fix up the structure using City staff, thereby reducing costs. Page 4 M Council Minutes - 5/28/91 Brad Fyle noted that to make it good enough to live in, the City is going to have to spend $10,000. It was his view that it makes more sense to demolish it now. Ken Maus suggested that the City staff look at the parking needs of City Hall closely and determine if parking is needed in terms of the existing ordinance and parking demand. If it is determined that parking is needed immediately, then that could be sufficient justification for development of the parking area at this time. It was the consensus of Council to make the house available to anyone interested in removing it from the site and in the meantime study the City Hall parking needs and determine alternatives once the parking needs have been clearly identified. 12. Consideration of qrantinq annual approval for municipal licenses. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the licenses as submitted: Intoxicatinq Liquor, On -sale (fee $3,750) 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. Stuart Hoglund --Comfort Inn Intoxicatinq Liquor, On -sale, Sunday(fee $200 set by Statute) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. VFW Club 5. American Legion Club 6. Comfort Inn Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale (fee $275) 1. Rod and Gun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Non-intoxicatinq Malt, Off -sale (fee $75) Renewals 1. Monticollo Liquor 2. Riverroad Plaza Pago 5 G Council Minutes - 5/28/91 3. Maus Foods 4. River Terrace 5. Tom Thumb 6. Holiday 7. Plaza Car Wash Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (fee $500) Renewal 1. Dino's Deli Set-up License (fee $275) 1. Country Club 2. Rod and Gun Club Licenses (fes --set by Statute based on membership) 1. VFW --$500 2. American Legion --$650 Binqo, Temporary (fee $20) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival Gamblinq, Temporary ($20 per device) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival 2. Rod and Gun Club --Steak Fries in August Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of a resolution reauestina funding for Wright Countv Overall Economic Development Plan. Mayor Maus reviewed the Wright County Mayors Association plan for developing a county -wide economic development program. He noted that the Wright County Mayors Association has requested that each City consider committing $500 as a contribution to the county board to help start implementing a development plan. The hope is that if all cities contribute $500 each, the county would have $7;500 available, which would encourage the county commissioners to proceed with the preparation of an economic development plan for the county. Mayor Maus explained that the smaller cities in the county need help in organizing economic development efforts. At first blush it may not appear that the City of Monticello has much to gain from this program since we already have an established economic development program; however, the City does gain from economic devolopment at a county level, as additional tax rovenue can offset some of the increases wo'vo - - _ Page 6 G Council Minutes - 5/28/91 seen in the county tax demands. Although the program will make smaller cities in the county more competitive, the competition will not likely affect the City or result in Monticello losing an industrial prospect; and the fact that the City is participating in this program provides additional marketing of what's available in the city and could possibly bring additional industrial prospects to the city. Dan Blonigen stated that this program should be funded entirely by the county. Clint Herbst was not convinced that the county -wide program would help the city. Maus noted that $500 is a relatively token amount, and the program may never come to pass; but yet contributing to a county -wide economic development effort is a positive action that represents a cooperative attitude toward other cities in the county and could potentially contribute to developing a better and stronger county tax base, which would help the city in the long run. After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt a resolution committing $500 in funding toward the development of a Wright County Overall Economic Development Plan. Voting in favor: Brad Fyle, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Dan Blonigen, Clint Herbst. SEE RESOLUTION 91-13. 14. Consideration of bids and award of contract for purchase of 125 kW emorgency qenerator. John Simola reviewed the two bids submitted to the City. Simola also outlined deviations from the specifications found in the bids submitted by the two bidders. Finally, Simola noted that the low bid amount submitted by Cummins Diesel Sales Inc. is over the budget amount of $35,000 by more than $6,800. Ken Maus asked which of the bidders has the bettor reputation. Simola reported that both have good reputations for providing quality equipment and service. Shirley Anderson noted that the bids are over budget. She asked if there are enough funds to cover this cost. Ken Maus asked if we should adjust the bid specifications in an effort to get our cost down and roadvortiso for bids. Simola noted that it would be very difficult to amond the bid specifications in a manner that would result in much savings. He requested that the specifications remain the same if the City is going to readvortise for bids. Page 7 Council Minutes - 5/28/91 After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Clint Herbst to readvertise for bids for the purchase of a 125 kW emergency generator. Motion carried unanimously. 14A. Consideration of reaffirmino our reauest for a siqnal to be installed at Countv Road 118 and Countv Road 75 intersection. Rick Wolfateller reported that as part of the County Road 39 realignment improvement project at the intersection of County Road 75 near Riverroad Plaza, the City and County installed the underground portion of a future traffic signal at this location. As part of our 1991 budget, we included 435,000 for the City's share of anticipated cost of the signal construction. The balance of the project is intended to be paid for by county and state aid funds. The Wright County Highway Department recently completed another traffic count for the intersection. Although we are extremely close, the count apparently still does not meet state warrants for signal construction. Ron Bray, traffic engineer for OSM, feels that there is still a good chance that this project could be funded by the state. There are a number of alternatives to pursue in an attempt to get the project funded this year. At this point, the City Council will need to adopt a resolution reaffirming the City's desire to have this signal installed in order for the City Engineer and county highway department to pursue the signal installation. Ken Maus asked if we are locked into $35,000. Rick Wolfsteller statod not necessarily; however, we are locked into(2581of the total cost of the installation, which could ftp result !n a higher cost than $35,000. However, it is not likely that the cost will go higher than $35,000. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Bionigon to adopt a resolution reaffirming our desire to have the signal installed as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 91-14. 15. Consideration of establishina a defined contribution pian for elected officials. Rick Wolfstellor noted that this item does not require formal Council action. He noted that each elected official will have the opportunity to make their own choice in establishing a defined contribution plan or contributing to social security. After Wolfetellor reviewed the information regarding a defined contribution plan, Council discussed the information prepared by Wolfstoller in the agenda. No action was taken. Pago 8 G Council Minutes - 5/28/91 16. Consideration of bills for the month of May. Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the bills as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 17. Other matters,. John Simola noted that the City of Pikesville, Kentucky, has requested that Simola visit Pikesville to review Monticello's recycling program. Simola noted that Pikesville will pay for airfare and all costs associated with his visit to the city. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council that exchange of information between cities is proper and should be supported; however, in this case an employee will be spending a considerable amount of time out of the city; therefore, Pikesville should be requested to pay Simola's salary while he is away from his duties in Monticello. If Pikesville is not able or willing to do this, it was agreed that Simola could use his own vacation or comp time to make an out-of-state visit to another city for the purpose noted above. Comp time is to be used only after permission is granted by the City ! Administrator. The Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, reviewed a letter proposed to be submitted to the Wright County Board of Commissioners regarding the gravel mining and bituminous plant operation proposed for areas south of the city. O'Neill noted that the letter pertains to the environmental assessment worksheot and outlines questions regarding the environmental impact of the operation. After discussion, the consensus was to send the letter as prepared. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator 3 Page 9 G) .z. Council Agenda - 6/10/91 4. Public Hearing and consideration of approving a resolution for modification of the Redevelopment Project Plan for Tax Increment Finance District Plans Nos. 1-1 through 1-11 and for establishment of Tax Increment Finance District No. 1-12 and adoption of the Tax Increment Plan relating thereto. (0.K.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The public hearing may be opened by Mayor Ken Maus, as the TIF district and plans (for the Aroplax Corporation) were distributed on May 3, 1991, to the school district, the hospital district, and the Wright County Commissioners to meet the required 30 -day notice for written or oral comments. Enclosed is a copy of a letter received from the county commissioners stating no negative comments to the establishment of this district, and no written or oral comments have been received from the school or hospital districts. Also, the City Council having set this public hearing date upon the request of the HRA, the public hearing notice has appeared in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks. Upon receiving no negative comments at the public hearing, recommendation is to close the public hearing and for City Council to proceed with consideration of approving the resolution relating to TIF District No. 1-12. Mr. Jerry Schoen, Paul Schoen, and/or Steve Schoen, owners of the 40 -year-old family business, will be present at the meeting to inform you of their project plans and answer questions of the Council. The plastic injection molding, tooling, and engineering company will construct a 22,400 sq ft concrete facility in Oakwood Industrial Park. The number of jobs will be approximately 20, which will consist of high and medium skilled workers. On June 4, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the resolution stating the Aroplax project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A representative from BuBinoss Development Services, Inc., will be present at the meeting to inform you and answer questions of the proposed TIF plan and budget for District No. 1-12. The TIF direct assistance to Aroplax is for land acquisition, and the public improvement dollars will be used to replenish the City's general fund caused by the newly created TIF or HACA penalty. In addition, BDS is preparing a Small Business Administration (SBA) application for Aroplax Corporation. The total financial package will consist of the SBA funding, TIP, and the yot-to-bo-approved Groator Monticello Enterprise Fund. Council Agenda - 6/10/91 When considering approval of the resolution, the City Council will seek findings that the TIF plan relating to District No. 1-12 is: an economic development district and is of public interest because it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; it will result in increased employment in the municipality; and it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2. that the proposed Aroplax project would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future; therefore, TIF is necessary. 3. that the proposed Aroplax project conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the sound needs of the city. 4. that the method of TIF computation is applicable, and the duration of the TIF district is for eight years from the date of receipt of the first increment or ten years from the approval of the TIF plan, whichever is less. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. With no negative comments and upon closing of the public hearing, approve the resolution modifying TIF plans for TIF Districts No. 1-1 through No. 1-12 and establishing TIF District No. 1-12 and adopting the TIF plan relating thereto. 2. With no negative comments and upon closing of the public hearing, deny approval of the resolution. 3. Upon negative comments at the public hearing, table the consideration to approve the resolution. 4. Upon negative comments at the public hearing, deny approval of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With the assumption of no negative comments at the public hearing, it is recommended that Council adopt the resolution (Alternative 11) because the Aroplax Corporation has previously looked at purchasing vacant buildings in both Wisconsin and Minnesota; the project Immediately increases the city's employment by 20 of which approximately five now jobs are created; and the project enhances the city's tax base, as the estimated market value is $560,000. Additionally, the 2 r Council Agenda - 6/10/91 company demonstrates the need for financial assistance kith the application of the SBA, TIF, and GMEF programs, and the Planning Commission has approved the resolution stating the project plans are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Lastly, the project is within the to -be -established TIF District No. 1-12 where a 22,400 sq ft manufacturing and office facility will be constructed and completed by December 31, 1991; therefore, 1008 of the increased capacity value over the duration the district will be requested by the City for repayment of debt and current expenditures. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the public hearing notice; Copy of the letter received from the Wright County Commissioners; Map of the project location; and a copy of the resolution for adoption. A copy of the TIF plan for District No. 1-12 will be available at the meeting. (pJ ; 'Ju i 3 .. -- Public " V V l II.CJ EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATEOF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN that the City Council (the "Council") in and for the City of Mem ticarlo, Camty of Wright. State of Mbmason, wie hold a public hearing on June 10, 5991, et appno.annaly 7:00 p.m., a1 City Hall, 250 East Broadway Monticello. Minnesota. relating to the proposed m rnodiflca ton. by Increased goject Costs. the "oar" and RedaveiopmeAuthaily s Redevelopment Project Not and the approval and adoption of the Modified Redevetomem P1nn relating drsreto; the proposed moddicatlon, by increased project costs, of the Modified la+ In cremmp Financoyt Plans for Tas increment Financing District. Naa. I-1 through I.1 t, tocatea widtin Redevelopment Project No. 1; end the praposad adoption of Te. Increment Financing Plan NAshtng to Tas Inclement Financrng Plan No. 1.12..180 totaled within Redevelopment Project No. t, au pureuam to well I, accordance with Mbsxsole Statutes, Sections 489.001 to 489 04 T, Indusivo. as amended, end Sections 489.174 to 489.178, inclusive, as amended. A copy of the Modified Redovelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and To, Increment Financ Ing Plan. ra Ta. hKrdrtmnt Financing Districts No. I - t thoughd i-12, as prop to be adopted M the office of the City Administrator at City Hall not later than May 3, 1991. The property Comprising Is. Increment Financing District No, 1.12 Is as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Well 408 81 lest of Lot 3. Block 2, BK 290.894-002031, Oakwood Industrial Park. PID NUMBER: 115.010.002030 Furthm information to gardlnp the Idendllaation of the parcel to be Included In Tam Increment Flnanving District No. 1.12 mey be obtained from the office of the City Administrater. AB Interested i W-- -SY apOaar at the hearing and present their vNwe aSOY a 1. avrbing. Doled: May 13. 1991 r BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL - Rick Woifsteiiet, City Adminialrsta IMey 30 6 Juno 0, 1DB11 DARLA M. GROSHENS Wright County Auditor / Treasurer Wright County Gouernment Center 10 N.W. 2nd Street Buffalo. Minnesota 55313-1193 May 17, 1991 Business Development Services, Inc. 8990 Springbrook Drive Suite 230 Minneapolis MN 55433 Phone: (612) 682.7578 Metro: (612)339.6881 FAX: (612) 682-6178 Re: Proposed Modification for Redevelopment Project No. I and the Proposed Adoption of the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 - All Located in Redevelop- ment Project No. I in the City of Monticello To Whom It May Concern: At their regular meeting held on May 14. 1991, the Wright County Board of Commissioners discussed the above item and vent on record as having no negative comments regarding the Proposed Modification and adoption of the T.I.F. District. If We may be of further help, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Darla M. Groahen DMG:gg WRIGHT CODRTT AUDITOR/TREASURER cc: Rick Wolfstaller Monticello City Administrator Eeoal Opportunity / A1/irmatiw Artion Employer 0 �_, IJ _ aL 94 I-941 TRI —IpO: I PLA1 �lOX ZA T [ MAS1p [ ! a II ! —..^ aW—IX IYan Jy mel ulPCE v.T 1 4 MY .1 A. PUI.'A. elllell EIOML[ TEItPIInxC TM[ i1P[ I WNTIECIIo U0. WMA _ IrIPIEI[ CMf.1111,1I1 NC �'�d�m. T=• t �9 � �� T v' i .ui:.e —ul Tr � b `�{va I1.1N1 I.XI I IEr.rn I — o c.1InT - sl.v[Ice. 3 ry•,1 Ellxaa0e a� u111lxc \ ]T.TE or rmPMm l•v .PPI*, I.C. el. '•" �' ; . FTX"EI 1� CellEpQ n •i' n1XHI00T. AtOM a \ 1'. 'Xu Yi cF lelai t Z �� }�+ Lot:.r. 7.33 .r... i !- r•_ J �— i Od PIIOPO]ID lT�j L TUP w M !)PIKw ID , eNvnna lxcnerr n.In.Purm .r... III M-YIXIW X.XIXOIa Z(jy+ "ll ]� I11111MOTI 111. INla5,11e1. C(MMNI crn1.1 i. . a SECD IAN 1.1.11PMO0P t P.1TH l 1 1.11 .r . rta 1' p QP' 1 11.. RD CIO of IOa11-1. Ile e 1 r ! I cues ••y ou1[M,O aE11100 ou leMlp \• TXm ILI1.lU lo. Jan]fa ]uvyU1TP - 1u111[. IMOUP;11.1 Iw. leou111111 esr Y[II ... �I01l� � ! re1Te1 .111r 111' .PUfpL1sX1 • • \ s..r ....• i c 1 t 06/05/91 12:13 6127869034 BUSINESS DEVELOR-01T SEPVICES Par,E 02 Councilmember I introduced the following resolution, the reading of which; wasidispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoptioncl CITY OF MONTICELLO i WRIGHT! COUNTY STATEJOF MINNESOTA i RESOLUTION NO. I I I A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE ROUSING AND REDEVENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTIC9LLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELAITINGITO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION:OF THE TAX I INCREMENT FINANCINGIPLANS RELATING TO TAS INCREMENT FINANCING DI�fTRICTS NOS. 1-1 THROUGH I 1-11 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OP TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT N0. 11-121, ALL LOCATED WITHIN I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT W. 1', AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OP THEITA INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING THERETO. BR IT RESOLVED by the Cityc;ouncil (the "Council*) of the City of Monticello, Minnesota he *City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. ( I i 1.01. It hag been proposed and adopted by the Housing and Relevelopment Authority in and or the City (the 6Authority"1 that the -Authority modify, by irriicreased project costs, Redevelopment Project No. 1; pursuant to and In accordance with Mfnn"ota Statute a, Sections1460.0011to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been further 0rlopoe6d and adopted by the Authority that the Authority Imodify the Tax Increment Pinancing PV4c eJfor Tax Increment Pinancing Districts Nog. 1-1 through 1-11 a adlestablish Tax Increment Pinancing District No. 1-12, located w1ithin Redevelopment Project INo. 1, and approve the Sas Incremont Pinancing elan relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance alth MlnnQsots 9tntutes, asi amSections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive. ended. I i I ,11.02: The Authority haalcousad to be prepared and this Council hes investigated the facts with respect thereto, a pro- posed•Modifted Redevelopment Plan (the "Modified Redevelopment Plena) Por Redevelopment ProjeC No.11, defining more precisely thel'16creaeed project costs to made to Redevelopment Project Nd1, the propoaed ModifiedjTax! Increment Pinancing Plans for TaxuIncroment Pinancing Districts Woe. III through 1-11 and the preposedlTax Increment Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Pinancing Plan*) for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 (collectively referred to as (the- "P16 ns" ). 05/05/9! 12:13 51.73597sa EUSI.ESS DE'VELOPmEr,T SEr110E: P --GE 03 1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-11 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdication over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-121 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1, to modify Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-11 and to establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 and approve the Plans relating thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Rousing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello, and Jerald J. and Mary E. Schoen. Section 2. Findings for the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modification of Tax Increment Financinq Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-11„ and the Establishment of Tax Increment Financinq District No. 1-12. 2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Non. 1-1 through 1-11 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, is intended and, in the judgment of the Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plane for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-12. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 does meet the requirements of an economic development district in that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which does not meet the requirements found in the definition of a redevelopment district., mined underground space development district, housing district nr soil corrections district, but which the Authority and City finds to be in the public interest beCAUAP_: 1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another stater or 05/05/?1 1?: 13 EI271EV^1a BUSI ESS i,EVEL1JF1dEr1T SEFVICES F'_GE n: 2. It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or 3, It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redeveloment Project No, 1 by private enterprise. 2.05. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2.06. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-11 are hereby modified and that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 is hereby adopted, con- tingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Jerald J. and Mary E. Schoen. Section 3. Adoption of Respective Plane. 3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date are hereby approved, contingent upon execution of the ReAevplepment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Jerald J. and Mary E. Schoen, and shall be placed on file In the office of the City Administrator. Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Pinancinq Plane. 4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advisor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plane, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. 06/05/91 1':13 6127869034 BLSIfIESS DEVELOPMPIT SERVICES P ,;E 05 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember ; and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator. Dated June 10, 1991 Mayor Attest: 0 City Administrator (SEAL) EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and tarts supporting the findings for the establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Flan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 as required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: 1. Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 is a "economic development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 consists of one parcel which does not meet the requirements of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district or soils correction district. The Authority and City find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 to be in the public interest because: 1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another stater and 2. It will result in increased employment in the municipa- lity; and 3. It will result in pr000rvation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the available financing costa for the development. Due to the high costa of site development, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Monticello Planning Commission reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 on June 4, 1991, and determined that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 06/05/51 12:13 6127SSE9034 EUSIHESS DE1,ELORiEHT SEPVb:ES PAGE 07- 4. 7 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be developed, which will be located within Pax Increment Financing District No. 1-12, consists of the construction of a 23,000 square foot office/production facility to be constructed in the summer of 1991 and completed by December 31, 1991. It is anticipated that 5 additional full- time jobs will result from this project. 5. Finding regarding the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if applicable. The Council does not elect the method of tax increment com- putation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b). 6. Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-12 will be eight (8) years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment or ten (10) years from the original approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, whichever is leas. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for current expenditures. Council Agenda - 6/10/91 Consideration of a preliminary plat request of Outlot I, Meadow Oaks subdivision, to be entitled Briar Oakes Estate. Applicant, Prestiqe Builders of St. Cloud. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On June 6, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the preliminary plat and recommends that Council approve the preliminary plat subject to conditions listed under alternative 4I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The area proposed for platting is Outlot I of the Meadow Oaks subdivision. This outlot was originally intended to be developed under a PUD concept with construction of 156 housing units achieved via construction of 43 quad -structures and 14 duplexes. The Briar Oak Estates plat calls for a lower housing density with ultimate development of 60 single family residential units. The actual installation of improvements will be conducted in two phases with phase I consisting of 26 lots and phase II consisting of 34 lots. The property possesses a combination of natural features, including gently rolling open land, pond areas, and wooded areas. A pipeline easement passes through the southeast corner of the property and a power line easement touches the southern boundary of the site. The design of the plat appears to take advantage of the property's natural features and accommodates encumbrances created by the pipeline and power line easements. A comprehensive restrictive covenant is proposed which is designsd to assure development of homes in the $110,000 to $150,000 range. The restrictive covenants feature a required 400 -foot setback (city minimum is 30 foot), no outside storage buildings or RV's, and 1,400 sq ft minimum finished living area. LOT SIZE City staff has reviewed the preliminary plat in terms of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. We have concluded that the lot and street design layouts moot all requirements noted by ordinance. PARKS AND TRAILS The proposed subdivision does not include a provision for a park area on site, which is consistont with the original Council Agenda - 6/10/91 planned unit development design previously approved for Outlot I. Under the original PUD plan, Outlots A and E (see map) were intended to be the central park areas for the entire area. Similarly, Outlots A and E will also become the park areas serving residents living in Briar Oakes Estate. The Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat includes trailway easements that will provide direct pedestrian access to parks as was originally envisioned under the planned unit development concept. A copy of the trail plan associated with the original PUD will be available for your review at the Council meeting. In addition, trail easements have been Identified along the power line easement which extends along the northern boundary of Outlot I. This power line easement ultimately reaches the middle school. At some point in the future this trail could become a major pathway for pedestrian traffic between the school and Briar Oakes/Meadow Oaks residential areas. Development of this pathway will improve safety by eliminating the need for pedestrian traffic to use County Road 118. Trail development will be phased to coincide with street development and will be constructed as part of the public improvement process. Paved trail surfaces will be maintained by the City. Adjacent vegetation will be maintained by property owners. STREET SYSTEM Major street access to the site is off of County Road 118. If you visit the site, you may note that the entrance to the subdivision at Briar Oakes Estate boulevard is at a crest of a small rise. Staff has been informed by the county that this access point is acceptable; however, a street light will need to be installed. The internal roadway design calls for one through street and six cul -do -sacs. Initially access to the site will be limited to County Road 118; however, eventually another access road will be developed. Woodcrost Drive at the north side of the development area will someday be extended to streets developed with Outlots C and D of the Meadow Oak Estates area, which will then ultimately connect to County Road 75. This circulation pattern is somewhat different than originally envisioned with the planned unit development concept. Originally, Outlot I was to be served by an access point at County Road 118 and by a street connection to Meadow Lane directly to tho east of Outlot I. This concept was abandoned by the developer because he felt that a separation of Council Agenda - 6/10/91 neighborhoods was necessary given the difference in housing values between Meadow Oaks and the proposed Briar Oakes Estate. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT At this time, only the outline of the ponding areas have been established. The actual storm water facilities needed in conjunction with this development have not been completely identified. This will be done as part of the feasibility study, which will be presented at the Council meeting. The ponds proposed will be connected, and a method for providing an outlet of ponded water from one pond to another will be designed in conjunction with the feasibility study. The original storm water management plan for the Meadow Oak PUD called for development of a series of storm water ponds connected to an outlet to county ditch 33. Unfortunately, the City was denied access to this ditch system, and the storm sewer pipe conveying water to this ditch was capped. This has resulted in establishment of a pond area located at the Meadow Oak park that has no outlet. At this time, the pond is of sufficient capacity to handle existing storm water run-off without significant problems; however, future development, including development of Briar Oakes Estate, may be impacted if the outlet remains capped. For instance, the Briar Oakes Estate storm sewer plan must be designed with the assumption that no outlet is available until some future date, which has the following impact on the Briar Oakes Estate plat: All storm water must be retained on site in the ponds provided. This means that the ponds must be bigger than they would normally need to be if an outlet or overflow was available. This results in a less efficient use of the land and slightly fewer homes per acre. A method for conveying water out of the ponds over land or with pond balance pipes without flooding homes must be incorporated into the drainage plan. The City will need to require installing storm water pipe associated with the ultimate design of the storm water system with each development in anticipation of resolution of the ditch 33 issue. Under this scenario, the storm water pipe may go unused until access to ditch 33 is available or another access to the Mississippi is built. Council Agenda - 6/10/91 In summary, no access to ditch 33 will result in a Briar Oakes Estate storm water system design that is feasible but relatively inefficient. It is important that the City, County, and Township get the ditch 33 issue resolved, or future development may be significantly impacted. The grading plan is near completion and will be available for final review by the City Engineer by meeting time Monday. It is suggested that the final plat be approved after the City Engineer gives final approval of the grading and drainage plans now being finalized. Of particular concern to the developer and the City is the status of the existing wetland areas in the plat area. There is a concern that the new wetland law will somehow affect the ability of the developer to shape or modify the existing wetland areas. The proposed preliminary plat does not call for a reduction in wetland areas; however, some shaping of the pond area will occur. This shaping could result in loss of certain types of vegetation; however, the loss of vegetation will be replaced by areas with open water. ultimately, this project will proceed only after given the blessing by the Army Corps of Engineers. WATER AND SEWER LINE ACCESS The subdivision will be served by water and sewer lines extending from their present locations at Meadow Lane. The existing roadway right-of-way at Meadow Lane and a proposed easement between Outlots 13 and 14 will become the path of the utility lines. This easement area will also become a future walkway connecting both Briar Oakes Estate and Meadow Oaks to a walkway that extends northward to the existing park areas at Outlet E. The water system developed in conjunction with this subdivision will be adequate; however, the system will not be looped immediately, which could result in a slight degradation of water quality compared to the rest of the community. A longer term goal will be to link the system developed serving Briar Oakes Estate to existing or future systems, thereby creating a looping effect which would result in improved water quality. PIPELINE EASEMENT/POWER LINE EASEMENTS A pipeline extends through the southeast portion of the site, and a power line easement extends along the southern boundary of the site. The lots developed that are encumbered by easements may not construct dwellings or garages on easement Council Agenda - 6/10/91 areas. Some of the lots bordering pipeline/power line easements will be slightly hampered by the presence of the easements; however, it does not appear that these lots will be unbuildable. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the Briar Oakes Estate preliminary and final plat subject to 1) City Engineer approval of the grading and drainage plan; 2) Army Corps of Engineers approval of grading and drainage plan; 3) Preparation of engineering data showing that the proposed Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat is feasible in terms of street, sewer, water, and storm sewer service; A) The plat currently shows a block overlapping into two separate phases. Block overlap of two separate phases should not occur, as the second phase will be originally platted as an outlot with final plat approval of phase I1 to come at a later date; 5) A separate document identifying walkway easement areas must be prepared and recorded against lots that abut walkways; 6) The restrictive covenants must be signed and recorded with the final plat; 7) Signing of the final plat is subject to execution of a development agreement. Motion based on the finding that the preliminary plat is consistent with the City ordinances and comprehensive plan. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the proposed plat and is vory comfortable with the design of the plat in terms of Its overall relationship to the general area and in terms of the street layout and lot design internal to the site. We are concerned that the engineering data has not been completely refined; however, there do not appear at this time to be major engineering problems that must be overcome. Additional engineering related information will be provided at the Council meeting with the distribution of the feasibility study. If this alternative is selected, the project schedule will be maintained which could result in home construction this season. If preliminary approval is not granted or delayed pending gathering of additional data, it is possible that this construction season might be lost. N Council Agenda - 6/10/91 2. Motion to deny the Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat. The preliminary plat appears to meet all zoning and subdivision requirements; therefore, unless the additional engineering data reveals a problem, there is no reason to deny the approval of the plat. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. The plat meets design requirements. Approving the plat with conditions minimizes the risk and provides the developer with the chance to proceed on a timely basis. As a final note, Prestige Builders has provided the City with funds ($5,100) sufficient to cover the cost of preparing the feasibility study. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Preliminary plat; Restrictive covenants; Area map; Feasibility study to be delivered at the meeting. 9 PREUMIMARY PlAr BRIAR OAKES ESTATE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA 60 RESIDENTIAL LOTS 2, Pr 01 ' 7, L Mi AIW Lo I B5IAR17fiICES ESTATE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS & RESTRICTIONS Prestine Builders of St. Cloud, Inc., A Minnesota Corporation are the owners of all of that certain tract of land described as DP.IAR OAKES ESTATES according to the plat thernof on file and of re -card in Wright County, MN, recorded as Document tic. , filed in the office of the County Recorder of Wright County, MN. Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Inc., are developing the plat of BRIAR OAKES ESTATE. as a residential area and desire to assure that DRIAR OAKES ESTATE, shall always be maintained in a manner: providing for visual harmony; avoiding activities deleterious to the aesthetic or property values of the development; and promoting the general welfare and pleasurable enjoyment of the premises by the residents. Prestiqe Builders of St. Cloud, Inc., (hereafter referred to A-; t.hq "pgvminp#�r" in thrl?1q Gnvf-nentlil herehy d-clr.rf. that l the following Protective Covenants and restrictions are imposed an all that land known as BRIAR OAKES ESTATE, included in the plat identified above, which covenants and restrictions ere to run with the land and shall be binding upon all parties and all persons owning lots in DRIAR OAKES ESTATE, or claiming under them. L. LAND LOSE AND BUILDING TYPE a. Each lot shall be used exclusively for residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than as permitted in thm applicable provisions of the governing zoning ordinance. b. The location of ail structures within BRIAR OAKFS EiTATC.. shall conform with applicable governmental lawn, 1 toeing rar;ulotlone, and ordinances. Each home will have a f, int, word set• hest, of at least 40'. r.. tin residential building wherit the main structure hes o -iruund floor area (exclusive of open porches and garages). of Ire■ than 1,400 square foot in the case of a one-story srruccitre, or less than Yt,(l ■quare feet on the fist floor' of all one and one-half, two and two and one-half story strucivre, or lesw than 1,4,10 square -Foot in the came of all bi-lo�wl, split wntry and multi-level structure, shell be wrrcted or placed on any building lot. 60% of the main structurs shall be at least 26' in width. All homes must haves ♦ gAragM w,eh a minimum equ.rre feet of 440. All final plans m.1 -4t• us 4l7pr.iveg by tine 4wvwlorer. -1-- 2. TEMFORARY STRUCTURES. No structure of a temporary nature, such as trailer house. camping trucks basement house, tent, shack, garage, barn, outhouse, cr other buildings may be used on any lot anytime as a residence either temporarily or permanently, nor shall a structure to be used as a residence be moved on to any lot. All structures shall be completed and finished within 12 months after the commencement of the excavation or construction thareoF, and in any eeent, before the structure shall be used as a residence. Within the 12 month period, all excess building materialsp fallen timber and debris shall be removed from the premises and the premises shall be graded and landscaped to general conformity with the other homes in BRIAR OAKES ESTATE. 3. j! AND FEt10ES. No boundary wall or fence may be constructed with a height of more than six feet and no boundary line hedge or shrubbery will be permitted with a height of more than four feet. The heights and elevations of any wall or fence shall be measured from the existing elevations of the property at or along the applicable points or, line fence. 4. FILLING IN NO REMOVSNQ• The elevation of a lot may not be changed so as to materially affect the surface elevation or grade of the surrounding lots. No sod, soil, sand. gravel or other materials may be sold or removed from any lot or lots e:rcept for the purpose of preparing the lot for construction or alteration of any building or for landscaping. Excess soil from excavation may not be removed from the development. 3. VEQETA�J,E�Qgft0EN9. No vegetable garden may bra lor:ated in the front yard of any lot or closer than 34 feet to the property line adjoining any street or road. h._121 F,F , From and after completion of r.ongtruction of a dwelling upon a lot, no weeds, underbrush, or other unyinlitly growth shall be permitted to grow or remain upon the premises. No lot shall be used in whole or in part for the sti.rage of rubbish of any character whatsoever, nor for thp, storage of any property or thing that will cause the lot to appear in an unclean or untidy condition or that. will Ire obnoxious to the eyes; nor shall any substance. thine, or material bar l ept upon arty Iot that will emit foul or ohnomiuus odors, or that will cause any noise that will or might disturb the peace. quiet. comfort, or serenity of the occL-pents 'Zf surrounding property. 7. Wt4n, No billboards or advartising signs of env rharacter mm- be erected. placed, permitted or maintained or any lot or tmprr3ve,aent wcapt as rrpresely permitted in this paragraph. A name and address sign is permitted. M3 other UC sign of any kind or design will be allowed except a "Far Sale" sign advertising the fact that the lot is for sale and designatinq the party to be contacted for such sale, is allowed without prior approval. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the Developer, or its contractors. from erecting, placing, or maintaining signs. strurtures and offices which may be deemed necessary by it For the promotion and development of the subdivision and neighboring lands owned by the Developer. S. FAASEMENZ5_ Easements for drainage and the installation and maintenance of public utility facilities and for such other purposes incidental to the development of the property are reserved and to be maintained as deelgnated of the plat of BRIAR DALES ESTATES. No structures, trees or shrubs are to be placed an drainage easements. No trees or shrubs are to be planted or maintained on utility easements except as approved, and then they are installed at the owner's sale cost and risk. 9. DRIVEWAYS. LANUCLM'ING AND SETBACKS. A tar or cement driveway, at lust twelve (12) fest wide, will be required to be installed from the tarred part of the public street running in front of .all Lots to the garage apron on the required double car attached garages, within twelve (12) months from thq start of construction. All front yards and side yards are to be finish graded, sodded, or seeded and completed within twelve (12) months dated from start of construction. Setbacks of all kinds will be adhered to according to. the ordinances anrJ laws set by the City of Monticello. 19. ae l_JNR AND COMMEPMAL VEHICLE, The owner of math lot 'shall provide adequate off-street parking fcr any motor vehicle .or trailer used by the residents of the lot. No trucks anti nm commercial type vehicles may bee rept on the premises ■:icept while parked in a closed garage nor parked oo an., refidential street in BRIAR OA1.ES ESTATE. except while engPgmd in transporting to or from a residence in the dmveICament, lJo trailer, hrusm trailer, mobile home, camping trailer, trurls, bumms, bueines■ equipment (including tut not limited to remre-it mi'cers, pumps, mortar boxes or lumber), or incUerable moxl�r •eshicles shall be stored or kept on the premispA e'rcept as while partied in a closed garage so as to hr. roncealed from sight. Il. ISM"�.G.l1CAT DU/CHILD DAYCARE, PRINIDERS,_ Except as stated in this paragraph, the operation of licensed da,car,% or nursery schools shall be allowed: a. Only pro.,ided that sufflcient off street parl,ing ea provided and approved of by the developer; and b. Only provided thst the bec6vard is fencer In a manner f� / 1 approved by the developer; and c. Only provided that the facility is operated out of a single family residence occupied by the operator of the facilitye and d. The facility meets all state and :coal licensing requirements of daycare or nursery schools and does nct serve more than 12 persons at one time. 1:!. SUEiplyISIOtI CIF None of the lots %hall at any time be subdivided into as many as two building sites and no buildinq site shall be less in area than the area of the smallest lot platted on the block of which the building site is a part. A single lot together with contiquous portion or portions of one or more lots in the same block may be used for one building site but only upon compliance with all applicable governnental subdivision regulations. 1:. fjFS1EDIEg F VIOLATIONS. The lot owners, or any of them severally, shall have the right to proceed at law or in equity to compel the compliance with the terms of these Covenants or, to prevent the violation or breach of any of them. The failure to promptly enforce any of the Protective Covenants shall not bar their subsequent enforcement. If any party employs counsel to enforce any of these Covenants, by reason of breach of their provisionsp all costs incurred in such enforcement, Including reasonable attorney's fees, shall be paid to the prevailing party by the party at fault. 14. ttQRTOAJQU1r Nothing contained in these Protective Covenants shall impair or defeat the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value, but title to any properties subject to these Covenants obtained through sale and satisfaction of any such mortgage or dead of trust or otherwise shall at all times be held subject to all of the8s Protective Covenant%. 1:,. DgRA.UQL{ All of the fcregoinq Covenants, ccrndil•irns, resi-rvetions. And restrictions •hall rc!na,inua and renals in frill forces and effect at all times as syminst the owner -rd all parties having any tntsrest in any lat in MAR OA1,E9 ESTATE. regardless of how title waa acquired until emmmencsmont. of the calendar, year ^015, on which date these Protective Covenants shall t.nrminatvt provided, however, that Ulsee Protective Covenants shall be automatically extended fpr a period of 141 years, and thrraafter in successive tV year periods, unless on or before the and of the base period or one of this extension periods. the owners of 75 percent of the lots in BRIAR 0AVE9 EETATEv shall by written instrument duly rerorded dpr.lare a termination of the same. 15. U-wyERADIUIY�_ If any one nr mor• of the provision• of the foregninq Protective Covenants shall be declared ro bM null and void for any reasnn liv a CourtO of competent S jurisoiction, the adjudication or declaration shall not in any manner whatsoever affect, modify, change, abrogate, or nullify any of the Protective Covenants or portions thereof not so declared to be void; all of the remaininq Covenants, condition=_, reservatians and restrictions not so expressly held to b� void shall continue unimpaired and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Kevin R. Schmitz, President of PRESTIGE BUILDERS of St. Cloud, Inc., has caused tnie instrument to be executed on ...................... 1991. Kevin Schmitz, President ' PRESTIGE BUILDERS of St. Cloud, Inc. i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF _________ ) ON TI4I3 ____ day of ------- 1991, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Icevin Schmitz. to me personally known who being by me duly sworn did say that he is the President of PRESTIGE BUILDERS of St. Cloud. .Inc., named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation and said 1'.12vin Schmitz acl;nowledged said instrument to be the fret, ec;t ismt Mead of the corporation. ry Public O CQ- 1 ` Y {Ua lKuN�l _ tl w'ler 1 .I 1,°o,� 5� Council Agenda - 6/10/91 6. Consideration of a rezoning request to rezone Outlet I, Meadow Oaks subdivision, from an R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to R-1 (single familv residential) zone. Applicant, Prestiqe Builders of St. Cloud. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission conducted a public hearing an approved the proposed rezoning based on the finding that the Briar Oakes subdivision is designed to sufficiently integrate with the adjoining PUD areas; the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, geography and the character of the area; and the rezoning will allow development of "move -up" single family building lots which are in short supply at this time. City Council is asked to consider rezoning Outlet I from the PUD zoning designation to the R-1 designation. If the Council is comfortable with the design of Briar Oakes Estate in terms of integration with the original PUD, then the zoning map should be amended as proposed. The original concept plan for development of Outlet I under the PUD concept called for development of 156 housing units achieved via construction of 43 quad -home structures and 14 duplexes. Under the PUD concept, the utilities plan for Outlet I, including parks, walkways, streets, etc., was integrated with utilities planning for the balance of the Meadow Oaks development area. Briar Oakes Estate proposes ultimate development of 60 housing units which will result in less than 1/2 the original density. Although some changes have been made to the original plan for street circulation, the Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat appears to be designed to fit well into the adjoining PUD area. The major change to the original plan is the elimination of street access to Meadow Oaks via Meadow Lane. This change was requested to improve the ability of the developer to market the Briar Oakes Estate to second- and third-timo home buyers. Offsetting this change is the proposal to develop a roadway connecting to future development at Outlets C and D, thereby providing two ways in and out of the dovolopment. As noted in the previous agenda item, all other aspects of the Briar Oakes plat are consistent with the original PUD concept, including trail development, storm water management, and sewor/water system development. The City of Monticello has a very short supply of lots available for people interested in building their second or third home. Rezoning of this area to R-1 will allow development of lots for "movo-up" housing. This factor further justifies the rezoning request. 10 Council Agenda - 6110/91 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Motion to approve rezoning of Outiot I from PUD to R-1 zoning designation. Motion is based on the finding that the rezoning is justified for the following reasons: The Briar Oakes subdivision is designed to sufficiently integrate with the adjoining PUD areas; the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, geography and the character of the area; the rezoning will allow development of "move - up" single family building lots which are in short supply at this time. Rezoning is contingent on approval of the final plat of the Briar Oakes Estate. If the City Council approved the preliminary plat and if the City Council agrees with the finding above, then this alternative should be selected. 2. Motion to deny rezoning of Outlot I from PUD to R-1 zoning designation. If the City Council did not approve the preliminary plat and if the Council does not agree with the finding under alternative #1 above, then this alternative should be selected. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #i. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Proposed rezoning map. m 1 _ - 63 12 .• 132 1 AO JI AO ---PROPOSED REZONING Council Agenda - 6/10/91 7. Consideration of resolution accepting petition, ordering feasibility report, accepting feasibility report,calling for a public hearing, and orderina plans and specifications for Project 91-2 (Briar Oakes Estate}. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to pass a resolution which will Initiate the process of installing public improvements associated with the Briar Oakes Estate development. This project is on a fast track as evidenced by the number of actions outlined in the resolution. The present plan calls for bidding the Briar Oakes Estate related project along with the Fallon Avenue/School District improvements. In the resolution, Council is asked to take the following action: 1. Accept the petition for public improvements submitted by Kevin Schmitz. This petition is attached for your review. 2. order the feasibility report. Staff took the 1(herty of directing the City Engineer to prepare the feasibility report prior to formal Council authorization because Schmitz provided all of the cash up front necessary to finance the report ($5,100) and because waiting for formal Council action would have significantly delayed the project. Despite the fact the feasibility report is already done, Council still needs to order the report for the sake of conforming to the public improvement process. 3. Accept feasibility report. The feasibility report is being finalized and will be available for review during the meeting on Monday. preliminary cost figures to develop phase I are available and aro as follows: Sanitary sewer - $74,200; Water main - $77,800; Storm sower - $43,900; Streets - $97,500; Total - $293,400. 4. Call for a public hearing on the improvement. Council is asked to call for a public hearing on the improvement. The date for the public hearing is scheduled for the next mooting of the Council, June 24, 1991. 5. Order plans and specifications. In order to oxpodito the project, the developer has indicated in the development agreement that he is willing to deposit with the City an amount equal to the cost to prepare plans and specs and advertise for bids ($20,000). It is important that the City obtain those funds prior to preparation of plans because plan preparation may need to occur prior to formal approval of the drainage plan by the Army Corp of Engineers. It is the view of the developer that it is �Y3 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 important to keep the project on a time schedule that will result in homes being built in the late summer and fall; therefore, he is willing to take the risk that the Army Corp of Engineers might delay or cause a modification to the plans. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve resolution accepting petition, ordering feasibility report, accepting feasibility report, calling for a public hearing, and ordering plans and specifications for Project 91-2 (Briar Oakes Estate). Ordering plans and specifications is contingent on delivery of the $20,000 plan preparation deposit. If City Council has acted to approve the preliminary and final plat of Briar Oakes Estate, and if Council is comfortable with the development agreement governing the terms and conditions associated with the construction of improvements, etc., then it is appropriate to consider approving the attached resolution. As noted in the discussion regarding the development agreement, the developers have indicated that they will provide $20,000 to the City as a plan preparation deposit. This amount will cover the full cost of plan preparation and bidding process, thereby providing the City with ample financial security in the event the project does not proceed beyond the bid process. 2. Motion to deny said resolution. If Council is not comfortable with the preliminary plat or development agreement, then this alternative should be selected. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is comfortable with the development agreement and satisfied that the financial risk to the City associated with preparing plans has boon eliminated by the plan preparation deposit submitted by Kevin Schmitz of Prestige Builders; thorefore, staff recommends alternative N1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of petition for improvements; Feasibility report to be presented at the meeting; Resolution accepting petition, ordering feasibility report, accepting feasibility report, calling for a public hearing, and ordering plans and specifications for Project 91-2 (Briar Oakes Estate). 13 RESOLUTION 91 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION, ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT, ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT, CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AND ORDERING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT 91 - (Briar Oakes Estate) WHEREAS, a petition has been presented to the Council for the improvement of Briar Oakes Estate with sanitary sewer extensions, water main extensions, bituminous paving, curb and gutter, and storm sewer improvements and appurtenant work, and the petition has been signed by over 35% of the property owners affected thereby, and WHEREAS, a report on the proposed improvements has been prepared by the City Engineer for Briar Oakes Estate, and this report was received by the Council on Juno 10, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of the Briar Oakes Estate in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $293,400. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 24th day of June, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m., and the City Administrator shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvemont as required by law. 3. Orr-Schelen-Mayoron 6 Associates is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement and is authorized to propare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adoptod by tho Council this 10th day of Juno, 1991. Mayor City Administrator 0 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT & FEASIBILITY STUDY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I (we), the undersigned owner(s) of the property described below petition for a feasibility study pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (local improvements), special assessments, for the following improvements: Please indicate with an "x" the improvements requested. ✓ sanitary sewer —� water storm sewer bituminous surfacing curb a gutter street lighting I (we) agree to pay 100% of the cost of the feasibility study. I understand the City Council may pro -rate the cost of the feasibility study attributable to my property if the scope of the study pertains to other benefitting property owners. Description of property: 1- Mesa(•,✓ OIf-CS J/ Signature of owners: 0 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 8. Consideration of approval of development aqreement qoverninq City/developer installed improvements --Briar Oakes Estate Phase I. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to review the attached draft of a developer agreement which outlines terms and conditions associated with the development of phase I of Briar Oakes Estate. A final draft of the agreement is not available at this time, as some engineering related data is not available and some of the terms have not been completely negotiated. For the most part, however, the agreement is complete. The remainder of this agenda supplement will highlight certain aspects of the agreement and note areas that may be of special concern to Council. ITEM 2. (4) As a condition of plat approval, the developer must deliver a cash depcsit to the City in an amount equal to the cost to prepare plans and specifications (420,000). ITEM 6. Assessment of Costs. City completes project as a public improvement project with the total cost estimated at $289,500 to be assessed against =e entire plat as a single parcel and paid over a five-year period. ITEM 7. Escrow Items An escrow fund will be established to guarantee that certain on-site improvements are constructed by the developer. Such improvements include site grading, roadbed preparation, boulevard sod, etc. The escrow amount total has not been established and will be available at the Council meeting. ITEM 13. Security for Improvements Staff has designed the agreement in a manner that will assure the City that the debt associated with the improvement could never grow to a level greater than the potential revenue that could be derived from the sale of the land. Following are the terms that protect the City's investment: An irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 409 ($115,000) of the project cost will be available for draw by the City in the event 14 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 that the developer fails to stay current with assessment payments. Under a worst case scenerio, if no lots are sold and no assessments are paid, the City would have immediate access to the letter of credit. If tax delinquency continues, the City would ultimately be able to also acquire the land and rely on its value along with the original $115,000 to pay the special assessment debt. Given the formula above, it does not appear that future debt will exceed potential revenue even if project debt interest is calculated at 88 and land appreciation at 18. Please see the attached debt to equity worksheet for the details behind our assertion that the debt will not exceed value. In addition to the letter of credit, the City will release one lot from the assessment against the total development only after a payment of 1.5 times the cost per lot. ' In this case, the lot cost is about $10,321. As each lot is sold, a payment of $15,482 must be made to the City. Under this formula, the unsecured portion of the assessment debt ($173,400) will be paid after 11 of the 28 lots are sold. It should be noted that according to Dale Lungwitz, the irrevocable letter of credit is a secure financial instrument. If, for instance, Prestige Builders went bankrupt, the City would continue to have access to the letter of credit because the bank issuing the letter of credit is obligated to pay it. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt development agreement governing City/development improvements (Briar Oakes Estate) subject to final revisions. Under this alternative, Council is comfortable with the basic provisions outlined in the agreement. As noted earlier, the copy you are being presented is not the final copy. It is our hope that the final version will be available for review on Monday. At that time, staff will review any changes to the copy you have and possibly detail the agreement further. Motion to deny adoption of development agreement. If Council is not comfortable with the dovolopment agreement, approval could be denied or modified. 15 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is our view that this agreement provides security for the City in terms of many of the risks associated with residential development. In terms of financial risk, it is our view that the agreement sufficiently protects the City; therefore, we support its adoption. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of development agreement; Copy of financial risk analysis worksheets. 16 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT CITY/DEVELOPER INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS BRIAR OAK ESTATES PHASE I THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of 1991, by and between Prestige Builders of St. Cloud, referred to herein as "Developer," and the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation in the County of Wright, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer is the fee owner and developer of a parcel or parcels of land described in Exhibit A ("subject property"), and which property is proposed to be developed bearing the name Briar Oakes Estate First Addition; and WHEREAS, the City requires that certain public improvements, which are herein referred to as "Petition Items," including, but not limited to, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, streets, and asphalt walkway be installed by City to serve the development, all at the expense of the Developer; and WHEREAS, the City further requires that certain on and off-site improvements be installed by the Developer within the subject property, which improvement typically consists of boulevard sod and drainage swales, and which improvements to the subject property shall be referred to herein as "escrow items"; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into for the purpose of setting forth and memorializing for the parties and subsequent owners the understandings and agreements of the parties concerning the development of the subject property; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AND HEREIN MUTUALLY AGREED, in consideration of each party's promises and considerations herein set forth, as follows: Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Briar Oakes Estate First Addition, a 28 -lot single family subdivision (also referred to in this Agreement as tho "plat") of the land legally described as: See Exhibit A. Conditions of Plat Approval. Tho City agrees to approve the plat on the condition (1) that the Developer enter into this Agreemont; (2) that the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this BRIAROAK.AGR: 6/6/91 Page 1 Ev Agreement guarantying the payment of the special assessments herein, including interest and principal, for public improvements and guarantying compliance of the terms of this Agreement; (3) the Developer obtains approval of the final plat in accordance with City rules and ordinances and files the same along with the restrictive covenants in the office of the Wright County Recorder no later than August 1, 1991; (4) the Developer delivers a cash deposit to City to be utilized for all expenses incurred by City prior to commencement of the work on the petition items. On said date, any remaining funds shall be returned to Developer. 1. Effect of Plat Approval. For one (1) year from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the city's comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extant permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's comprehensive plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat. 1. Use and Density. The plat shall allow a maximum of 28 single family lots. The plat must show all necessary street and roadway easements and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and, if applicable, the Wright County Traffic Engineer. 5. Petition Items (City Installed Items). Subject to the performance by Developer of the covenants contained in paragraph 2, City agrees to construct as part of an improvement project the petition items as detailed on Exhibit C pursuant to its regular method of making improvements. City shall commence work on the potition items within thirty (60) days of the Developer's compliance with paragraph 2 and shall use its best efforts to complete the improvement in a prompt manner, subject to delays beyond its control. 6. Assessment of Costs. Developer agrees that City shall assess the cost of the petition items together with administrative planning, onginooring, capitalized interest, legal, and bonding costs against the entire BRIRROAR.AGR: 6/6/91 Pago 2 ®R plat in the total amount of $289,500, to be assessed against the entire plat as a single parcel. The assessment shall be deemed adopted by the City on the date that construction is commenced. The assessment shall be paid over a five-year period, without deferment, together with interest at a rate set by the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the installation of the public improvements and the assessments, Including notice and hearing and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefits to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the developers from prepaying the assessment in whole or in part. Escrow Items (Developer Installed Items). The Developer shall pay for and install the following improvements: See attached Exhibit D. The improvements shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, plans, and specifications, which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer, furnished to the City, and approved by the City Engineer. The City may, at its option, contract with a separate engineer to review any plans and specifications or work performed by the Developer at the Developer's expense. The Developer shall instruct his engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspectors and soil engineers inspect the work on a full-time or part-time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council Chambers with all parties concerned, including City staff, to review the program for construction work. The Developer shall complete the work required by this paragraph by October 15, 1991. The date required for completion will be extended for a period equal to the time lost due to delays reasonably beyond the control of the Developer. Such delays shall include delays caused by fire, flood, labor disputes, epidemics, weather conditions, material or equipment shortages, or acts of God. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City for other causes, which oxtonsion shall be granted at the reasonable discretion BRIAROAR.AGR: 6/6/91 Page 7 LO of the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases, if any. Grading Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with a grading plan to control drainage and erosion. Any drainage or flooding problems and property damage onto adjacent properties resulting from the development of the subject property shall be the responsibility of the Developer for the correction of any said damages, including total costs of correction and compensation to those properties affected. As the development progresses, the City may impose additional erosion control requirements if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they are necessary to prevent damage to adjacent properties or to prevent unreasonable erosion. The Developer shall comply with the drainage and erosion control plans and with any such additional instructions it receives from the City. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operation shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as Possible. All seed areas shall be mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognized that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. i. Landscaping. The Developer shall provide and comply with a landscaping plan for each parcel. The Developer shall sod the front yard, boulevard, and side yards to the rear of the structure on every lot prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Any trees shall be planted before Certificates of Occupancy are Issued for the lot. This requirement shall not apply as to homes that are constructed and otherwise eligible for Certificates of Occupancy between the months of November and April. In such circumstances, Developer warrants that the requirements of this paragraph shall be completed as soon as reasonably possible after April 1. 10. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of one (1) year after its completion and acceptance by the City. All grass and sod supplied or planted by Developer shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after planting. Any replacements shall be BRIAROAK.AGR: 6/6/91 Pago 4 19 warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. All trees, shrubs, and bushes purchased by Developer shall be warranted by the supplier for a period of twelve (12) months. Developer shall assign said warranties to City following the purchase thereof. The warranties and securities required by this paragraph shall terminate as to each parcel at the time of conveyance of each parcel to a subsequent owner. 11. License. Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers, and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of petition items by City and escrow items by Developer. The license shall expire after all improvements installed pursuant to this development contract have been installed and accepted by the City. 12. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, the public improvements lying within public easement shall become City property without further notice or action. 13. Security For Improvements. As and for security for the un -aid aseeesments end other work required under the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall furnish the City with two (2) irrevocable letters of credit in favor of City which shall remain in full force and effect until released as provided herein. One shall be in the amount of $ for the escrow items described in paragraphs 7 through 9. With City approval, the letter of credit for said escrow items may be written down, from time to time, upon completion and payment in full of the specific obligations as detailed in said paragraphs 7 through 9. The City Engineer shall determine, in his sole discretion, if the obligation has been completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the amount of reduction in the letter of credit. The second letter of credit shall be furnished to the City in the amount of $115,800 or 408 of the total cost of the petition items required by paragraph 5. If any installation of special assessments is not paid when due, and in any event before any penalty is attached, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay off the balance, whether duo or not, on all special assessments in the plat which are owned by Developer at BRIAROAR.AGR: 6/6/91 Page 5 8 the time such assessments and/or penalties are due. The letter of credit provided for petition items may be reduced, at Developer's request, from time to time, as special assessments are paid and parcels are sold to new owners in an amount equal to the amount of the assessments paid, subject to the terms of the following paragraph. 