City Council Agenda Packet 07-25-1994AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 26, 1994 - 7 pm.
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 11, 1994.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. 1. Public Hearing --Consideration of improvement to 7th Street between
Pine Street and Cedar Street, City Project 94-03C.
IL Consideration of change order with Cardinal Hills TV project for
improvements to 7th Street and Cedar StreetJOakwood Drive realignment,
City Project 94-03C.
6. Consideration of a variance request to allow a pylon sign to be erected above
the 32 -ft maximum height allowed. Applicant, SuperAmerica Group.
6. Consideration of vacating a portion of former Trunk Highway 26 to
SuperAmerica Group and vacate a portion of the old Cedar Street utility
and drainage easement.
7. Consideration of adopting an ordinance licensing and regulating the sale of
tobacco within the city of Monticello.
8. Review of Liquor Store six month financial statements.
9. Consideration of installation of electrical pump lockouts for protection of the
second state digester at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
10. Consideration of approval of annual MPCA Wastewater Treatment Plant
survey.
11. Consideration of adopting a resolution of residential antidisplacement,
relocation assistance, and displacement minimization plan for Monticello.
12. Consideration of adopting a resolution of compliance with Federal Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.
13. Consideration of approving an application for a gambling license at J. P.'s
Annex --Monticello Lions Club.
14. City Council update -old Fire Hall renovation for Motor Vehicle department
15. Consideration of appointing a replacement for Utility Billing Clerk/
Receptionist.
16. Consideration of advertising in Fall Parade of Homes booklet --Suburban
Northwest Builders Assn.
17. Approval of bills for the month of July.
Additional Information Item
18. City Council update --Meadow Oaks storm sewer outlet.
19.
oN Trf s1 -l7 CfAyM/ic /yETy��
�0. Re,5-q jj%( of e /= Cn..Nc,'1 Mr4 f rt — PeTr7 0Lfe_)
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 11, 1994 - 7 pm.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith
Members Absent: Patty Olsen
Consideration of approval of minutes of the reeular meetine held June 27,
1994.
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to accept the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Citizens commentatpetitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
onsideration of a requgat to subdiyide two existine residential lots, an4 a
reauest for a variance allowine a 10 -ft encroachment into the front Yard
setback. and a request for a variance allowine creation of a substandard lot.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that Jeff Michaelis requests City
Council to allow a simple subdivision realigning Lots 6 & 7, Block 9. The
subdivision and associated building plans result in the need for a 10 -ft front
yard setback variance and a variance allowing a lot to be created that does
not meet code in terms of lot width. Brad Fyle indicated his concern
regarding creating a lot with an angled lot boundary. He was concerned
that over time the precise location of the boundary line may be lost and may
become a source of confusion. Clint Herbst noted that the lot that will be
created will have greater front footage than the present lots thereby
reducing the level of non -conformity. He also felt that the property owners
can work out problems associated with the jog in the property line. After
discussion, the motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren
Smith to approve the 10 -ft variance to the front yard setback requirement
and approve a variance allowing the creation of a lot with a front foot width
of 71 feet. Variances granted based on the finding that:
The level of conformity to the front yard lot width requirement will be
improved as a result of the proposed subdivision. Current front yard
width of each of the existing lots is 66 feet. Proposed lot widths after
subdivision aro 71 ft and 94 ft.
Page 1
Council Minutes - 7/11/94
Minnesota Street right of way width, at this location, is 20 feet
greater than the standard city street and the existing road surface is
near the center of the right of way. Therefore, encroachment on the
setback requirement at this location is in keeping with the intent of
the ordinance.
Both lots created will be of equal size.
Voting in favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Warren
Smith. Opposed: Brad Fyle. Motion carried. Brad Fyle indicated that his
opposition was due to presence of the angled property line.
Consideration of a conditional use reauest to allow a motor fuel station/
convenience store in a B-3 (hiehwav business) zone.
Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that SuperAmerica requests a
conditional use permit which would allow operation of a convenience store
at the location previously occupied by Vance s Standard. The type of use is
completely consistent with uses allowed in the B-3 zone; therefore, the
Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the conditional
use permit. ONeill went on to note that specific approvals relating to the
grading wid utilities plan are yet to he reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and Public Works Department.
Shirley Anderson noted her support of the proposed convenience store. She
indicated her concern regarding a variance recently recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission which would allow a pylon sign to
exceed the 32 -ft maximum. It was her view that this item should be
reviewed by the City Council prior to formal approval due to the fact that
the city has recently denied a similar variance request submitted by
Subway Shop. Atter discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson
and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the conditional use permit to
SuperAmerica Group allowing a motor fuel station/ convenience store in the
11.3 (highway business) zone. Approval is subject to the conditions as noted
in the zoning ordinance. Motion approved unanimously.