14. Release of Lots. The City shall permit Developer to sell individual lots and release the same from the assessment levied against the entire plat as follows: The City shall release one lot as designated by Developer if all interest on the entire assessment is current through the most recent assessment installment and the principal balance of the entire assessment is reduced at the time of the release request by Developer in an amount equal to $15,508, which is an amount equal to 1.5 time the amount of principal reduction if the assessment was levied against individual parcels. It is the purpose and intent of this paragraph that the assessment for petition items shall be paid in full when no more than 66 percent of the lots in the plat have been sold and released pursuant to the terms of this paragraph. 15. Surety Deficiency. In the event that any cash, corporate surety bond, letter of credit, or other surety referred to herein is ever utilized and found to be deficient In amount to pay or reimburse the City in total as required herein, the Developer agrees that upon being billed by the City, Developer wil pay within thirty (30) days of receipt of said billing the said deficient amount. If there should be an overage in the amount of utilized security, the City, upon making said determination, shall refund to the Developer any monies which the City has in its possession which are in excess of the actual costs of the project as paid by the City. All monies deposited within the City shall be used by the City at the City's discretion to defray the City's costs and expenses connected with the project. 16. Responsibility For Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including, but not limited to, legal, planning, engineering, and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the plat, the preparation of this contract, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. BRIAROAK.AGR: 6/6/91 Pago 6 Oap The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including, but not limited to, the release of lots after sale and the issuance of building permits, until the bills are paid in full, or apply to the letters of credit as described herein. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and/or third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred to public or private property or injury to persons resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. This indemnification shall not extend to costs attributable to the City's own negligence or that of its agents or employees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all damage to property of neveloper Incurred in connection with the escrow items performed by Developer. D. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. 17. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it or any of its obligations hereunder, the City may, at its option, in addition to any other remedies available to it, suspend its performance duties under this Agreement, enjoin the default by court order, or perform the work or obligation required of Developer. In the event City acts to perform the work obligation, the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, or the City may, at its option, draw on the lotter(s) of credit as provided for by this Agreement provided the Dovelopor is first given written notice of the work or obligation in default, not less than 48 hours in advance in the event the default constitutes an emergency. For the purposes of this paragraph, an emergency is defined as a condition which presents an imminent hazard to the public health, safety, BRIAROAR.AGR: 6/6/91 Pago 7 0 and welfare of the citizens of city. For defaults which are of a non -emergency nature, the Developer shall be given ten (10) days prior written notice. This Agreement is a license of the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may apply to the letters of credit for reimbursement, or, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. The Developer, its successors and assigns, as well as future lot purchasers, waive all procedural and substantive objections to the improvements and special assessments, including, but not limited to, any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property, that proper notices have not been given, and that the method of spreading the assessment Is erroneous, as well as any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A., Section 429.081. 18. Clean Up. Developer shall promptly clear from public streets and property any soil, earth, or debris resulting from construction work performed by the Developer, its agents or assigns. The City shall promptly clean debris from city streets and from the plat any soil, earth, or debris resulting from construction work performed by or on behalf of the Citv. 19. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. B. Third parties shall have no recourse against any party under this Agreement. C. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including all or part of said plat sold to third parties. D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason hold invalid, such decision shall not affoct the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. E. So long as the City uses its best efforts to construct the petition items, Developer agroos to assumo the risk of damage to Developer attributable to any delays in completing the petition items. BRIAROAK.AGR: 6/6/91 Page 8 J No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until sanitary sewer and water lines have been installed, hooked up, tested, and approved by the City, and until the streets needed for access have.been paved with a bituminous surface. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. The Developer represents to the City that, to the best of the Developer's knowledge, the plat Goes not require an environmental assessment worksheet or an environmental impact statement. The City hereby waives its right to require an environmental assessment worksheet provided, however, that in the event that subsequent facts become known to the City that the City's reasonable judgment indicate a need for an environmental assessment worksheet, an environmcntal assessment :aorkshect shall be prepared in compliance with applicable legal requirements. Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorneys' fees, that the City incurs in connection with the preparation of the environmental assessment worksheet. Future residents of the plat shall not be deemed to be third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. The Developer represents to the City that to the best of Developer's knowledge the plat complies with all city, county, state, and federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to, subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City subsequently determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease until there is compliance. BRIAROAR.AGR: 6/6/91 Pago 9 rol K. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title of the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release which shall be in recordable form. L. Each right, power, or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy, expressed or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, power, and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often or and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power, or remedy. 20. Agreement Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and extend to the representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. CITY OF MONTICELLO PRESTIGE BUILDERS OF ST. CLOUD By: Rv: Kenneth Maus, Mayor Kevin Schmitz By: Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA) CITY OF MONTICELLO) SS COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) On this day of , 1991, before me personally appeared Kenneth Maus and Rick Wolfstoller to me known to be the persons described in the foregoing instrument and who did say they are respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the municipal corporation named therein and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Kenneth Maus and Rick Wolfsteller acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public BRIAROAK.AGR: 6/6/91 Pago 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) SS On this day of 1991, before me personally appeared to me known to be the persons described in the foregoing instrument and who did say they are partners of the corporation name therein, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its partners and said partners acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public BRIAROAR.AGR: 6/6/91 Page 11 0 Prestige Builders Development Agreement/ Improvement Financing Analysis June 1, 1991, Project Portion of unsecured Number of Per lot lot released Total total secured Assessment lots cost at payment by letter of Balance developed equal to 1.5 credit. times per lot 101 cost. 1289,000 11115,600 1113,100 28 $10,321 $15,182 Number of lots 11 than must be sold before letter of credit can be reduced. 0 'T6es4'.y 17•-6k Ao f�w.}� W...4;6 cjolkst t-> DATE 1991 1992 1993 1996 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 YEAR 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL PROJECT COST $289,000 LETTER OF CREDIT $115,600 601 PROJECTED ANNUAL PENALTY 1081 1081 1081 1081 1081 1081 1081 1081 1081 1081 1081 UNSECURED PRINCIPLE $289.000 {311,120 1221,49 {239,209 1258,365 $279,013 1301,331 1325,++1 1351,476 1379,596 $+09,962 $AA TOTAL LOIS 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 LAND VALUE APPRECIATION 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 VALUE PER LOT S17,11DO 117,170 $17,362 17,515 117,690 111,857 $18,046 $18,226 118,609 $18,593 118,779 11 TOTAL PROPERTY VALUE $+75,000 1680,760 {185,568 1 0,123 1495,328 1500,281 $505,286 $510,336 1515,610 1520,596 1525.600 $53 DEBT TO EOUIIY 611 651 461 691 521 561 601 611 681 731 781 DI OyJ oe W N o- OC -lot EXHIBIT C PETITION ITEMS BRIAR OASES ESTATE Estimated Cost Including 248 Item Indirect Sanitary Sewer $ 74,200 Water Main $ 73,900 Storm Sewer $ 43,900 Streets, Including Curb S Gutter $ 97,500 TOTAL $289,500 Lot Cost $ 10,339 Lot Release Cost S 15,508 0 EXHIBIT D ESCROW ITEMS NzDgl tellA*M*1VA0 Item Escrow Amount Pond Grading and Excavation $ 35,000 Roadway Grading/Compaction Landscaping, Seeding/Sodding 8 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 9. Consideration of declarinq the City of Monticello as the responsible governing unit, acceptinq environmental assessment worksheet, and orderinq publication of the EAW associated with the proposed Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Cardinal Hills residential subdivision is the title of the development proposed by the Value Plus developers for the 109 - acre site south of the school development area. Before any phase of a development of this magnitude can begin, the state of Minnesota requires that an environmental assessment worksheet be completed and distributed to various agencies and individuals that have an interest in land development and its effect on the environment. If Council accepts the EAW, the review and comment period will begin June 10 and end 30 days later. Although the preliminary plat of Cardinal Hills has not been completed, enough information regarding the potential development pattern is available to allow preparation of the EAW. It is important that the EAW process is initiated soon because construction of sewer and water lines associated with this project cannot begin until 30 days after notice of this EAW is published in the EQB Monitor. Please note that the developers have paid the City $2,100 to prepare the EAW. The City has not lost anything if the project does not proceed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to declare the City of Monticello as being the responsible governing unit, accept the EAW, and order EAW publication associated with the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. This alternative will allow the 30 -day comment period to begin now, which will allow construction to occur on a timely basis. Accepting the EAW does not constitute an approval of the subdivision design, it only starts the environmental review process. 2. Motion to deny declaring the City of Morticollo as being the rosponsible governing unit, deny acceptance of the EAW, and do not order EAW publication associated with the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. This option should be selected if Council wishes to delay the project. 17 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends alternative 61. Alternative $1 allows the project to keep a schedule that could result in construction in 1991, and alternative #1 does not constitute an approval of final plat design. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of EAW. 18 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) NOTE TO PREPARERS This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The proper Proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296.8253 or (toll-free) 1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB eovironmenW review program) or consult 'EAW Guidelines a booklet available from the EQB. NOTE TO REVIEWERS Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30 -day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EOB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. 1. Project Title: Residential Subdivision -Cardinal Hills-Monticelln. MN 2. Proposer: Value Plus Homes 3. RGU: City of Montieell� Contact Person: Tom Holthaus Contact Person: Jeff O'Neill Address: Route 3. Bos Y>9 and Title: Assistant Administrator Monticello, MN 55362 Address: 250 East Broadwav Phone: (6121 295.3292 Monticello. MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612)295-2711 or Metro 333.5739 4. Reason for EAW Preparation _ EIS scoping X mandatory EAW _ citizen petition _ RGU discretion _ Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category numbcr(s) 4410.4300 Sabo. 18 and Subo. 18 and 12 3. Project Location S1/2 of the SE 1/4 R SW 1/4 Section _13 Township 121 Rangej._ County Wright City Monticelln o. a county map showing the general location of the project; b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 stale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries; C. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features. 6. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The proposed project is a residential housing development consisting of approximately 260 lots. The minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet and the project will be completely developed within 10 years. The project will utilize sanitary sewer and watermain services as provided by the City of Monticello. The project will be mass graded by phase using standard earth moving equipment. The utilities will be constructed according to industry standards. The sanitary sewer will be constructed to discharge into a lift station on a temporary basis prior to a city trunk sewer line being constructed. The existing topography and natural features will be maintained as much as reasonably possible. The project is proposed to be under construction by August or September of 1991. The utilities and grading of the first phase should be 1 completed prior to September, with the individual house construction following. Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EOB Monitor notice: See Attached 7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 109 or Length (miles) '0.45 miles Number of Residential Units Unattached 260 Attached • This is the length of sanitary sewer pipe necessary to serve the site from existing facilities. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space) Total square feet; Indicate area of specific uses: Office Manufacturing Retail Other Industrial Warehouse Institutional Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Building Height(s) 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local. state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required: Units of Government Tvne ofAppdication Status Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Esaensions Applied for after completion of plans Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extensions Applied for after oompiction Review of plans US Department of (lousing and F14A Subdivision Analysis Na applied for at this time Urban Development 9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indiwtc whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tams. The current and recent past land use of the property has been for agricultural purposes, cropland and pasture. The entire north boundary of the property is zoned residential low density and is owned by the local school district. The development of a low density residential housing plat is consistent with the surrounding zoning and does not present any potential environment concerns. Upon review of the past and current land use, no sod contamination or abandoned storage tams are anticipated. 10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site which each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after totals should be equal): Before After Before Mer Types 2 to 8 Wetlands r' Q. 3,� Urban/Suburban Lawn 0 Wuoded/forest Landscaping Brush/Grassland 27 0 Impervious Surface n_ Cropland so_ 0 Other (describe) __ z Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The wetlands located within the project site are all type 2 and are located in grassland areas. The wetlands appear to be prevalent only during the rainy season and are generally used as pasture area. The seasonally flooded areas are intermediately used for habitat by wildlife of upland species. Are there any state -fisted endangered, threatened, or special -concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? _ Yes X No. If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? X Yes _ No. If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. The existing ponds will be slightly modified/excavated to conform to the EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water quality standards. These standards including allowing for dead storage in the ponds (approximately 4 feet of excavation below the outlet). 13. Water Use a. Will the project involve :be installation or abandonment of any wells? _ Yes X No For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermittcd wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known). b. Will the project require the appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? _ Yes �X No*. If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels. • Past projects have not required the use of dewatering in the arca, however, with the extremely wet spring and anticipated depth of construction it is possible. The dewatering, if required, will be performed by the utility contractor and wig only be during the actual construction. Any permit will be acquired by the contractor. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? _&- Yes _ No. If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. The water supplier is the City of Monticello. Watermain will be extended from the costing city system. The DNR water appropriation Permit No. is 64-1059. 14. Water related Lund Use Slunagement Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shorcland coning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? _ Yes X No. If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. 15. Wafer Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? _ Yes sNo. If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. 16. Solis Approximate depth (in feet) to: Ground water: minimum 10 feet average 20 feet Bedrock: minimum _ average _ Describe the soils on the site. giving SCS classificatiom if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need (� be attached.) Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 109 ; cubic yards ' Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. The total site area is 109 acres. however, the site will be graded in phases according to the volume of lot sales per year. It is anticipated that the site will be fully developed in 10 years. Six to twelve percent slopes are located in the area along CR118 on the east side of the property. The undeveloped portion of the site will remain as cropland until it is developed. Silt fence will be used around all boundaries that can erode. The developed portion of the site will be seeded and mulched after the grading is complete. " The grading will be kept to a minimum while satisfying city design standards and protecting natural features. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff o. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. The quantity of runoff during developed conditions is not dramatically increased from the existing condition due to the current use of cropland. Any and all incases of runoff will be processed through detention ponds which arc designed to NURP standards (see Itcm 12). The ponds wil! be designed to have a positive outlet and will primarily be used for water treatment and extreme event detention. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the 'impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving watcrs. (if the runoff may affect a lake consult 'E4W Guidelines: nhout whrthrr a nutrient budget anaMis is needed.) The site is located approximately one mile from the Mississippi Rive. The stormwater runoff will be routed through a series of detention ponds and ultimately discharge into the Mississippi River. 19. Water Quality - Wastewaters o. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. All sanitary wastewater will be normal domestic sewage. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving watcrs. (If the diseharre may affect a lake consult'LeW Guidelines' about whether n nutrient budget analvsis_is needed.) All domestic sewage will be carried through pipe to the Monticello Sewage Treatment Plant. The sewage is treated at the plant and then discharged into the Mississippi 11 River. if wastes will be discharged into a sewer systems or pretreatment system, identify the systems and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the waters. Identify any improvements which will be necessary. The sewage will be collected in the City of Monticello sewer system. The discharge is transmitted through pipe to the Monticello Sewage Treatment Plan located next to the Mississippi Rive on Hart Boulevard. The sewer system for the proposed development will utilize a temporary lift station until a trunk sewer is extended from Dundas Road. 20. Ground Water • Potential for Contamination Q. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 10 minimum; 20 average. See attached Water Table Map for further information. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high filtration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. None noted Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. Not applicable. 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, ac!:.d:ng animal manures, sludges dad mhos. Ideality the method and location of disposal. a For projects generating municipal solid wastes indicate if there will be a source separation plan; List type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. The municipal solid waste will be collected weekly by a City designated hauler. The City has a recycling program in effect at this time for metal, glass, paper, and plastic The program is voluntary with incentives for participation. Indicate the number, location, sue, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). Not applicable. 22. Trufllc Parking spaces added 0 Edsting spaces (if project involves expansion) -L. Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 2150 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its liming: not known . not known . For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be necessary. Existing Fallon Avenue (ADT) . 170 (direction distribution split under existing and proposed conditions. 1 ,cisting Penning Avcnue/CR118 - 680 (direction/distribution split under existing and proposed conditions. A future road is planned on the north side of the site, which will ultimately connect to liwy 25 and remove some volume from Fallon and CR 118. 