Consideration of Liberty Savings preliminary slat.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Liberty Savings is requesting
approval of a preliminary plat affecting a 3 -acre site located directly east of
Riverrnad Plaza hetween the service drive and East County Road 39. The
proposed development calls for establishment of a bank/office facility which
would utilize approximately half of the platted property. The other half of
the property would be divided into a separate lot for future development.
The property being platted was originally linked to the 16 -acre property
Page 2
Council Minutes - 7/11/94
owned by Gladys Hoglund, situated directly east of the present alignment of
East County Road 39. O Neill noted that the subdivision does not require
extension of any public utilities or roadway systems. It simply utilizes
facilities that are in place. The Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the preliminary plat as proposed. After discussion, the motion
was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the
Liberty Savings preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of a conditional use vermit which would allow operation of an
office facility in a PZM zone.
In conjunction with platting of the parcel under Item 6, it is proposed that a
4,000 sq ft bank/office facility be developed. Under the site plan proposed,
the facility will adhere to all the zoning standards as defined in a B-3
district. The purpose of the conditional use permit requirement for a
business in the PZM zone is to provide for design standards that would
allow placement of a commercial facility near or adjacent to a residential
use. In this situation, it is clear that there will be no residential uses
adjacent to the facility. Therefore, the site should be required to meet the
minimum requirements of a commercial establishment being developed in a
commercial zone. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson
and seconded by Warren Smith to approve a conditional use permit to allow
operation of an office facility in a PZM zone. Motion carried unanimously.
Brad Fyle expressed his appreciation to Libery Savings for making a
commitment to the city of Monticello and noted that, although it would have
been nice to develop a facility in the downtown area, he felt that the site
selected will work well.
Mark Bragelman, Vice President of Liberty Savings, requested that City
Council consider updating the street name of the street serving the facility
from Service Drive to Liberty Drive. He noted that none of the present
property owners use Service Drive as an address and none of them object to
the proposed change. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council
that Service Drive will likely be extended easterly across East County Road
39 into an undeveloped area and it is also planned that the road will be
extended westerly to connect to Hart Boulevard. The westerly extension
will likely occur within 3 to 6 years to coincide with widening of County
State Aid Highway 76. Shirley Anderson noted that it makes sense to
rename Service Drive to Hart Boulevard if it is the long term goal to
connect Hart Boulevard to pointe east. After discussion, a motion was made
by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to rename Service
Drive to Hart Boulevard. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 3
Council Minutes . 7/11/94
Review of bids and consideration of award for building demolition of old
Gille house at 1324 West Broadway.
John Simola reported that on Thursday, July 7, 1994, the city received two
bids for demolition of the Gille house. The lowest bid was from Veit and
Company of Rogers, Minnesota, at a total cost of $7,993. The second bid
was received from Schluender of Monticello for a total cost of $9,800. After
discussion the motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to award the bid for building demolition and site preparation of
the Gille site to Veit and Company of Rogers for a lump sum of $6,193 and
an estimated cost of $1,800 for soil excavation and replacement based upon
actual unit prices in cubic yards for a total estimated project cost of $7,993.
Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of obtaining independent appraisals for proposed land swan--
Outlots C and D and Emmerich parcel.
Rick Wolfsteller reported that at the previous meeting Council authorized
the City Engineer to continue with developing grading plans for
development of Eastwood Knoll plat, but also authorized staff to investigate
the feasibility of a possible land exchange proposed by Tony Emmerich
which would result in the city obtaining industrial property for the
residential parcel that the city now owns. Wolfsteller went on to review the
costs associated with development of the industrial site and estimated that
the city would need to average between $26,000 and $30,000 for acre to
recapture the original $164,000 investment that we have in the property we
would be trading. Wolfsteller went on to note that in discussing the
proposed trade with Jay Johnson. It is their feeling that an independent
appraisal should be obtained on both the city's and Mr. Emmerich's parcels
to establish a fair market value for determining an appropriate land
exchange value. Wolfsteller asked Council if it wishes to share the cost of
obtaining these appraisals as part of the further consideration of the land
swap proposal. After discussion, the motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Warren Smith to inform Emmerich that the City continues to
have interest in the idea of a land swap but declines to participate in the
cost of obtaining appraisals as proposed. Motion carried unanimously.