23. Vehlcle•related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monodde levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements 3 or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the nroiecr involves 500 or more narkin¢_ spaces. gonsult 'EAW Guidelines' about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.) It is not estimated that this development will present any concentrated air quality problems. The site docs not contain concentrated parking lots and the traffic should be sporadic upon full development. 24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? _ Yes X_ No If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality. 25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? X Yes _ No If yes, describe [lie sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities of intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. During site grading and utility construction, some construction dust may be generated. If the dust becomes a problem, water or other measures will be used to mitigate the concern. The Contractors shall comply with local and state ordinances on noise abatement. All work will be completed during daylight hours. The only residences dose to the construction are located in the southwest quadrant of the site. 26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? _ Yes X_ No* b. prime or unique farmlands? _ Yes X No C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? _ Yes X No d. scenic views and vistas? _ Yes �_ No e. other unique resources? _ Yes _X No If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource duc to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The Helm's Cemetery is located in the southeast corner of the site. The cemetery is approximately 0.6 acres in size and will be located along the rear lot line of two lots. The cemetery will not be disturbed as a pan of this project. 27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense Ijyhts; lights visible in wilderness areas: and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) _ Yes _X No If yes, explain. 28. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of an local, regional, state, or federal agency? vim Yes _ No If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain. The property is located within the City of Monticello and is consistent with the local land use plan. 29. Impact on Inrrostructure and Public Semices Will new or expanded utilities, roads. other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? 1X Yes _ No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a *connected action' with respect to the prpjl;ct must be assessed in this L&W: see'L•AW Guidelines for�il• ) The attached site plan outlines the planned street network, in which all utilities will be located. The initial utility connection will be completed by extending utilities to the site from Dundas Road. RE 30. Related Developments; Cumuiative Impacts a. Arc future stages of this development planned or likely? _ Yes K No If yes, briefly describe future stages, thew liming, and plans for environmental review. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _ Yes si No If yes, briefly describe the put development, its timing, and any past environmental review. C. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlets? _ Yes , X No If yes, briefly describe the develnpment and its relationship to the present project. d. If a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other development. 31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. 32. SUMMARY OF ISSUES (This section need not be completed if the EAW is being done for EIS scupinQ instead address relevant issues in the draft Stoning Decision document which must accomoanv the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (all 3 certifications must be sinned for EOB acceotance of the FAW for publication of notice in the EOR Monitor) 1 hereby certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowI d e. A II P $iSnature � f�+ �v/''�� •' I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the f oject as "connected action or *phased actions as defined, respectively, in Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, bp.9 an A 60. Signature r 1 hereby cenif • that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EOB EAW distribution list.A e _ Signature F1 11KV Title of Signe f T NGii✓L�c`� Date OG/ -70j RAI I 4 II V ,�' 3 First 0Lc L. Mud Bertram L h L. Long L. Q / ub i 0 I N T i C 'Ceder Lake 1 LGilchrist MONTICELLO i y � 75 94 O I ILPROJEC " S TE LdL 7 7pa As - t �a Peucer► Drown 8r: Draw -Ag fatt• SAW Mi•w LOCATION MAP w •►ea i Doti, .�N• WRIONT COUNTY 6�w� • •�.Nw •Hawn 5/91 MONTICELLO. MN, L/ !, Lek: Comm. No. 1748.88 Flar•� 36 RIVER_ re pit WWI- lk -k3 S%l - O -W no '100 we ........... . '24 000 SCALE mlou E. V - v COW ft."HMO. - 0019 usas . R•r i •ww t �rown By: Drawing Tale BAW• �•�►•e LOCATION MAP Date: le�sele 6 tor. 5191 sms a :ow,- ...:� •e. ass -mon MONTICELLO. MN Corm, No, 1748.88 pma, 9 qr Ij 441, Iz .14 -23 COMM, No. -cfe"fig lilts 1746-66 urcion Hy LOCATION MAP fipjre SAW too. W "*n,...,.DOm.1 MONTICELL 5191 a wo 0 , —00 '� • - ,` .'dURF.25ON COU"Ty,::- J � jl 'I' ter• w' �-..� J' rUARRISAV CAU\TY �• i ,�... �'-•'�� . // • G L RR�TOY CAI;:!?Y �..►� :YTY •'�. _.._i_.._�,.--0'�, fns � r •� s { •A " • •�N •w i • — • ! 1 ( �+ r�! � • p•j, • � ' Foley`. !%� i • `�•r S'L Jos[rp ssnk ,'"''" r • y� Ir) � O 1tlp.ds _ 1', BE\TO��_OIJ�TY yL1t:S trr� Zuti} SAEMUANE I.• .•Ti , Z.. ^t '�.'1 • -.�/ a � • • a ` • i.•rs. �• •!'10'1 EXPLANATION Wats tahlecontour 3a••u •ttU•d+ of rats. feet•. c»wv - I "wtrY•i 4/Mt: dm- u •tw •a iw•t .»' • � _ � �•' t _ • Y \, ear _ - . :`^ • � ....✓- Doctoral dlmtion of IRound-star• , _ f .' %% • • .;�^ • ` movement In QIecW drift ~• • ,"1 10.0 ,n / • w • \ F j • ( t Uonticel yEit.9lR�fr�vL�t'el Drill hok leu thaw SO teat deep a« n pJr r 1v I•: #U 11n Ohumtion -all '` . 1a, , 1, �„ M1e .1 • a l �.. a� r`.��,�q.lp`'�� Nattoml Waathar Ser•ico Station p ! IO MIL[! Wateratudbmaidary 0 ! IamLomeNty Drown h: Or Dtdeulq Ime Comm, No. BAW LOCATION MAP /748.88 Dote; 1OltEau stenaeptna•rnue WATER TABLE Shp". Mmnrapws MOO SS•i! ( y/ 6/91 •tf."11•tlhrl ra�Jlalenn MONTICELLO, MN ____ ✓( w4w or oft, RAW 8/61 PROPOBND PLAY I Go.. %. I art CARDINAL MILLO MONTICILLO.On U% Istre PLAN Council Agenda - 6/10/91 to. Consideration of resolution acceptinq feasibility report, calling for a public hearing on the improvements, and orderinq plans and specifications for Project 91-3 (Fallon Avenue/Cardinal Hills). (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to pass a resolution which will initiate the sewer and water utilities installation along Fallon Avenue and installation of sewer, water, and road systems associated with phase I of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. As with the Briar Oakes Estate developer, the Value Plus developers are willing to deposit funds necessary to prepare plans and specifications as soon as possible. The proposed plan calls for bidding the Fallon Avenue/Cardinal Hills project along with the Briar Oakes Estate project. It is proposed that the phase I improvements associated with the Cardinal Hills development be bid as an alternate. Bidding phase I as an alternate is suggested because the Cardinal Hills platting process is not complete, and there is a possibility that the plat may not obtain approvals in time for commencement of construction. If Cardinal Hills plat approval is not forthcoming, the alternate can be dropped, and the Fallon Avenue and Briar Oakes Estate improvements can proceed as scheduled. Combining projects in this manner can lead to significant savings in terms of engineering fees and construction bid amounts. Developing plans and specs associated with phase I of Cardinal Hills does have a small degree of risk for the developers. Despite the risk, the developers are willing to go ahead with plan preparation and provide the City with financial security to the City in the form of a letter of credit. This letter of credit can be drawn down by the City to pay for plan preparation in the event the project does not proceed. The developers understand that premature financing of plane and specifications in no way obligates the City to approve the plat. In the resolution, Council Is asked to take the following action: Accept feasibility report. The feasibility report is being finalized and will be available for review during the mooting on Monday. Proliminary cost figures are not available at this time. Council Agenda - 6/10/91 Call for a public hearing on the improvement. Council is asked to call for a public hearing on the improvement. The date for the public hearing is scheduled for the next meeting of the Council, June 24, 1991. Order plans and specifications. In order to expedite the project, the developer has indicated that he is willing to provide a letter of credit to the City an amount equal to the cost to prepare plans and specs and advertise for bids ($20,000). It is important that the City obtain this security prior to preparation of plans because the preliminary plat, final plat, and development agreement for the Cardinal Hills development have not been prepared. It is the view of the developer that it is important to keep the project on a time schedule that will result in homes being built in the late summer and fall. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve a resolution accepting the feasibility report, calling for a public hearing, and ordering plans and specifications for Project 91-3 (Fallon Avenue/ Cardinal Hills) subject to submittal of a letter of credit to the City by Value Plus developers in the amount of $20,000. Installation of the utilities associated with the elementary school is inevitable; therefore, it makes sense to go ahead and begin this portion of the project. On the other hand, development of phase I of the Cardinal Hills estate as proposed in the attached sketch plan is not completely assured, as the preliminary and final plat have not been reviewed. On the face of it, it does not seem to make sense to invest in phase I plans until the plat is at least nearing approval. The developers are confident, however, that phase I of Cardinal Hills will be approved because it is being designed to be consistent with all City ordinances and because the comprehensive plan calls for residential development in this area. Furthermore, the development design of phase I is very limited, and it is likely that the concept plan prepared will become the design of the preliminary and final plat. Even if the plat is not approved in July as hoped by the developers, the effort to got the plans and specs done early will not be wasted, as the plans can be used again in a later bidding process. The next step in the process is to prepare a formal agreement between the City, School District, and Value Plus outlining improvement financing terms. Although we 20 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 have a very solid level of expectations regarding financing based on various discussions, it is important to outline understandings in the form of an agreement. Ideally this step should be completed at this time; however, such an agreement could be delayed until bids are authorized, which is scheduled for June 24, 1991. Motion to approve a resolution accepting the feasibility report, calling for a public hearing, and ordering plans and specifications for Project 91-3 (Fallon Avenue, without Cardinal Hills plans and specifications as an alternative). Council could take the position that the Fallon Avenue improvements should proceed, but it is not appropriate at this time to order plans and specifications for the development of phase I of Cardinal Hills. In denying inclusion of phase I of Cardinal Hills in the resolution, Council could take the position that by financing the preparation of plans associated with a development at the conceptual stage, the developer may be tryiny Lu gain future sympathy or leverage that would assist in obtaining preliminary plat approval. Perhaps the City Council might be reluctant to make major changes to the concept plan if the developer stands to lose money on wasted plans and specifications. If Council is concerned that the preliminary plat may not be viewed objectively because of the premature investment in plans by the developer, then this alternative should be selected. Under this alternative, the developers can petition for the public improvements at a later date under a separate project after the platting process has boon completed. If the developers complete phase I improvements as a separate project, it is likely that the cost will be higher, as smaller projects generally are more expensive than larger, combined projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is satisfied that the financial risk to the City associated with preparing plans for phase I of Cardinal Hills has boon eliminated if a letter of credit is provided to the City as proposed. value Plus has placed in writing their understanding that potentially premature preparation of plans no way obligates the City to approve the plat. We believe that the ability of the Planning Commission and City Council to objectively analyze the plat will not be hampered by the fact that the dovolopers have made a significant investment in plan preparation via the letter of credit. Finally, the coat C Council Agenda - 6/10/91 savings associated with bidding the projects together will likely be significant. For these reasons, staff recommends alternative A1. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of petition for improvements; Feasibility report to be presented at the meeting; Resolution accepting feasibility report, calling for a public hearing, and ordering plans and specifications for project 91-3 (Fallon Avenue/Cardinal Hills); Letter from Tom Holthaus. 22 RESOLUTION 91-0 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT, CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENTS, AND ORDERING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT 91 - (Fallon Avenue/Cardinal Hills) WHEREAS, pursuant to Council action May 13, 1991, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the improvement of Fallon Avenue starting at Dundas Road to a point southerly along Fallon Avenue a distance of approximately 2,000 feet with sanitary sewer and water main extensions along with appurtenant work, and this report was received by the Council on June 10, 1991, and WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the improvement of phase I of the Cardinal Hills development, and this report was received by Council on June 10, 1991, and WHEREAS, the Value Plus developers have paid a sum of $20,000, which is approximately equal to the cost to prepare plans and specifications for phase I of the Cardinal Hills development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: Council will consider the improvement of Fallon Avenue with sanitary sewer and water main extensions in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at an estimated cost of the improvement of $139,000. As an alternate to the project, Council will consider the improvement of phase I of the Cardinal Hills development with sanitary sewer, water main extensions, roadway, and storm sewer improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at an estimated cost of $ 2. A public hearing shall bo hold on such proposed improvements on the 24th day of June, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m., and the City Administrator shall give mailod and published notice of ouch hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. Orr-Scholon-Mayeron 6 Associates is horoby designated as the engineer for this improvement and is instructed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the Council this day of Juno, 1991. Mayor City Administrator PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT b FEASIBILITY STUDY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I (we), the undersigned owner(s) of the property described below petition for a feasibility study pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (local improvements), special assessments, for the following improvements: Please indicate with an ••x" the improvements requested. X, sanitary sewer X water storm sewer bituminous surfacing curb s gutter street lighting I (we) agree to pay 1002 of the cost of the feasibility study. i understand the City Council may pro -rate the cost of the feasibility study attributable to my property if the scope of the study pertains to other benefitting property owners. Description of property: Signature of owners: �d �• The Monticello School District agrees to petition the City for sewer and water to be installed during the late summer or early fall of 1991 if the Value Plus Homes residential development is going to move forward. If not, the school district would prefer sewer and water installation during the spring of 1992. C PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT 6 FEASIBILITY STUDY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I (we), the undersigned owner(s) of the property described below petition for a feasibility study pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (local improvements), special assessments, for the following improvements: Please indicate with an "x" the improvements requested. x sanitary sewer X water X_ storm sewer x bituminous surfacing x curb 6 gutter x street lighting I (we) agree to pay 100% of the cost of' the feasibility study. I understand the City Council may pro -rate the cost of the feasibility study attributable to my property if the scope of the study pertains to other benefitting property owners. Description of property: That part of the NW: of the SWIG of the Sly? of Secttpn 1). rance 25w.city of Monticello containing 10 acres more or less. I Signature of owners: VALUE PLUS HOPES INC. C__=kPRE -5. �% C Petition not intended to try to foreo approval of plat but to expedite bidding process in the hope of obtaining better bide by combining this project with the Prestige/Fallon RA. Project. the risk for plans and specs would be oure regardless of City's decision on Value Plus Homes Plat. We therefore would ogres to a latter of credit to cover the cost of plane and specs in case the Project fails. u Council Agenda - 6/10/91 :t. Consideration of adopting a reaolut.ion re,!­-;tinq the City of Monticello to hold Lots 1, 2t 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park. Second Addition, for the H -Window Company. (O.K.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On May 29, 1991, Mayor Ken Maus; IDC Member Arve Grimsmo; Pat Pelstring of BDS, Inc.; and myself attended a meeting with the six Norwegian H -window Company Board of Directors and their Monticello General Plant Manager, Steve Lemme. The purpose of the meeting was to review the history of the Monticello facility and the company's investment into Minnesota and the Monticello project, to hear the company's potential future expansion plans, and to explore additional available land options and the City of Monticello's interest in a business retention and expansion commitment. The original $2,000,000+ project was financed almost completely through equity and the Norwegian Industrial Fund. The City's direct tax increment finance assistance was in the amount of $122,000. The City of Monticello applied for a Minnesota Economic Recovery Grant for the company; however, the grant was denied based on two main reasons: The project demonstrated no need for money and constituted a possible political issue. Over the past four years this start-up company has made adjustments in their marketing strategies, reorganized the Board of Directors, and managed to survive the American economy and the tough Minnesota window production competition. This foreign company's original investments in the city of Monticello have survived because of the Board of Directors' determination and willingness to invest additional dollars into the project. Today the company is turning a profit and beginning to look at future expansions. At the meeting, Mr. Pat Pelstring advised the Board of Directors of various financial assistance options and told the board members not to disregard the state programs, as H -Window is now an established Minnesota company, and the financial needs aro for an expansion project. The company sees the next 1-1/2 years as their growth period which will be the major determinant in their decision to expand. The anticipated date of their decision of whether to expand is December of 1992. The company's potential 1993 expansion would double the size of the facility and would require the purchase of an additional $500,000 to $1,000,000 of equipment. Total employment would be 50-60 people. 23 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 The Board of Directors views the company's potential annual sales in 10-15 years at a minimum of $50,000,000 and a maximum of $100,000,000 to $150,000,000. Total anticipated needs would be a 300,000 sq ft facility and 150-200 employees. Currently the company owns Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, on which an approximate 29,000 sq ft manufacturing and office facility stands. The company employs approximately 25 people and expects to hire another five people within a few months. The company's concern is that they may become landlocked in the process of their future development plans. To prevent this from happening, they are requesting that the City Council consider holding Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the east of the H -Window property through December 1992. This would give the company a total of approximately 20 acres for continuous building construction with the assumption that the Midwest Gas line was relocated. A few years ago the City acquired this property through an assessment/property swap agreement with the Oakwood Partnership. Therenfter, the city subdivided the two lots into six smaller lots, stubbed -in water/sewer to the six lots, and constructed a cul-de-sac. Although the City has never actively marketed these lots, three companies seriously considered one or more of the lots; however, the land/ assessment costs and additional development costs prohibited the companies from proceeding with acquisition. As you may recall, about a year ago the Council executed a Right of First Refusal agreement with the H -Window Company for Lots 1, 2, and 3, which no longer meets their needs. The company does not want to be placed in the position of purchasing additional land and paying the property taxes during thoir growth period. The estimated market value for taxes payable in 1992 on their current facility and property is $943,200. The company is aware of the competition among states and communities for economic development. They hope the City of Monticello will consider and recognize the mega dollars the Norwegian parent company has already invested into the Monticello manufacturing business and our community and for the City to be conscious of the potential of this company and what it means for the city of Monticello. Mr. stove Lemme and Mr. Arve Grimsmo maybe be present at the Council moeting for additional input and to answer questions. 24 C Council Agenda - 6/10/91 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution holding Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park, Second Addition, for the H -Window Company for a period through December 1992. 2. Deny adoption of the resolution. 3. Table the agenda item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is to adopt the resolution (Alternative 01) in support of the H -Window Company. Because the City has not received numerous inquiries of the property, the delay of actively marketing the property for 1-1/2 years becomes a very minute factor. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of a map outlining the existing H -Window property and the six smaller lots under consideration; Copy of the resolution for adoption. 25 �. � �I�T� �� •IST / _ • r C gOYii IL1t16:O[.CC •ITU nu {[IGG[ Y. a R7T Oi Emct• ..... IIO.TICEIIA c I c• b `'' e%Is•� I �•\� I COlPSM a r�iCLD:i [un C \ e_ r • •, 11 �� LJR 20 7 !�^ run I.II _~• _ O1DIT Law a ' I.f 3 rI/umttaY ��\ [fast o7 T{arYIID T y*LILY j 1 Y Ctf {F • Inr{t{orI mam { �P. . I*stbtw TAM CMIT 7=AWF ! i p�C ti0 O 'SR r Iw�rs owom L►tv= so .Cie. 1c ,,,,.,r.r... t r ico:.muer•n_ , I !• Sii :. Q = rrm�H,ir! ruiwase! �• s.s I. . errs• — I DUND S RD CITT LL�TiCIL1L '011'ao pR}I[ . 1®• i{{{[T ` W NI' Yttl m! ► 1► ►sar.rs{LLtt1{j � ' \• s.0 ecr.• t t C RESOLUTION 91 - RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO TO HOLD LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 1, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK SECOND ADDITION, CITY OF MONTICELLO, FOR THE H -WINDOW COMPANY WHEREAS, the City of Monticello acknowledges that Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, City of Monticello, are owned by The H -Window Company, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello owns and recognizes that Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, City of Monticello, adjoins The H -Window Company property, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello endorses economic development and the business retention and expansion program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The City of Monticello shall hold Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, City of Monticello, for the H -Window Company located at 1324 East Oakwood Drive, Monticello, Minnesota, for a period through the and of Decombor 1992. Adopted by the Council this 10th day of June, 1991. Mayor City Administrator Council Agenda - 6/10/91 12. Consideration of an offer to exchange land in lieu of delinguent assessments--Outlot A of Country Club Manor. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the April 22 Council meeting, a request was made by West Prairie Partners for the City to accept $200,000 as payment in full for the special assessments that had accrued against Outlot A of Country Club Manor. The partnership has recently acquired an interest in this property and was proposing to develop the parcel into residential building sites. Approximately $550,000 is delinquent against the parcel in question, which apparently exceeds the market value of the land. The sketch plan proposed for Outlet A consisted of approximately 22 lots fronting along Country Club Road, which is anticipated to be a collector street connecting to 7th Street near Kmart in the future. The City staff had concerns over the concept plan in that the property would require a number of additional sewer and water services which would result in the street being torn up and the fact that a collector type street may not be appropriate to have individual driveways accessing along this route. As you may recall, the City staff prepared their own concept plan utilizing cul-de-sac arrangements to minimize potential traffic problems and still create residential building sites. The property owners did not feel this type of proposal would be either economical or attractive for development, and their proposal would also allow the three billboard sites to remain. In addition, because part of the property has been mined, the staff was exploring the possibility of utilizing a portion of Outlet A for a future storm water ponding area that may also benefit surrounding properties in the future. The Council action in April was to table any action on the special assessment offer to allow time for the planner to review the proposed concepts for single family development and also to encourage the Wright County Auditor's Office to continuo with the tax forfeiture proceedings against the parcel. it has come to our attention that the county is commencing action to foreclose on tho property, as the property owners were notified on May 17, 1991, that the property is under forfeiture proceedings, which will expire in July. if the proporty taxes and special assessments are not paid by the middle of July, the property owners will lose all rights to the property. 26 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 West Prairie Partners have proposed another option regarding Outlet A. Basically, the partnership owns 2-1/2 acres along County Road 75 between the Gills Auto sales lot and the Pinewood playground area. They are proposing to trade the 2- 1/2 acres they own to the City in exchange for approximately 10 acres of the Outlet A property with the City retaining approximately 6 acres of Outlot A for future storm ponding needs. In turn, they are requesting that all assessments be waived, they be allowed to keep the existing signs located on the property, that they be immune from any sewer and water hookup charges and immune from future storm sewer assessments. As part of the exchange, they would have no plans to change the zoning, which is currently R-3 (multiple family) and future development would limit access to the future collector road. As explained by the partnership, the reasons for proposing a land trade is that they feel the City of Monticello will ultimately be the responsible party for acquiring and possibly cleaning up any contamination that may exist on the Gills Auto site. Should this occur, the partnership felt the City would be in a good position to own their adjacent 2-1/2 acre parcel to combine with the Gille Auto site to create a townhouse and/or multiple family development site to clean up the area In the future. First of all, the staff is not convinced that the City of Monticello should be or will be the responsible entity to clean up the Gille Auto site, and also we question whether the proposed land exchange adequately compensates the City for the special assessment debt against Outlot A. The partnership's 2-1/2 acres has currently been approved for a residential plat consisting of six lots, and it doesn't seem that the six -lot development would equal the value of 10 acres along I-94 in Country Club Manor. The partnership has indicated they previously made an offer of $200,000 as payment for all assessments upon which no firm action was taken by the Council. Being somewhat under pressure duo to the county's tax forfeiture procedures, they wanted to propose another option for the Council to consider. At this point, they are requesting some typo of action by the Council, either rejection, further negotiations, or at least a counter-offer by the City. While I believe the staff and also the Council realize Outlet A may not have a market value of $550,000, it is difficult to establish its true value today. With the current zoning being R-3 (multiple family), I chocked on some R-3 property that has boon for sale and also found out what recent R-3 property has sold for. Ono apartment site along Lauring Lane near Burger King recently sold for $39,000 per acre, and an adjacent parcel is listed for $43,000 per acre. While I do not believe the market currently exists for multiple dwelling sitos, you can soo that Council Agenda - 6/10/91 if the entire 16 -acre Outlet A parcel was suitable for multiple housing development and there were developers interested in the property, the market value could exceed $600,000. In all likelihood, it will take a number of years before multiple dwellings are again in demand in Monticello, and it's the staff's opinion that Outlet A can only go up in value once the collector street is finished connecting Country Club Road to the Kmart area. A counter-offer proposal could possibly be that the City would retain four acres of the 16 -acre site for future ponding needs; and if we discounted the estimated value to $25,000 per acre for the remaining 12 acres, this would equal $300,000. It seems possible that the Outlet A property would be more suited in the future for multiple housing in that garages required for apartment buildings could be placed near the freeway, which would automatically create an 8 -foot berm. If we tried to establish a current value for the property assuming a light commercial use, it would be anybody's guess as to the value; but again, we believe the construction of the collector road will only enhance its value in the future. If we took the same approach we did with Farm Credit in reducing the assessments by eliminating some penalties and interest, this could be another counter-offer to the partnership. In the Farm Credit settlement, the City did collect about 40% of the penalties and interest that pertained to the delinquent assessments. We reduced the total outstanding balance by only 15%, which if applied to the Outlet A delinquent assessments would only reduce the balance to about $450,000. I'm sure this type of proposal would not be acceptable to the partnership at this time. With the county having started the tax forfeiture process, the City will ultimately end up owning this property. Although it may take another year or so to acquire title, the other option is to do nothing and hope to recapture as much of our assessment debt as possible in the future ourselves by selling the property. In the moantime, the public works could use the Outlet A property for disposal of fill material and could start to construct a berm. With the City owning the property, we could develop an appropriate storm pond area and hopefully market the balance of the property when multiple housing demand again increases or for light commercial use. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Sinco an additional proposal has been submitted by the partnership, the Council could accept a proposal to trade land as outlined. 28 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 2. The Council could make a counter-offer on a cash settlement based on the estimated market value as I outlined above. For example, reduce the assessments to $300,000 with approximately four acres being deeded to the City for future ponding area. 3. Council could reconsider their original offer of a $200,000 settlement. 4. Council could indicate that since the tax forfeiture process has been commenced, no settlement will be considered. C. STAFF RECOKNENDATION: Initially, the staff does not feel their proposal for a land swap would provide the City with adequate compensation for the delinquent assessments. While the partnership did propose to give the City six acres of Outlot A for future ponding needs, some of this property would have to remain in a drainage area, as a portion was already dedicated for that purpose as part of the Country Club plat. A land swap will not recapture any funds for the City at the present time to pay off the debt and only puts us in the land business. It seems that if we are going to own land, we might as well wait for the tax forfeiture procedures to run its course, and we will own Outlot A. Again, it is extremely hard to establish a good market value for the property today; but if the current zoning is to remain R-3, there will be value to the property in the future. Based on current asking prices for multiple family property and based on recent sales, it is logical to assume the property with sewer and water and etreots will be worth at least $25,000 per acre. This is based on recent sales of $35,000 to $40,000 an acre for multiple sites. Basically, the partnership is asking for soma typo of a decision, either a willingness to continue negotiations of some kind or an out-and-out rejection. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Notice of Expiration of Redemption. 29 OFFICE OF COUNTY AUDITOR Colm,di Wright ,Slate Of Mk.*UAa NOTICE OF EXPIRATION OF REDEMPTION To M Pomona Interested in the lands horesialtew described: You are hereby notified Nat the parade as IBM herWraffen described. Whaled In the County d Wr — StatedMlnnesnla,%tiro bid N low the State an W, 11th daypf May 19 RI at the lax Wdgmant sale d lard low doiinduent tun low the yew 191.0_: Nat tie legal desune rpticand lax parcel Idmrplitatgn numbers of such pwcele and names of the taxpuyos and lee onmens and m addition prose parties win have liled than addresses puri—nl toSection 276 041, mid the ampml no ry lo radeam as d me date Hoed end. 91 NB election d nty the couAumlOr. the Cunent Ided Oddreslas d anY such Pomona. We os IpllO%e' 2:9=.. =Q. tamusrcr am to W[v rw MONT10ELLA CITY w u 155-033- Marvin Ceorge Builders, inc. Outlet A A 1543,173.59 000010 P.O. Box 428 Country Club _ Princeton IW 55371-0428 Manor Jesee C. Mattel' West Prsirle Partnere P.O. Boa 646 Kant ice 110 HN 55362 Thol trot time la redondlon d such tenda hom such Gale NB aapbe W days 11110im "d notice and Ne filling prod 1=004 in MY Office. as provided by law. The m lonnoslwl must be mod, an my off" FAILURE TO REDEEM SUCH LANDS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF REDEMPTION WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF THE LAND AND FORFEITURE OF SAID LAND TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Induuins as to the Ivocoodbngs sat form above Can be mode to the Calmty Aldil4r la Ns co my d Wright Ip %so WdnaN in sal lath below, Wi6ess my hard and official A" this 14th day of Iters � 19 91 IorrlclALsuLI of n Amnon 10 N.V. Ind It—,(612)682-7579 Bulls to 101 55313 (TaMphl ) IMdne s) I On N. Croshen■ r AWtlOwd Wright Canty. MUMeada, hnrrby Cobh that this is • true Copy at the pA Wasd not" W of OM posMO roW.e wn%poll lel PUM Inspection in my rifles COafs- Key 14 19 91 / CNetb A ddM I� Council Agenda - 6/10/91 13. Review of current status regardinq delinquent utility accounts and payment policy. (R. W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the utilization of our computer system, the City now has greater ability to monitor the status of delinquent sewer and water accounts and has established a policy of sending reminder notices to delinquent accounts on a pre -determined schedule. While this does involve more work than normal, we are attempting to reduce our delinquent utility accounts to a manageable level, and we have reached the case with our recent quarterly billing of notifying property owners that are delinquent with a third notice that indicates their water will be shut off for non-payment of the bill. Property owners that are at least 60 days delinquent on a utility bill were sent a notice that gave them another 30 days to pay the bill or the water would be turned off. The latest cycle of billings mailed out over 350 notices to accounts that were at least 60 days past due (many of them up to a year or 1-1/2 years past due), which indicated that on June 6 disconnection would occur. The notices have done some good in that we have reduced the number to about 75 accounts that have still failed to respond or pay their bill. The procedures outlined above are part of our city ordinance. At this point, I'm only informing Council of the current status, and it is our intent to commence the discontinuance of service to these delinquent accounts on Tuesday morning, June 11. It should be noted that our ordinance does allow the resident who receives a disconnect notice to demand a hearing before the City Council to plead their case. To date, a couple of individuals have indicated a desire to appear before the Council., and disconnection will not occur for theno individuals until they have been heard by the City Council. At this point, these individuals will be scheduled for the June 24 meeting. The ordinance also states that unless satisfactory arrangements are made for payment, the water will be shut off. In most cases, the individuals remaining have not attempted to set up any kind of payment plan, and most inquiries just indicated they didn't have the money or thought they could just put the bill on their taxes. While there is no definition of "satisfactory arrangements being made," in the past if an individual has shown or made an attempt to arrange for payment on a delinquent bill, the City usually has boon accommodating. So that everyone can be treated equal, I have instructed the staff to use the attached policy for those individuals who at least attempt to clear up their delinquent accounts without being disconnected. 30 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 Because the City has been somewhat complacent in enforcing our ordinance for a number of years in regard to shutting off the water supply, if our three warning notices are going to have any effect, I believe we have to proceed with the disconnections if satisfactory arrangements are not made. My guess is that if we had 75 actual properties to disconnect, as soon as the water is shut off, the majority of those property owners will pay their bill when they realize the City is not bluffing. At this point, I just wanted you to be aware in case you receive any phone calls or inquiries from upset property owners once we start the process Tuesday morning. No action is really necessary by the Council unless you would like to see any changes to the informal payment policy I prepared. D. SUPPORTING DATA: copy of payment policy. I 31 ( DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNT \ COLLECTION PROCEDURE When a property owner/resident requests to arrange for payment of a delinquent utility account to avoid disconnection of service, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. A minimum payment of $25.00 or 25% of the delinquent bill, whichever is higher, must be paid by the date noted on the disconnect notice. 2. The responsible party must agree in writing to a payment schedule that pays the balance within 3 months. (i.e., 1/3 per month, "X" dollars per week, etc.) elf The property owner must agree to not allow future utility bills to become delinquent during the repayment time period. �.S The City will commence disconnection of water upon: A. default on payment schedule agreed to, or l B. additional utility bills becoming dolinquont. Jr /U 1, S" -k --q d---7 c DELINQ.PRC: 6/6/91 /3 7-2-19: PRIVATE WATER NOT PERMITTED IN SYSTEM: Whenever any premises are connected to the water system, there shall be maintained a complete physical separation between the water supply system and the private water supply system so that it is impossible to intentionally or unintentionally allow any water produced by a private system to be introduced in the supply line from the city system. 7-2-20: PROVISION FOR SHUT-OFF FOR NONPAYMENT: (A) Shut-off for Nonpayment: The City shall endeavor to collect delinquent accounts promptly. In any case where satisfactory arrangements for payment have not been made, the Public Works Department may, after the procedural requirements of Section B have been complied with, discontinue service to the delinquent customer by shutting off the water at the stop box. When water service to any premises has been discontinued, service shall not be restored except upon the payment of all delinquent amounts due plus a fee for disconnection and reconnection of a fee schedule adopted by the City Council. (11/23/81, /107) (B) Procedure: water shall not be shut off under Section A until notice and an opportunity for a hearing have first been given the occupant of the premises involved. The notice shall be sent by certified mail and shall state that if payment is not made before a date stated in the notice but not less than 30 days after the date on which the notice is given, the water supply to the premises will be shut off. Such notice shall not be sent until an account is 60 days past due. The notice shall also state that the occupant may, before such date, demand a hearing on the matter, in which case the supply will not be cut off until after the hearing is held. If the customer requests a hearing before the date specified, a hearing shall be held on the matter by the City Council at least 15 days after the date on which the request is made. If as a result of the hearing the City Council finds that the amount claimed to be owing is actually due and unpaid and that there is no legal reason why the water supply of the delinquent customer may not be shut off in accordance with this ordinance, the City may shut off the supply. 7-2-21: PROVISION FOR COLLECTION WITH TAXES: Delinquent accounts shall be certified to the City Administrator who shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for assessment of the delinquent amounts against the respective properties served. The assessment roll shall be delivered to the Council for adoption on or before October 10 of each year. Upon such adoption, the Administrator shall certify the assessment roll to the county auditor for collection along with taxes. (9/12/77, 036) C /3 MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VII/Chpt 2/Pa Council Agenda - 6/10/91 14. Consideration of rebids for emergency generator for the water and sewer collection department. (J.S.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, the City Council reviewed bids for the purchase of a portable trailer -mounted 125 kW generator to be used for powering well 03 or two booster pumps at the reservoir and various lift stations. Two bids were received, one from Catepillar in the amount of $42,759, and one from Cummins Diesel in the amount of $41,876. This bid did not include fuel, which would have added approximately $100, so the bid would have been $41,976. The budget for this item was estimated at $35,000 and may have been inaccurate, as a 4 -year-old estimate was used and inflated. The money for the actual purchase would come out of the bond fund for the major water infrastructure improvements, which at this time has more than adequate funds. The Council, however, did reject the bids, as they were approximately $7,000 over the proposed budget. As a side note but not considered as a reason for rejection of the bids, a third bid was received two days late and returned unopened. The rebids are due Monday, June 10, at 10:00 a.m. The proposals will be reviewed by the Water Superintendent and Dean Sharp, an electrical engineer from OSM. A bid tabulation will be provided for the meeting. when the prospective bidders were notified of the rebidding, they were asked to give us their input in regard to modifications of the specifications which would result in a lower bid but yet maintain the technical integrity of the gonorator unit provided. Only one vendor rospondod and indicated a few dollars may be saved by removing the roquiremont for 3/16 -inch thick stool docking on the trailer. Since this commont was the only one received, no addendums were issued to the specifications. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Tho first alternativo would be to award the bid to the vendor giving tho City the best dollar value after considering the oquipmont to be delivered, the delivery time, price, warranty, and service. 2. The second altornative would be to award to the lowest bidder without considoration of oquipmont to bo delivered, delivery time, warranty, and service. 32 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 3. The third alternative, should the bids again come in beyond budget expectations, would be to consider redrafting the specifications again. This does not appear to be appropriate, as Dean Sharp from OSM and the Public Works Director feel that the specifications as drafted best meet the needs of the City of Monticello, and the proposed budget may be in error. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff withholds its recommendation until Monday evening's meeting after the bid opening and consideration of the proposals. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to previous agenda item. �*Ito J� 33 Ah Council Agenda - 6/10/91 15. Consideration of ordering sional justification study for the intersection of County State Aid Hiohwav East 75, 39, and 11P. (J. S.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, the City Council passed a resolution reaffirming the City's desire to have a signal on the east end of town near Riverroad Plaza. The County Board acted on a request from the Wright County Highway Engineer on Tuesday, June 4, and voted to have the Wright County Highway Engineer sign the signal justification study and forward it to the district state aid office in St. Paul for review based upon the following conditions: The first condition is that the City take the lead and use its engineer to put together the signal justification study. The signal justification study puts together all of the available information such as the past traffic study, accident history, features of the area, and characteristics of the traffic, and place this into a form of rationale to convince the office of state aid that a signal is justified in Monticello at this location. Since this particular signal has not met the state aid warrants, specifically duo to traffic volumes, the county does not wish to take the risk that the signal justification study will be denied by the office of state aid. They, therefore, will not pay any amount toward the signal justification study should it fail to convince the state aid that a signal is needed and allow the county to use its state aid funds. It is my understanding that should the signal justification study bo successful, it is considered close to a feasibility study and would be part of the base engineering fee. If that is the case, the county will fund one-half of the cost as per their signal participation policy (a copy is enclosed for your review). We have obtained an estimate from Ron Bray of OSM for doing the signal justification study. The coat is $2,950. If the signal justification study is successful, this would be considered as part of the overall foe for engineering on the project. The estimated construction coat is in the area of $70,000 to $80,000, excluding engineering and inspection. Most of the inspection will be done by the City, and some of 34 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 it (50%) can be billed back to the county. More detailed cost estimates can be prepared once the state moves favorably upon the justification study. There appear to be enough indications that this signal justification study will be successful. If it is not, a portion of the background work and such could be utilized during the next justification study. No cost estimate at this time has been given for the cost of a second justification study should the first one fail. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize an expenditure up to an amount of $2,950 to have OSM draft the signal justification study, forward it to the county highway engineer for his signature, and on to the office of state aid in St. Paul. It appears that Wright County is taking a little bit of a back seat in insisting we take the lead on this project. It appears the only way we will be able to move forward at this time is with this alternative. 2. The second alternative is to not request a signal justification study at this time but wait until the traffic volumes have met exactly the state warrants. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City Engineer that the City Council authorize the signal justification study as outlined in alternative 01. We simply can't wait until accidents and injuries and traffic volume satisfy the office of state aid. This does not moan that the new signal will stop all accidents from happening at his Intersection, as very often the Installation of a signal Increases fender bonders until the public gets used to the now signal. We simply have observed too many close calls at this Intersection to wait any longer for the county to move on this signal. I believe there is overwhelming community support to soo this signal installed as soon as possible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter from Ron Bray, OSM, Indicating cost for signal justification study; Copy of Wright County Signal Cost Sharing Policy. 35 da 51 ty;: :g 2j4t i,G1LI IH Orr ONX Se2xtcl dchele nA A3sadates. ax, June 6, 1991 Mr, John Simula City of Monticello 250 Fast Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Traffic Signal at CSAR 39, CSAH 75 and CR 118 OSM Proposal 10237-91 Dear Mr. Sirnola: F.-- 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 612-331.0660 PAx 331-3006 rrr�ncan =OM Warmers The proposed signal at the intersection of CSAR 39, CSAR 75 and CR 118 nearly met Warrants during the May 1991 traffic counts. The next step in the process is the preparation of a signal justification report. All signals utilizing MN DOT State Aid funds, are required to a have justification report prepared prior to design and construction. As you are aware. the Wright County Engineer's office and the County Board are aware of the status of the signal and are not opposed to the preparation of the report. However, the County will not accept any financial responsibility for the report, should the request be denied. If the request or justification is successful, the justification report cost will be included in the engineering fee and distributed to the City and County according to Wright County's Traffic Signal Funding Participation Policy. The estimated cost for preparation of the justification report is 52950. Ron Bray. OSM's transportation manager will be preparing the report. and he is reasonably confident thus the justification will be approved. If the justification is denied, the cost of the report will be deducted upon actual construction of the signal. We would appreciate a written acceptance of this estimate, along with the Notice to Proceed. We expect that the report would be completed within three weeks after recelpt of the Notice to Proceed. MN DOT Review for Approval will probably take about two months. Equal 000&u" unpwp, Mr. John Simola June 6, 1991 Page 2 Please give us a call if you have any questions regarding this estimate. We will look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ORR-SCIMLEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ?"�J,:- Bret A Weiss, P.E. Project Engineer sb 061169IL.baw c: Ron Bray, OSM Rick Wolfsteller, City C eP. Badalich ngineer CID liultRu U1'' IUU14'1'1 tUId I.11 iJJ V.. LIQ:! WRIG14T COUNTY, 1.1114NESOTA FD,1 te Anril i- 19R4 Resolution No. 94 — Z Z tion by Commissioner Seconded by Commissioner w RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the�County of Wright has received requests for the installation of highway traffic control signals at intersections on the County highway system within cities, AND WHEREAS, an established Traffic Signal Funding Participation Policy would provide consistency and facilitate better planning for both Wright County and the' cities involved, At 4D WHEREAS, an established Traffic Signal Funding Participation Policy will more equitably distribute those coats to those who directly benefit from the installation, AND WHEREAS, said policy will apply to any intersection within a city involving a County State Aid Highway or County Road where a traffic survey indicates that traffic control signals are warranted. • a THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the attached Traffic Signal Funding Participation Policy is hereby adopted. YES McAlpine Bogenrief Engstrom Nelson Schiileweert NO MCA) pitic Bogenrief Engstrom Nelson SchiIIewacrt STATE OF MINNESOTA} as. County of Wright } 1, Richard W. Norman, duly appointed, qualified, and acting Clerk to the County Board for the County of Wright, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that 3 have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution or motion with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Hoard of County Commissioners, Wright County, Minnesota, at their session held on the 3rd day of AWjj , 19 84 , now on file in my office, and have found the came to be true and correct copy thereof. ..Jtness my hand and official seal at Buffalo, Minnesota, this 3rd day of Apri I , 19 64 Clerk lo the County Board t mss a WRIGHT COUNTY a / f/ TRAFFIC SICNAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION -POLICY , f (Involving County State Aid Highways and County Roads) County participation in Traffic Signal projects in cities shall be in accordance with the following percentages. Percentages are based on the Local Share (The amount remaining after the Federal and State participation is deducted). Traffic Signal Construction 50% Preliminary Engineering 50% Construction Engineering 50% The city will be expected to fund the remaining portion of the local share whether the agreement is initiated by the State (Minnesota Department of Transportation) or Local Government (City or County). County participation in any traffic signal projects will be subject to the avail- ability of funds. The County will not be responsible for certain maintenance provisions after sig- nal construction. These include painting, relamping and cleaning of the signal system; street light maintenance; and power costa to operate the signal and street light systems, which are all typically the responsibility of the City. The State is generally responsible for the controller and hardware maintenance for signals 'wlviug state highways. I 015 Council Agenda - 6/10/91 16. Consideration of a resolution aporovinq qamblinq license renewal --VFW Club. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The VFW Club in Monticello has submitted its gambling license renewal application for their facility. Enclosed with the agenda is a summary of the revenue and expenses pertaining to their gambling operation for the past year and a listing of all their lawful expenditures, including donations made from profits. Likewise, the City of Monticello must pass a resolution either approving or denying the application before the state will consider reissuance. If the Council has no opposition, a simple motion to approve the gambling application is sufficient. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of application; Copy of revenue and expenditures. 14 36 LG21a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Prenuse Permit Application - Part 1 Organization Information Legal Name or O an¢auan po,, R71/ Business Acoress of Organuanon • Strest or P O Bos (Do not use aconss at gamoling manager) GAo St• GN State ap Goo County Ann.4­e //o At I;.t—e. '!a Name at gist •secuow officer, (cannot be gambling manager) Tas _C,D r4o_ l',,- t44L— Amass or chat easouvne cri6w • Street or, P O, Bos Stete Lo Coco County Mars �: cL I �a /tri .h+ -so 4w CSti f..%- Type .YType of Application _ Class of Premise Permit Fee G Class A— Bingo, Raffles. Paddlewhols.'romards. Pull -tabs $200 FOR BOARD USE ONLY FEE CHECK INITIALS DATE BYLress onons numoar (61a4 L1<_- 3792 - Business pnons number F6 Class B — Raffles. PaddlewhKls. Tpboafes. Fluktabs $1:5 111 The class of promise permit G Clan C — Bingo only $100 must be rollected by class of file organization license. G Gana D — Ratifies only $75 Bingo Occasions If class A or C. fM in days and beginnin and ending boars of bingo occasions: No more than seven bingo occasions may be conducted by an 21ganizatlon per week. Day Bepnning/Ending Hours Dey Eepnatna/Erdlaa Hour Day Bepnnlnt /Ending Hours to to .j m If Bingo grill not be conducted. check hate 1' Status of Premise Permit - check one: G Now promise — F 11 n p= organization promise perms number �J Renewal of ea,ahrg Dismiss permit — F,d ,n comoisto premise paras numcer ee 7C -7- C e 1 Prwbusly awrited prom as perms —Fd: m comps premiss perms number 0 LGZ14 Minnesota L=ful Gambling Premise Permit Application - Part 2 Gambana Premises rnformation Name of esisdiurment whore gambfng w4 be ca+amad Street Access {do not use a pest ors,, box number} ,,ti De,,Ln'iei VF..a Posr timet /in ee . S01. Is the Warntses tooaad wtcun cry @mm? Q yes G no C:ay std County where gambling Premises is lbeasd OR Township and County, when gambling Premm" a *amd d outsde at sty 9mts Name and Address of tags! Owner of Promises City state Tap coda ,.tis On.'r le,;e. GFW t 0 f r 8 73 I hw., &.4 1/. .% .✓ S 5 3 6 7 - Does e» aganalmn own me budding whom in$ 9embing "I be conoaeted?OYES C] NO NOTE: Organizations may not pay themsoNas rem d they own the building or have a holding company. A latter must be sub- mitted showing rem payments as zero from gambling funds if the organization's Molding company owns the promises. The later must be signed by the chief executive dflcar.j It NO. attach the following: Rent: ' a copy of trio lease with terms for one year. • a copy of a sketch of the floor plan with dimensions. showing what portion is being leased. A lease and sketch are not required for Class Q applicantions. For gambling with bingo $ Total square footage leased For gambling without bingo $ Total square footage leased Address of storage soaa of gambling equipment Address city State Zip coda o L r .. �.T it+e.,'f. xcilc ..:.'s'f •V C< T b).. T�ormatian �� ;a3,on permrrner gamorng pr mune must now a sapamm anaotang medwnt) UM Name11 C, ,,rtn flank Aunt Number fr.ivi4 Ll� G...A4 Tt..�G (X.r C� x aero Adonis GN Sues IP cads . )I- Mon f. C• t I o /N ail S ; 3 6 =. Name. boam", we to OF "Mona eut.dnred 4 /gn cnwx0 ane mate 10003,13 arts mr," els. /^ ! Name Aconite 440 (..n v.Q�h 713 C�✓ l2/'� S. t 4w .�.[In�'I. �C���O It'rx✓ LAw.+/ J�a�w 0 LG21a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Application - Part 3 Acknowledgement Gambling Site Anthosirntion I hooray consent that local law enforcement officers. the board or agents of the board, or the commissioner of revenue or public safety, or agents of the commissioners, may enter the premises to enforce the law. Bank Records Information The board is authorized to inspect the bank records of the gambling account whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law. I declare that: I have read this application and all information submitted to the board; All information is true, accurate and complete; All other required information has been fully diadosed; I am the chief executive officer of Na organization; I assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful gambling and rules of the board and agree. U licensed. to abide by those laws and rules, including amendments to them; A membership list of the organization will be available within seven days after it Is requested by the board; Any changes in application information will be submitted to the board and local government within I a days of the change; and A termination plan will be submitted to the board within 15 days of the termination of all premise permits. Failure to provide required Information or providing tide information may result In the denial or revocation of the license. Sigvuurs or chef executive ordain Das Local Government Acknowledgement 1. The c.ty 'must sign it the gambling promises is located whin city Wmas. 2. The county —AND township" must sign it the gambling promises is boated within a township. 3. The local government (cry or county) must Paas a resolution specifically approving or denying the apalicadan. a. A copy of the resolution approving the application must be attached to the application. 5. Applications which are denied by the bead governing body Should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Dlwsion. Township: By signature below, the township adinowladges that the organization is applying for a promises perms within township limns. Cllr• pr CounT, fMl tlI Township*' i eF t'f-'I Cf��u ry or btcnry N TownsNp Name S,? to a, p 0r+ wg appaoson Signature of person ncovvp mooMmoom Toe I 0 " I IiN ( Das peonW III / 9/ reason oovvenng =w -aeon to xim governing oocy Due _ 1 '1e swnahp: ❑ Orpomad ❑ Unergarated C UnneOrpara W Refer to the Instructions for the required attachments Mail to: Department of Gaming Gambling Central D.wsion Rosswooa Plaza South, 3rd Foor 1711 W County Road B Rosevde, MN 55' 13 6;) SUMMARY OF MONTICELLO VFW GAMBLING LICENSES LAWFUL GROSS NET STATE EXPENSES& ACCUMULATED RECEIPTS PRIZES RECEIPTS TAXES EXPENSES DONATIONS BALANCE May 1990 $172,633 $145,097 $27,536 $13,084 $6,261 $5,860 $44,590 lJune 1990 $173,661 $146.156 $26,652 $12,036 $5,230 $14,766 $39,210 1990 $187,027 $156,743 $29.163 $3.210 $7,176 $3,017 $54,969 (July Aug 1990 $135,127 $113.517 $19.920 $2,917 $7,682 $4,227 $60,063 Sept 1990 $112,622 $95,939 $16,577 $2,639 $5,933 $9,825 $59.088 loci 1990 $134,733 $116,921 $18,132 $5,590 $7,372 $16,873 $47,384 Nov 1990 $94,964 $83,026 $13,001 $4,139 $5,743 $2,925 $47,578 Dec 1990 $119,007 $103,197 $15,122 $2,366 $7,020 $6,029 $47,284 Jan 1991 $126,171 $110,593 $15,901 $11,718 $8,446 $3,905 $39,115 Feb 1991 $115.606 $100,008 $15,262 $12,865 $7,368 $5,868 $26274 Mar 1991 $135,892 $119,451 $16,237 $11,389 $7,492 $8,812 $17,019 1991 $139,573 $122,535 $17,038 $11,202 $8,471 $1,348 $15.034 (Apiii TOTAL $1,647,016 $1,412,913 $230,541 $93,155 $82,194 $83,255 $15,034 G-1 Schedule C Lawful Purpose Expenditures Organization name Site license number Site trade name Month and year reported on this form SDoRCHPorr4-oo357-ooI v,FG, Posr F73/ ov- 9/ patio / of / pepes Date Check Check made out to: Amount Lawful i &let description Date approved of check ofcheck puroose code of exoendifurs: by membership o Onumber t S•O' 4'" 7 I �7 ✓'� ? 3W. 7Y ( O Internal Revenue Service J G Monthly federal wooerina tax (federal form 7301 f Federal unrelated business tax (federal form MT) I 2 Internal Revenue Service G and/or federal wagering tax Stamp (federal form t t C) 3 I Commisslonor of Revenue G Minnesota unrelated business tax (form M-4) 4 I I) ! II+ G ! 3% local asmbilnn tax S I I 348.213 Fund administered by focal novernment unit 6 I I Ref�c�iaY)Rl LEV7rEN. /liemb enti H Real2�e 4j!Mg 7 /JA/.faE4 eS-,40.06 A70y'.-01 /rwa AW,,(es Pi14 sY 80`/- !• P/ %9 3/ �fo/✓NcEl[o G/dq Ou+lrv..) Sob• r•d �• 1 C,y rM /t•w !•HPC AdU✓w r.e.. P'gA'�j, A t:3) ¢ cr3 /i�P/ 8 ( ((. to I if ( I I 12 13 I I 14 t5 to I 17 Add linos i through 18, R8 M total trerif and alsoj 3 vb. �9 on lino 40 of your monthly summary and tax return . i Fie In amount of tax paid to distributor on purchases of putaabs and/or Ilpboards prom lino I? of monthly summary and tax return) t 8,� i. MAO this scludule to., Gambling Control Division. Npartment of Gaming �18 0 s2 y 1711 West County Road B, Roseville, MN 83113 Do to num to ospamno"I or navenus S.h.dakc ( Lawful Purpose F-venditures • man Oname Ste bans" JwmeM sae - no rmw` . _ Vmt to ane yaw ropmed on tet farm trFcJ, Porr /90, ?731 R- 0o-3S7- oo t VFW P-Or P771 o3-91 papa / of ! popes om II camat � 11 O a m: Aalaum Iaeme 6na OMWW a� obs eplxo�o M card I nurttw ae on.A punxmco& Z MM S-0: by nwnbemhp Nomad A«Me»s.. 339.sr a 1.dww wagarmta: .dM7dtoJmt90) 4r-r/- 9l Foo" uw.Nnd Weems to Me«ol brm twos T hd.JeW ReWWw S.nioe a and4r NUMB - wal ig tai nanw fledwo l m Ile) 9 CUmmNeioer Of R.waJe i a iinr.sna wwalnee WAimm me OMM M4I e tw 519279 .Fund admhlhMmW hxal WA d 3-13-D.1 � ( AA (I{`i/oMS 1916 �I +Y /QOO.t7d M �j) Real .a'w. tta en0 erreemonm I p � .p r9l lY.•vr/ cr �s IW/trs ?t i.JG CJ-ud rQ �rAr 1A16 /9 /g 11#01,,0AIN LJv/to.LWJ"Po.c. 606 •0 A C3 SgFli Jur vJw e� SAeu Jrr� o� / /"�/ to 3-l5-P/ ! 4 I i�/�C wtzffJlt coofn I-roc.o c�'/`/' /Q 3 fYrvvt FoR c.w.fLRr/ISO 9/ 4 Acro i JA rro✓ „3-ri 91 I p 72 1W4vfl&t[c0 Asff A iv600d,Rt} i 4 t4er8JCAV- y1R iT 3-%7. / I g �/►+tWr t.ro FeaP SJd! ,d 580.•d cc,) to Jr C*Art faot� 3-/y' 79 I I1 t 11 y + t6 I I • 17 Add b" t Oromo 16. FU In btal Ire MU abo � [ G' � . i on inn ao or pw an�MM' aaanuvr ane taR Neon 6 D, ! l .S t / ti t a MomWbw 17 d bon mown" wo m�noott) t 3, i12 G , yy ir■6IAN aae.euN 10: 1711aeo ft � R ao� UN GS111of 3 � Jae eget b of Awber eomeb ►armyyMq Schtdde O,garnEo on tt.m. V•� W. Posr vd.777/ Dao, Check d'I , rntrnhet 13-.0-9/ / 9 z Lawful Purpos,-Expenditures ) Sas eosins MWOM Sts IN a Mm, mom WW rest f"WO6 6n vet soon 003t -7 44S.S. 06ACA', S7Eq Pncf Oa — 9/ Pe4t / of / M" Carck ntWs asd m: I Antoum l4lt tW Iltt,1 Du, Ipptowyt +I1 d tlr to sar»nd4uti: bv msmwnnio hinnd Rewmn Service k a2 �E'. 7 '✓ a ► wg* I,tal erao.rw me n.d,rd tom, nal I Fed" umobW business Ux 08110111 tom peon hmnal H,ruan S,mins G tndlX ted" Weverft tax swm (Maud /arta I t C) { d itave"M Q (iilelgaal unmated hainesn to pam /i.4} � t3 7% at diiiinn to I I 94p_2t3 I Fa+d a b. !opal aawmn»m tato I IGNiICY/ Cowl/" J1wn nAv ""S000.00 A rc�- to" am u"1111TWt. I PuA(t+,4rara C t7 aYsoYY� /h'-9/ 3r,tcouo Jr•+Yd uwo RoX�NNe PC'rENs (�aSO•uo A! /� h, I sc, N'O 0,41 W I�oo 06 ( 11 A') IT3,wir—,Cox 00ek'S 1!r a r� Gn4oe V.P./✓ Ccua Y9y/ I Of 10, oo I I ! I 1 Moue" rot? /V"rs,/" //aM[ Ove -0 I I I is fe I i � �• i 17 Add saes 1 Qnouph ie. Fel in MW here and Mho �- on eM 40d you enotdhly AMRWy and to nhrn . . . _ to FO in Cahn d in pW b tI , an pichams d pumas, and- tobospa tbom tires 17 d+nm0+M mmmery WO to nmana e . . Pl�f • /(r . C� ,Dame MID Ihb etdte"Is to: t3&MUNp Como+ ch+Mbtt,.. DeprTRrtt+ of !!Cast a I"t was toumY fined IL Roe vma. e!1 651 13 W Amodio Ossvr,tra d glregM !atm o�ea ScnedukC Lawful Purpose Expenditures ®., MORON, 00357 She rasa rrrr MYA1 No yearra0, VFt„' r'a5Ti✓687.31 0/-q/ Papa /d orr of d+//xt Chock nnEr Check made ou e: Marr d duaoa firU maow raft Sia arayban at amandleaa: Cat" Oar stmovwi br amrharlm I '.7ti - �/ / F/0 F tdatnai Ao monw, Swvb* 315. '1.3 D Freard wNam e . to padatol tam 73o) , 2 2 /- /.'t • 91 19:79 WITU d Nar.rma SONION / 4! � F D or F.eanl aagari M as campwmp padaralWbrm t IC) / - �O ' ?/ 3 D Toa paid to bcW dOYamf14 ba* a o NmW audb under 349.19 (9) 6 { 349.213 Wand ur d of Oovanrraard lurid fi H { ROW Wass tots and o»samWet { TOM pall to ftrbAor on pAmba and T oDb *vft purchow bofaa Ocsabat 1. Ion g 1-15• �� /p O/ MQ=?Kl Lao &v.6 aA,c,dd.00 �s /DC..,.,.,.,g FrREA=7.Nd SAY+r +4�r✓rN(� /-/0- P/ 9 1�(� -7i I /0 d� {r�17N/� .SCMOIJL iiGY/I+aar.1�,�GO,tlO AC"i1 t—r, , ( iL/1 r18d /-O!{ U(ANE O�WLMrL NK=t �„/C7_ 1 tp j'10-9/ � %,i;P `J (f4aNrie GrFto S4aoet YS/1'f. b"�v2 %SdQ �: i~j% CO,rWu.r:rYs� .tY,vrea+ttrA `[t { /-/U -p/ IW—/0-91 r�8b'S ON7rGr�ad 474SdVQA4 Y"�lSso�,.ne.r �600.Qa A C"yi L/✓/ioRHJ �Wr✓L•CvT t2/ r�'9/ /i'FI// {PIAE/rr ifAN L/ru �r5do.ae int'/� {rirrrou ^ru/rvEnJ/r� o� M(Ni✓ { /-/l-?/ t4/ -c2 y`t1/ l89/ Itil P 1sK 'l y00.00 �AC.i> Mo¢ Er mr g.rr !,,t �o !Jt•Y q/ to to To:,f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 31905,/aZ Aha M lr 06 &NOW" 00 per 40 of pm emu" t / G Schedule C oryaaiir abn nalrr U f tv l)6Sr F7.3! Do* ON* of a»ek Umar 1 /..?D-7/ /88%' z 3 Lawful Purpasrexpenditures Ste bowl" mffmw Ste Rade now Mmm and Teo+ IWW ad on on lam 0025.7 /9 Se Pape Cheat mam as to: Afford L.afia art dans - 1, ' d.war .woos.mle cAowwwtus: 11tan+d Paten,. Sovim 0797. 30 0 Mor4tdv too" sraaW 0 to hauler.) tam rlol 7S Federal ravalmad buslrrta an 086WW bmr OWT) orso" Rararms sante 0 arAdltxx is 1 srapralp um .tamp tledrd tam »c) Corr dmIlow cc liwaraw G MUrwsoM u ailad buai on to farm 101) 4 :M trlad Bambino tax d .. om rprw.a by i k9 v 1roM 5. /-/o- 9/ •Fund admfnhisrad br beai aowmnAsed oM Anal astma 1 • 349213 t1''3•vo lwtivrvry NEarr.l6 .Ivo Coor,vc ji l.'1-!.�•ge ZV7LrrrA1A4C4fNr - /rEfr> f3 Ni+Lauf ((I /j .1.3 -9d }/.?•�/ 9c�1 7S MARc/a of p;mes a73d,00 .4 (A) 6/.7-•3/-90 I /B7'1 �141COoWAL4 CO e7.29'00 B (3) o NaKJfrr✓a ,veAf4r S%ao is C 3) 1a/.2.17 - Po SE///erT C11126V5- Crm'rr, 7.rO.00 Q C 17 p 111�"!r/•)c'}I/?(�7 MONne+fLeo -lir. L A.1•� N[lrrSfrN4 XeME ( I Mo./tlGEcsoXR4414r,'ti e C (/1 11/.7-/1-90 /SIC; 14ouric4ieo [laws 2000,eo C (2) 141..1-14 - 96 1 /9& / F•W. r*'AZ'raN.aL //OMS ;740, od 4 (Y t6 %l• G 90 /b'S{I PORN .l',VILR7-r 16 17 Add Inn 1 twouph 16. FIN In lord here red 00 on hl" 48 d pv ArrodOtr aranmary tM taa stun i is d .. om rprw.a by i k9 v 1roM 5. /-/o- 9/ •Fund admfnhisrad br beai aowmnAsed oM Anal astma 1 • 8/R7'N OFlGC1J t1''3•vo lwtivrvry NEarr.l6 .Ivo Coor,vc ji l.'1-!.�•ge ZV7LrrrA1A4C4fNr - /rEfr> f3 Ni+Lauf ((I /j .1.3 -9d j� 1 �a/f/SrotAf FuNQ iI 1 90 (r/rrJ fdq /1'lJlocNrJ I /9•r7 -9d CXlj rrrudS Fuvn Cnrri/Jr Ao a rrrl Fail C,vrd (7eKN /?-/,3-4G Ar vFd✓ArArioA/at _1Le Het" A)?rKccr foot Durr OA4f roc //.r3,4d PA NCaQ Ar 5r . r, &,A_ Aloser rA[ it F61 in amase of to pat b d oftftr on putheaa d PASS66 MSE Oft schedule to: Oand(OtO Coo tm DMsbr► ow"b so of tamnbq rldlor Aanarda (tomb 1 r d .tong). atannary Wld tau mbar) i P/00 1711 Wad t`.aealty Head D. Raramrtts. ho 63113 .,,,` [xe aoe lar/ o oePanarrsnr sArraala "� n. adamo ta-rm vloa sdxaa,, c, Lawful Purpose zpenditures Orpamambn name Sao b=a W number Saa trade nam trtbntn ane yaw rxpatad on uax lam U,rtJ, POST 923/ A- e o3S7 -col L.F,t✓, Pes r- F7 qgE 81'/? c Pace of paw aaa ChKk Chu* Mad* anato: � Amaau LmwM I tWW eaaom Doe sppmved of C1 CONucknumm cola of a,mandtboa: mamamh /a2 -30 fnl / 7d 6annal Rrvam» 023 %/(oC 1 taoMny teaorsl xrewarlrw tax n.dard ram 7301 %! / 3 - 90 2b u+mW Raratua Samb. a .� %d W ao.wft m W&M 00" um OsdmW �'b� I I Q 34-30-119 /07/ C--ftsbrrs od pawner Ii / 9q p".29 o Aumawu arawad bunm tax room w> // -13 - so 4 a3% bow cam6Gnn tas s 349213 -Fad arlminatand by kya! povarnmaM ung I� b I IH fkAl NIM t PA" and ps"Ismom 1 7!f .2 1 55 IMC 00wAL4 ea. I X29. ac I !3(?) ,41A1wrAO1A1 A( T Ac d"D C014"4- , �3-jo lQsyi7aG ALGdNot FKf4 G/CAO<Gt7�ai�/�aR7Y r. �ltKEl7 Strba.t Drjrl 4,?csp.00 I A (3) I I 11-11-4;6 9Il-hI- 0P !bole 4w Y fEwrrs, 41C., /SO• oo A Ca) S//£L rEK aaK rRou c rRrs I // r3-Sa r..aK rice" n�i�ac£ spa... /Sa.oe e C/) f9i4£S Fut senor P c_r4M I l! i�-yG 1i P. 11^ SU ,traria+'.tt Crr«o sure I?64174n I'V,a0 43C/7 SArrr,ycot. vi,01Ae Bae/�1 I j%^j3^/cD 12 17 14 II II ss i 4 17 Add {n" t thnoup 1{. RI in OW two ane afro on ina 40 01yotx Taft) aaanury ane lax rm" { 1 { FD In em M d tax pall b dhatb tm 0n pueknn ct pLAge iat0 tkb eoMdub to: Caffe tp Coatr0t Otalabm Copntnwtl of Oamtp wdb+ tlpboarda (from k* 1701 vane* sunmsy and tax mwm) { a „? �D,pt7 1711 Wap County Road 0. Ammab, till as 113 pr rot atul o pKrtnru a/ Arrxxo,a i` ,��D t6•,m rrAat 4 Sdwdale C ' Lawful Purpose ...xpenditures OiyarZoton Harr» Sb iioaw nwea Sas ers" name " Mme» ane yaw nponoo an un corm USS Dorchester A-00357-001 V.F.W. Post 9?3 1 October 1990 ee 1 2 Date d a m� 1 1� 2 ... 1 3 4 8 I 10-31-90) 7 910-05-901 910-12-001 1910-12-901 1110 -1? -901 1210-17-90 1310-18-Q 14 10-18-901 15 10-28-901 18 10-31 -901 Pace d papas Cnad, maaa ora m: I Arnaae ta,Rul I , . bn.+ 0ascroia+ I DOS apprr; ved ! d d,adr coda d amardMo• a�� rah i^i3 i—TO 6 tamed Revom Savba I "*no* taloa", arapor tax ¢adwd tarn 73oi keanaat Ra rsfaea Samba I a�� rn.adra�raad�eawSkmas us padau am ogoT)0} 6 j J ufi0�tb3 }� _ ns axe (bdaat teem t t C Ns ronrNs.ic - d R.•+amR 04.15 I 0 I l A� rr aur_a� �tusatase businaa to t4� M-�} 10-8-90 G. .,. _���tv 1 349313 Fund admtniaofod beat MIA 1841 1 McdoWall Coro. ,1 22971. I RIa 9 ea 11110. !iv I -O -')U 1822 1Wriaht Ctv. Bank 0,000.00 A(1) Scholarshlo Fund ( 10-8-90 1823 (Close -Un Foundntion 2,500.00 A(1) Youth Education Trlo'to D.C. 10-8-90 1924 1St.Cloud V.A. H000.1 150-001 A(j) 1lee Cream Social for Veterans 10-6-90 1825 1Mnus Foods 61.411 A(3) 1Senlor Citizens Dinner 8-12-90 1828 1Jodl Diamond I 150,00 A(4) 1Monticello Youth Hockey Prog.l 10-8-90 1831 1V.A. Medical Ctr. 200.00 1 A(3) 1Christmas Fund for Veterans 10-8-90 1832 Dent. of Yn. V,F.W.1 21000.00 1 A(2) Drug Research for Elderly 1 10-8-90 1835 V.F.W. National Hm.1 62o.00 1 A(1} Educational Trin to Home. 10-8-90 1837 Monti. Nurainv, He 30.00 1 AM 1Recreation Fund ( 10-8-90 17 Add lines 1 foouoh is. FU in taw nae ord aro 16, 373. 17� on Ime 40 d 1aa 1101001 a+een vey No tae faturn : IS F71 in amane d to paid b elneWaa on p adrasaa d puttrba 9b9 tnr aohadur for OaenSIY1p Carlrot OMata4 Daparinra-010"10V arrdkx tlpaioartls {nom Ikea 17 d mo+dMr aummaa7 ane to Mum) s4 •194.40 1711 Waal Couftq Road 0, Aceevv9r, UN 53113 �am•mo Da ape Mae a L1Mwvare da mea• La•m Paoe c Scbrdaie C o.pw,mna, mim USS Dorchester Dat. Check of tfm.dm I numb., 1 2 .. 3 12 13 14 1838 Lawful Purpose Expenditures Sae 5"Y" ne st. o.d. nam. A-00357-001 V.F.W. 9731 vorwt�, .rw won 1ha tam October M 2 2 popd aaa.s Ouckm.d.wsm: Anourd La bd &i.ldesov n Do, ItF+ +tl of dmdt &AM" Dods • of a,m.ndfiu.: M memb.e.ltb te. W Ray.nw Smmbe 8 LAadbk f.d.rai t..lerkfn um 60d" forth 73D) ( F.dvd annial.d bmst,mimes tax O"enl bftn QSftIT) "11C) bfrt" Re"Mus Sent. Q en . ..dant na"I latex "M r4m% i Catardrborw CO Rewrna ! (( 0 ►6nneMa awimd WOW= ta,t nam w) 1 I O 3% bal as dA bu 940213 I. Fad administ.nd by bal cpv i im.nl ua0 I I I 1 M R291 00816 111391 MA e1041e1 Of IRsmseY Med. Center 'I 500.00 A(1) i (Poison Control Center ( 10-8-90 I t5 I 16 17 Add Mee I Ovato t0. FD in blai 1rn and abo 500.00 an M. ,4o d wl. mdMdr 4MM" and to ,.nrn . . . 6 It Pit In anwer d to paid in dWD*Km an ptedwame d P LAW ardor tobowds Mm &a 17 d madd7 mammary nd in #$Zen) 0 S aeo,mb ' 040 ab schedule to: cmfft v Comm$ Obubm Depatunrd of tiembp 1711 MVM OMOV Sexed D. Roeev6M. W 65113 tlarot.rfoAavrre.mealAwaut la,m naa Schedule( Lawful Purpo. Expenditures OrpnUatbn as me Sao Goense numbor See trade name Month aro rear reported on this farm U. R. S, Dorchester 7. P.'+. A731 A -00')5? -001 V.F.W. R?'jl Sentembnr 1990 Pette 1 of 2 Pao - Date Chea Chem made out to: ` Anourqt.awhrf Brief des"on j Data approved of chair ( number I old ( dnooaa cods of smandhoc . I W msmbaraho 1 10-17-9� 1 829 Internal Revenue Service I 281.55 ( G Morrthy federal wacerino tax Osdoral form 7311 � t, . r, C" Q-14-901 1E00 1 1,525.00 Federal unreWedbusineutax (Uderatlom"OT) ( 9-14-90 2 bdernal Revenue Servile G and/or federal wsgar" tax -ramp (federal form t t C) 3 9-14-00) 1802 4 s I 8 ( 7 9-22-901 1809 s 9-27-901 iRn9 9 9-22-901 IS07 to 9-1R-90 i?05 If 9-16-qo 1A04 12 9-17.-90 1796 13 0-12-90 1797 14 9-12-901 1795 ss 9-13-401 1799 18 0-26-ot)1 1814 17 Add ung arr t through t$. Flo h on On* 40 of cthat" amt B Fa mount d fn atax paw a ICornmiesionor of Revenue100.0 0 a a II 349219 IN communityactlon 25a.o01 A(3) leukemia Soc. of Am 1,500.701 AM oarnlyzed vets. Inc. 25.'10) A(3) lbirthrichht of Monti . it?.00.001 A(3) I Comm llPvbnlgirle 75»001 A(4) V.A. Med. Ctr. ( ?4.001 A(3) I KMOM 1 160.001 A(3) )golden valley furn. 799.251 A(2) 1 Maus foods 1 R2. e.)31 A(3) lmonti. nirsing home ) 30.001 A(3) tdaiftresndaao ) 1 X673. Int cage 2. nary "tax nttrn 61 9,K? » M3 darlbtaor an purchase of puflsee 2.627.86 -neer towards (from line 17 d mita" summary and tax reh re) IMlnneaoto unrelated bush en tax (form MI.4) 9-14-9,1 3% local camb9no tax IFund admtnaared or beef aovenment unit Root oslate toxat and essessmema I community programs ( 9-14-90 cure research fund ( 9-14-90 relief fund i 9-14-90 9-14-90 girls volle.ybail teem shirts) 9-14-90 recreation fund 8-12-90 broadcast high school soorts R-12-90 1 lift chair for handicaoned 8-12-90 1 senior citizens dinner 18-12-90 1 recreation fund i1 9-14-90 W4 ilia ealadua to: Gambfrtp Cartrol OMeWt DspoMwt of Gamhg int watt Caast+! Road n, RaeeYafs. AIN 531 13 00 rw and b Ulrpersranr lar pe,ewu toa+at (Hoot 7 99-26-90 1pil 9 10 11 12 14 is Is 17 9 T*IW � stew Tam prod to dotumm an PuRde and tlpftordr pwaflwll balsaOamber 1, 190 McDowall CO. 45A.00 R(2) .Ipv q• coollno u 9-14-QO 1 67 3-0 I AAW 0 In Ob meow m bw 4W of pw mmft SUMEWY MW foam scbedam c Lawful Purpose gVenditures A'M�l 7") U.S.S. Dorchester Poet 8?31 SeDtember 1990 pqp 2 d 2 per Ch" cram amm an at IleoaM LHON ow 1=1 fo.ear aCho* pxpcw as d apasa b, ea ula� PARWM savb. 0 Fedw mow& am It dad kom 73M 9-14-90 2 1801Faft bowl PAWWA Sovke bmw wr4milalmm pul tmtic) Q-14-00 3 0 TaxpmddfvbcdqoMa vA bo* 4 ti AnwWmudbardor 3d2J9M s 340213 Loam ani da" molmid 6 POW elm* taanr and a44wntwe 7 99-26-90 1pil 9 10 11 12 14 is Is 17 9 T*IW � stew Tam prod to dotumm an PuRde and tlpftordr pwaflwll balsaOamber 1, 190 McDowall CO. 45A.00 R(2) .Ipv q• coollno u 9-14-QO 1 67 3-0 I AAW 0 In Ob meow m bw 4W of pw mmft SUMEWY MW foam Schedule C Lawful Purp-,.e Expenditures Organization name Sao Wonoa mumbor Sae trade norne Momh and Year reported on this form USS Dorchester V.F.W. 8731 A-00357-901 V.P.W. P?31 August 1990 Pago 1 of 1 Onto Check Chock mado out to: Amount Lawful Brio+ deecriµian I panes Date n Of dwelt number of dmok ournoss oodo d amardhoo: m by mobenshgg 337.43 � ti-12-90 f fntemol Revenue Servloo ( � G Monthly foderaf waaark" tae (federal form 730) landilorfedervials"i I I ederal urvotmod buslnoiss tax (federal form 2 k"omai Rove r ue Service G tp tax stamryr (todka! Corm l tC) 3 I I Canmiaabner, of Pannus I G ! MGew re to umebted afeiness tat (form Ma) 4 ( ( G ! 3% beat asmbono tax I 5 I I I i 344213 I Fund adminbtard by local covemmotn un0 ( ( a I 1(4) 18 of �ai�ty arae erK(paseepmoms 1782 I X.M.C.A. 1,700.00 e program e-14-yu 78-12-90) Iminr I U-12-90 17115 land-o-lakes girl e 1 Isoout council I Boo. oo A(4) 12-canoes for campers use ( 8-12-90 nueafur4uULetnWv11U g8-16-901788 oeewee baseball asell.000.00 A(4)l,e,,ue'at Kansas Clty. I 8-12-90 ,o8-16-9OI 1789 (Mary Jo K1ttok 200.00 A(4) wheelchair basketball tourn. 8-12-90 if 8=29-90 1791 Imonticello nursing I 30.00 I 8 recreation fund nursing res. 8-12-90 1 12 I IKMOM Radio Station I 160.00 I A(3) Ibroadcast highschool sports I 8-12-90 13 I I I I I 14 I I 1 I 17 Add Orm 1 through 16. FU in Well hate, and also on Orn 40 of pun ttanthy aurnmary soul tax torn S 4.227.43 111 Fi0 lo anrxura d Lei pard b dMtrmuat on ptrdusss td puetba 2,901-79 kW fhb schedule to: ON WIV C onbal DMebq Depa tnunl of Gaming ardAx dpboards (mutt" f 7 of mane* w+nmatY and taw ruutrrt} S t»t wm courttY t8osd O. Pa..mle. Mq 5St is !t1 00 nor not b t�/seara of Aewn1� V 010. 6001030 10.tmrAoi tm sd.rdm. c Lawful Purpose Expenditures �._.;". ^-GDl ups �i��i�.l1cSTE/i' .rIcLy /9?0 paw /d / OR= a. Ch" chmatmeftefilm Umm g.. 4Y4�o� d dwl nrrr d dhcA Plldw�aed• - d ae�ranK br omftoa Q - !� - �'� / �i'/ ►..rr P"Mm Swvb. Faft mewl dx n.e.r km 7M - 'F -9 N f Fvdrd u.d+erd iR44iww to w 2 Yrnd Ravww Snub Q Faft Ira am, bm 1111 3 D bm* ' G Aeaad Adb trdw 349.!4 M !s 349413 Lard Ufa d Und 4 N PAW some tan. and aq 4aam4rb Tann Pdd b d WbUIW ae putr6t wid 7 9Pbbad4 Owa4�dd bdtin Ocsibw 1. 4949 7-/: • yI / % i( \' iC 1c� , /iLL rC. %/.[?, C�7 %� �� 1 r17A•r :2rArr / 1`r Zri..:: % , // t C, 4 i'_/;>.CJ1� /7'r'r �51ttr^/1t //,•(.': C'�7 %� �3� /;rv.rvdG/'S = /✓.ri( S_ /v'�� .t i•.� ^- //- %l1 10 �7 !=I' 9l /7,//, tir �i i 4;�/_;P,74�- r• S X, 11'7 -0? -?i. /772 r� Alf'C'_/.P/:r r 7-//. 129-2�•'ri /773 14 3 ' �" /77� �%C/{// <rr� �n• �t/. �r l?F�l(t' �f��ri �rr„ i -i 7- l/1? 1C 1s 17 tm �� so WOOD num ra a s;a wa+.e 2 M`315 7j t1 V.P.W. Poet 8731 tarn, 9n P%P ' d y - ass ow* ewow m a *now d dad Lau Pupw. Cub aw at C?wIdkxw. tlr. rr,.eno by —wam d and ewer Yerid Revenue Serebe D Fidrel W"01.6 to pform7w . 9W Fedwal unefwrd bue*we to m bewrd Rerenw ge,0100 D Fedwel p to dtmp ledwet tem t tq 2 D Tea geld to lod qwm thq bW f ' ' O Anel s dtb wWw 919.19 (9/ 919279 Leal une d 3w w turd 6 H Red sage tttae7 end eas»nnnb 6 T® pdd to dbvbutor on puawn end 1>pbaerda ptsdemd Were October t, 19e9 7 1753 Silver Bay 'V. A. 500.00 C(1) assist V.A. patients 6-12-90 e6-20-90 6-20-90 1752 Monti.. baseball ass:. 519.00 A(4) youth baseball asse. 6-12-90 9 6-5-90 1744 maul foods 112.98 B(2) pinewood playground fund 6-12-90 to 6-5-90 1743 V.P.W. 8731 25.60 A(3) assist a needy veteran k ram. ' 6-12-90. 6.6-27-90 1761 Monti. Jr. golf 2,000.00 A(3) .1r. golf training program 6-12-90 y 6-27-90 1760 pheasants forever' 500.00 C(1) environment protection 6-12-90 106-27-90 1759 V.P.W. 8731 30.00 E Monti: nursing home bingo 6-12-90 1756 Monti. youth hockey 5.355.00 A(3) ice time for youth hockey 6-12-90. �t6-24-90 6-24-90 1755 childrens heart runt 1,000.00 A(2) medical research heart disease 6-12-90 12 6-24-90 1754 Monti. public schoo. 3,000.00 A(1) 6 scholarshine 6-12-90 11 167-17-90 1771 kmem nnerte t�i11 e111 broades,nt high school snn.ta 6-12-0(1 te6-19-90 1747 Mles Monti. Coes- 7Sn_1,11 ♦141 Mina Monttcpllo Pageant b-12-90 176-12-90 1746 McDowall Co. 180,00 %j'1) maintain. heat A air '6-12-90 \�6 13,609.1' to Total . . . . t 14I w6; 3l .Ye 0 r raf Ob ew• Ow • of poor MW , ••w•. r news Sdwdmk C Lawful Purpose Expenditures sw acaw nanaa �.. �. lasd�wdtaaraipoaa A-00357-001 Rost hj.... t WI) PIM Oar Cho* Chw* orad ou w.. Aamaa 4.010A 9a/ aabktaon pas,ppero of dura moor d eMf! (aaPaw=a of SMOW M. M oioaYai�an 431-58 6 -ii -go - 1 A-1 I-QO ktamdPAmm as Sembe 0 Federal-Vw&gtnft , dbm 730) MT Feft pn tow buaitau ba or 2 teamal PAW"* Sado 0 Fadard "0"11010 stamgod mmiic) S 0 Ta pdd to bcd m mYrl body a bwd adlb radar 349,19 M 3 342.213 Load mid gt eo tinm d bW 0 H' Fbd aAma tun and alaaamaM+b Tem paid to d Wbumr an putaba and 7 ' tlpbodai p ncho ad' Mea Oclobw 1, IM 5-31-90 1740 Monti. nursing home 27.00 E nufsing home bingo fund 5-10-90 s 5-31-90 1737 D-0 draphics 240.00 A.(4) 2 high school baseball teams 5-10-90 i 5-22-90 1734 ?arly Childhood Ctr. 500.04 A (3). early childhood devel9pment 5-10-90 10 5-22-90 1733 land -of -Lakes 250.'00 A (4) summer cams program 5-10-90 11 girl arrnlrn 5-22-90 1732 monti. girls fast- 1,355.00 A.(3) youth athletic program 5-10-90 12 pitch ans- 5-10-90 1730 ;right Ct.y. Canine 1,000.00 C (1) purchase A train a dog for the 5-1U-yU 14 unit _ county canine unit 1s 5-14-90 1729 Dept. of Mn. V.F.W. 200.00 A (1) training school 5-10-90 t8 5-12-90 1724 Camp Courage 100.00 A (3) Handicsoced Camoershio Fund 5-10-00 17 5-12-90 1725 Camp Friendship 500.00 A (3) Handicapoed Campershio Fund 5-10-90 4,603:58 page _ to Tau! • 5, U U.4 ?i. �� Ilf anwr ar it • of "W a+o+M' aaaaaaarr a" r+oa 10 t sa,Wbml.0 Lawful Purpose Expenditures 01 V.P.W. P et'IM May 1-d.dww�.owwd P� 2d 2 - - PRe Dir Cho* Clrtt waft 40 13CAmaet Um" &1w Aragan tis rrpprwwe Cda.a . of rlr , p.pu. emb or om.d kw. b". 1 Ytrand liwwrtw Sarvke D c.dw w w b tax Eadrai Imes 7391 OBOT frftd eaxaI es- tar or 2 6e01 PAM" 50 V D - tax tcan 6W�rat tewar t tCt 3 D Ta pdd to beat 9eirarnittl bade ' 4 a Annual vidb undo 349.19 M 5 349.219 Load ant d a wrnmem Md 6H apt asMa taxa and amewnwax Taxa paW to dbnbumr an pAWO rd 7 tk -- ,a punApad bdora Oetabrr 1, 19l9 5-12-90 1726 aiiver creex sports mans club 500.00 A (4) youth gun -training 5-10-90 a 5-12-90 1748 KMDM 1!10.00 B (1) broadcast hiah school sports 5-10-90 9 t9 5-11-90 1746 McDowall Co. 190.00 A (3) msinta'1n heating A cooling 5-10-90 5-7-90 1719 Pinewood Playground 416.85 B (2) building of communityQDosnq 4-12-90 It 12 14 t! 17 .� 1.256.85 t! Taw . . . . ! Aw a At dtla aaraaa s aw o of tsar arm +mmom+s .I naww 190 C Council Agenda - 6/10/91 17. Consideration of a resolution approvinq gamblinq license renewal --American Legion Club. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The American Legion Post 4260 has submitted its gambling license renewal application for their gambling activities at the Legion Club. The renewal will be effective August 1, 1991. Recent changes in the gambling license procedures now require the City of Monticello to pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the application before the state will consider granting a renewal. Enclosed with the agenda is a summary report listing the gross revenues, prizes awarded, and charitable contributions made by the Legion Club from their past year's activities. The Council has previously requested this information from all license renewals. If the Council has no opposition to this license being renewed, a simple motion to approve the application is required. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of application; Copies of revenues and expenditures. 37 LG214 prnusot Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Application - Part 1 Organization Information Fee Legal ame or Organisation ' YwRA%Ca_ i'lalor. POSk 71x0 Business Address of Organdadon - Street or P. O Boa (Do not use address of gambling manag«) 3ui F.Im 51- ?06U,,�I)D 5125 City Stas rffllor,,,,1 P 11 o M 0 of Chs .Ot4ytrve (4annot be/VambMri� menag«) Get tip Code County . Ss 3 L, -a W 1�I't- /-� r Title �•�K�Y�" Wt erle,411� fa of da exicvvj offim - Sas«�f1orPrwN7,LBa//I�� Oa O ,-- MuSt be reflected by class of II uq Sus (hrr, cel\o MiJ 6p Coos County. �53ba UJ,1c�tti' Type of Application FOR BOARD USE ONLY FEE CHECK INITIALS DATE Business Mone number (b4;) a 9--aS F Business Mone number 1 )19x_- Jell Class of Premise Permit Fee ❑ Class A — Bingo, Raffles, Paddl ewhools, Tlpboards. Pull-tabs5200 P Class B — Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull tabs 5125 The class of premise permit f1 Class C only $100 MuSt be reflected by class of II Ra„a ❑ Class D — Raffles only $75 fire organization license. Bingo Occasions If class A or C. fill to days and beginning and ending hours of bingo occasions: No more than seven bingo occasions may be conducted by an olig nization per week. Day DepnninglErrdtn` Hours, Day Betlnnlna/End1n` Houn to rn n ro e If 01njo wUl not be conducted, check here Status of Premise Permit • cheek one: New premise — FSM in tim orgsnttaton premise permit number 00(0-7a ❑ Renewal of existing premise permit — FA in ggmp" Premise permit number ❑ Previously expired premise permit — Fil m minCYla premise perms number Day Be`iudnd /Ending Hours to to LG214 Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Application - Part 2 Gamblina Premises Information Name of establishment where gambling will be conducted Street Address (do not use • post office bo, number) nr ?OtL-aW 304 F.Im'i-. is ft promises looted wCun cimite? tg yes ❑ no City and County whore gambling premise is located OR Township and county where gambling premises is located of outsds of dry amts M 0 r\',i "-ll 0 Loytyht Name and Address of Leal Owner at premises City J State Zip Code 1-oal+or �t alio f{bn-4tccl I o MPJ 553 � Don the organization c= building when the gambling wit be conducted? [1NES ❑ NO d NOTE: Organizations may not pay themselves rent il they own the building or have a holding company. A liner mutt be sub- mitted showing rent payments as zero Irom gambling funds g the organization's holing company owns the promises. The Inver must be signed by the chief executive officer.) If NO, attach the following: a copy of the lease with terms for one year, a copy of a sketch of the floor plan with dimensions, showing what portion is being leased. A lease and sketch are not required for Class 0 applicantlons. Rent: For gambling with bingo $ Total square footage leased For gambling without bingo S Total square footage leased Address of storage spats of gambling equipment Address city State Zip code ak�3o4G1nSE• (Ylenitcello ►1N 5S3 tea Bank fn ot-rnatiron - foaeh permntad gambling prernmea must have • sapante Meeting aoeount) Bank Name Illank Account Number F��} 0 of 0,5�, y dry zio cad. 4cst, a�`l mr rtlIce110 NO 553 ? Name. saoess, arM ode M persons awvenra to -Aw check, Wna make dca.0 and w,erdr.wrs. Name Aoomss IAB C. vo11�U Rn`oe7ti t' -- �„� n4tcillo "� N __MAPY �A,,e lL1A Pa✓- - - - -ids7 CaMA,ANr4N LG214 Minnesota L=ful Gambling Premise Permit Application - Part 3 Acknowledgement Gambling Site Authorization I hearby consent that local law enforcement officers, the hoard or agents of the board, or the commissioner of revenue or public safely, or agents of the commissioners. may enter the promises to enforce the law. no, Records information The board is authorized to Inspect the bank records of the gambling account whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law. I declare that: I have read this application and all information submitted to the board: AN information is true, accurate and complete; AN other required Information has been fully disclosed; I am the chief axecuttve officer of the organization; I assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful gambling and rules of the board and agree, it licensed, to abide by those laws and rules, including amendments to them; A membership Nst of the organization will be available within seven days after it Is requested by the board: Any changes in application information will be submitted to the board and local government within 10 days of the change; and A termination p!sn wA be :ubm,tlod to the board within 15 days of the termination of all promise par-::. Failure to provide requiied information or providing false information may result in the denial or revocation of the license. Signesire or chief execvsve orae pus 7. s 30 9 Local Government Acknowledgement 1. The city 'must sign N the gambling premises is located within city limits. 2. The county "AND township" must sign it the gambling premises is located within a township. 3. The local government (city or county) must pass a resolution specdkally approving or denying the application. 4. A copy of the rewlutiun approving the application must be attached to the spplirstlon. 5. Applications which are denied by the local governing body should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Division. Township: By signature below, the township acknowledges that the orgenizailon It applying for a premises permit within township limits. City' or County" Cary or County Name Township" Township Name l•Jii of moo ries � sprurum a person ma -v epWesson r rwry /.y r�l�.ycyy-lie. - --I ra.o..a arson Mvema ap"c000n b bol aovemirrg boo I 1e Is loxrmsho orpanlzed ❑ llnrirganired n tAwimrosraud Refer to the Instructions for the required attachments Mad to: Department of Gaming Gambling Control Division Rosewood *laze South, 3rd Floor 1711 W, County Road D / Roseville, MN 56113 MONTICELLO LEGION x260 JAN -DEC 1990 WHEEL INTEREST TOTALS $108.817 $1,926 $2,068,156 $86,334 $1 ,707,277 $22,483 $1,926 $360,879 ($40) ($3,961) $22,443 $1,926 $356,918 People to People Student Trip to Russia F lags Property Taxes City of Mnnticello Legion Aux "260 Monticello Food Shelf Scholarships TOTALS Negative Profit indicates profit Carry-overs from previous years A $50,000 Scholarship Fund was also established In December of 1990 TOTAL PROFIT FOR YEAR Cstatement is for Informational purposes only -slight variations may occur In actual state reports $258,825 $127,357 $51,471 $50,000 $3,075 $1,628 $50 $2,628 $690 $4,696 $4,179 $7,835 $172 $1,500 $1,000 $2.106 $10,785 $1,500 $ 3,000 $3,000 $10,000 $107,844 ($31,958) PULLTABS G,^OSS SALES: $ 1 ,957,41 3 ZES PAID: $1,620.943 GROSS PROFIT $336,470 OVER/SHORT ($3,921) TOTAL GROSS PROFIT: $332,549 STATE TAXES PD COMBINED RECEIPTS $98,093 TOTAL TAX PAID ••• $98.093 TOTAL GROSS LESS TAXES: EXPENSES: WAGES $67,086 ACCOUNTING/LEGAL $20.314 BANK CHARGE, MISC. $1,092 EQUIPMENT $3.822 LICENSE/BOND $633 UTILITIES $1,266 INVENTORY USED $37,255 TOTAL EXPENSE $131,468 NET PROFIT AFTER ALL EXPENSES: FEDERAL TAXES LAWFUL PURPOSE Mortgage Payments Nursing Home/Hospital Veteran's Aid, Vets Programs `+ Medical Research LegionvIIle/ School Patrol School Programs Legion Baseball Misc. Contributions Youth Sports, Programs Memorials Pinewood Comm. Playground WHEEL INTEREST TOTALS $108.817 $1,926 $2,068,156 $86,334 $1 ,707,277 $22,483 $1,926 $360,879 ($40) ($3,961) $22,443 $1,926 $356,918 People to People Student Trip to Russia F lags Property Taxes City of Mnnticello Legion Aux "260 Monticello Food Shelf Scholarships TOTALS Negative Profit indicates profit Carry-overs from previous years A $50,000 Scholarship Fund was also established In December of 1990 TOTAL PROFIT FOR YEAR Cstatement is for Informational purposes only -slight variations may occur In actual state reports $258,825 $127,357 $51,471 $50,000 $3,075 $1,628 $50 $2,628 $690 $4,696 $4,179 $7,835 $172 $1,500 $1,000 $2.106 $10,785 $1,500 $ 3,000 $3,000 $10,000 $107,844 ($31,958) Council Agenda - 6/10/41 18. Consideration of appointinq a fifth individual to the Darks commission. (K.D./J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the May 13 Council meeting, the City Council discussed membership appointments to the recently -established parks commission. Four very experienced individuals applied for positions on the five -member commission. Because four members would constitute a quorum, Council elected to appoint these individuals to the parks commission and consider a fifth appointment at such time that another individual becomes interested in the position. On Thursday, June 6, Mr. Roger Carlson came to City Hall and completed an application for the fifth position on the parks commission; therefore, Council is asked to review his application and consider appointing Mr. Carlson to fill the vacancy on the parks commission. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: r 1. Appoint Mr. Roger Carlson to the parks commission. 1 2. Do not appoint Mr. Roger Carlson to the parks commission and wait for other interested individuals to apply for the position. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that Council appoint Mr. Carlson to the parks commission, thereby filling the vacant seat on the commission. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of application. C 38 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT. ACTIVITY REPORT Month of May . 1991 TOTAL. REVENUE !3.47!.00 BLSCA IPS:ON NAME/LOCATION VALUATION NUMBER I ITYPLI PERMIT BUPCXARGEC3 PLUMBING SURCHARGE 91-1651 Rouse end garage e► value Plue Ilomes/106 Crocus Clrele 155,)00.00 $791.51 777.65 !17.00 5.50 91-1b52 Xouae and garage SP I.an a Cue tom 110ma/101 Kenneth Cane 87,900.00 576.31 1].95 76.00 .50 91-1657 Holua C pe raga ah Ingle raroof AD Cordon L Audrey Jacobson/111 Hlll Creat Rd. 1,900.00 15.00 .50 91-1654 Nouse c 9e [age ah lnp l• r roof AD Yilli em Eperrow/110 Hillcrest Rd. 1,500.00 15.00 .90 91-1655 H.-. L ga rape ehing le reroOf AD Hervey Randall/108 Hillcrest Rd. 1,300.00 15.00 .50 91-1636 Nouse end gerega SP Va lux Plus Womee/103 Crone Lone 95,600.00 ]96.54 77.90 77.00 .30 91-1657 House end garage 81 Dan Prla L Tic Yltchen/601 L. 11h St, 56,600.00 100.59 18.10 77.00 .50 91-1658 7 -season porch RD Lloyd Dahlin/1800 W. River 9t. 5,000.00 50.00 7.30 91-1659 Back AD Brian L Alycle Savage/7760 Meador Lane 1,500.00 15.00 .50 91-1660 Back AD Rick L Luenn Prlbyl/7 Linn St. 1,500.00 15.00 .50 91-1661 Interior L exterior house remodel AD Ti. Yonak/706 !. River Kt. 8,000.00 99.00 1.00 1].00 .30 91-1667 Roof recoating AC ne tca It L Larson/]1] W, Broadvay 1,500.00 19.00 .50 91-1667 Detached garage RD Bary L Andy Peterson/701 W. Ind St. 5.000.00 50.00 7.50 91-1664 Dacka L window AD Mark L Patricia Irl./IIB Y. 3rd Sc. 1.300.00 15.00 .50 91-1665 nouao L garage SP Now Century 110mes/7787 Gakvle. L.- 30,700.00 ]75.88 73.]5 7].00 .SO 91-1666 Nouse aM gerega SP Doyle Vachea Const-Ctlon/774 Mlsstaalppl D 67,500.00 173.67 31.75 77.00 .50 91-1607 Back AD JAC4 L Cynthia Nelson/S Canter Circle 1,500.00 15.00 .70 1) 668 1louae L garage reelding AD Warren G Gloria Olson/610 Nlnnosoxe at. 7 0000,0...00, 70.00 1.50 TOTALS !{07,000.00 li �6�/T 1911 11. 1.�0 PLAN Review 91-1631 1loues and gersg• BI va lea Plus Xomaa/106 Crocus Clrele !79.13 9t-1657 No" and pa rage EP Lennare CU tom Homes/101 Kenneth Lone 57.65 9t-1056 Rouse aM garage 81 valve Plua Nomas/105 Crocus lane )9.65 91-1637 us and garage BP Den P[ls L Tlm YltOnen/604 K. 4th Et. 10.06 91-1665 Nouse and garage a New Century Homs!/7787 Oakvlev L.ne 17.77 91-1606 M.uae and garage BP Oay1• VeCM• Cone truC tion/771 MI■•lea 1ppl D.. 71.59 TOTAL PLAR REVIEW 6731.77 TOTAL. REVENUE !3.47!.00 CITY OF MONTtC6Lw Monthly Building Dopartaant Report Month of May PEIIMITS MID USES PERMIT@ 189UE0 Lest This Sam Month Le.t Tear This Taar Month APRIL Month MAI Leat Year To Data To Data RE@IVENTIAL Number is 17 13 47 40 Valuation $343 ,400.00 $400 ,500.00 $199 ,400.00 3 540,700.00 6757,400.00 Pea. 2,424.61 ),107.40 1,724.40 4,600.71 4,68).1) Surcharge. 169.45 190.50 107.45 261.40 171.45 COMMERCIAL "umber 1 1 2 9 6 Valuation 1,500.00 1,500.00 5,000.00 2,445,000.00 76,500.00 Paea 15.00 13.A0 40.00 12,646.19 750.00 surcharge. .40 .50 2.90 1,222.00 17.75 INDUSTRIAL "umbar 3 Valuation 98.600.00 ►ee. 1,091.)1 surcharge. 49 30 PLUMB I "O ff" r 4 7 4 11 13 ►.e. 122.00 154.00 85.00 261.00 319.00 Surcharges 2.00 3.50 2.00 9.50 6.50 OT119Rf Number 1 5 VSlvition 0.00 93,000.00 Pss. 10.00 1,090.00 fuMorgea .50 49.00 {( TOTAL NO, PERMITS 21 24 20 74 39 TOTAL VALUATION 144.900.00 402,000.00 224,100.00 3,179,100.00 833.900.00 TOTAL r&U 2,561.63 3.272.50 1,870.48 19,910.01 6,712.13 TOTAL $URCIIMOEE 171.94 202.50 112.44 1,489.20 417.70 CURRENT MU711 ►M Ef M-ber to net• PERMIT NNNIRR "-her PAPMiT SURCIIAR04 Valuation Thi. year i.eet year ' Bingle Pully 6 82,769.50 9184.50 9369,000.00 9 7 Ouplea 1 0 Mul ll•TnUy 0 0 Induatrlal 0 1 Rq. Garage. 1 30.00 2.40 8,000.00 1 2 flg.4 0 11 Publla Oulldings 0 0 AhTIMATIOM OR REPAIR Dw111n9 6 22!.00 9.50 20,400.00 49 30 Coaam.roisl 1 14.00 .50 1.500.00 6 6 2nduslri at O 7 Plane D 1110 All Types 7 154.00 3.30 13 It ACCEEWRY ETRUCTUREE s.iming Pool. 0 t ORalla 4 60,00 2.00 6,000,00 10 E TEMPORARY PMMIT 0 0 DB"OLITIDf O 3 TOTAL/ 25 3,272.00 202.50 402,000.00 59 7!