10. onsideration of approval of planfl and omcificationg for 7th Street between
Fine Street pnd Cedar Street. pnd realignment of Cedar Street at Oakwood
Drive, City Project 94-03f, and authorizption to negRCi04o the CoJ113LB
change order to inclpde this lyork vfith the Cardinal Hills 4th Addition
in performed by R. P. Utilitica. Inc.
After discussion, the motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to approve the plans for 7th Street reconstruction and
Pago 4
Council Minutes - 7/11/94
Cedar Street realignment, Project 94-03C, and authorize city staff to
negotiate change order costs with R. P. Utilities to be reviewed at the July
25th council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of approval of plans and specifications for the Meadow Oak
storm sewer outlet to the Mississippi River. Citv Proiect 93-12C.
John Simola reported that staff has been moving ahead with development of
final plans and specifications for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. We
have reached an agreement with Kerry Saxton of Wright County Soil
Conservation Office with regard to the project design having no impact on
existing wetlands on the Gene Bauer property. The storm sewer system
will have an adjustable inlet at the manhole near the south end of Gillard
which will allow adjustment of the water level in the wetlands. Kerry
Saxton's office will perform a wetland delineation and the water level will
be adjusted accordingly after the project is completed. The City Engineer
has discussed the current design features with Mr. and Mrs. Bauer and
they are continuing under the premise that easement and drainage rights
costs equal storm sewer benefits from the project. The city will be working
out a written agreement with the Bauers prior to the award of the project.
Staff is continuing to work with the county and state in regard to their
participation in the project. We've received a request from the county to bid
three alternate pipe sizes in addition to our base project. It appears that
the state may also request a similar three alternative design. At this time,
however, it has not been determined how or who would pay for a deeper or
a larger pipe size designed to serve the Ditch 33 area. In order to keep the
project on schedule for 1994 completion, it is imperative that we move
ahead with the project. Consequently, we are asking the City Council's
approval of plans in this preliminary stage and authorization to go to bids
prior to next council meeting after the selection of alternative pipe size and
depth by the county and state. Clint Herbst noted that this is the prime
time to design the pipe to help solve the Ditch 33 problem. It does not
make sense to complete the project without addressing the problem to the
east. Bret Weiss noted that we will need to provide an outlet to the
Meadow Oaks pond relatively soon. We could delay creating the outlet if
the county would allow us to break the present bulkhead blocking the
outflow of water from Meadow Oaks pond. Brad Fyle noted that if the
storm sewer is developed to serve a portion of Ditch 33, then the city should
he reimbursed for some of the costa above and beyond oversizing. Such
costs would include paying a portion of the replacement of Gillard Avenue.
It was the consensus of Council to direct the City Engineer to contact the
county and state and township with an update on 6ty plans to move
forward on the project and encourage them to come to an agreement as to
participation in funding a share of the oversizing costs. After discussion, a
Page 5
Council Minutes - 7/11/94
motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to
approve plans and specifications in preliminary form and authorize
advertising for bids based upon our base system and one alternative pipe
size and depth. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Consideration of change order #1 for City Proiect 93-07C. Second Staee
Anaerobic Dieester Cover Replacement Proiect.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve change order #1 with greater construction costs for
additional work on the second stage digester cover project in the amount of
$1,985.10. Motion carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of City involvement or sumDort of a community -owned
conereeate care/assisted livine senior housine oroieq
Rick Wolfeteller reported that on June 22, 1994, presentations were made to
the Hospital District. Board and members of the City Council, HRA, and
Planning Commission regarding development of a congregate carelassisted
living senior housing project adjacent to the hospital district campus. As a
result of the presentations, it appeared that the proposal by BRW and
Presbyterian Hunies would be best suited for the Monticello project.
Followup to this meeting was presented to the HRA on July 6, which
outlined development of a 40 -unit senior housing project to be located just
east of the hospital clinic building expansion site. Wolfsteller went on to
now his concern regarding the location of the facility in close proximity to
the wastewater treatment plant. He noted that it is antiepated that the
treatment plant will be expanded at its present location. John Simola
expressed his concern regarding the potential for odor problems at the site
proposed by the Hospital District He noted his preference that the facility
be constructed on the west aide of the hospital district campus. Wolfsteller
outlined various scenarios under which the project could be financed and
reported that it was his understanding that those present at the meeting
were leaning towards creation of a non-profit corporation that would be
made up of representatives from the Hospital Board, City and HRA. After
discussion, the motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to support a community-based non-profit corporation but
recommend that the committee look at alternative sites due to the proposed
location's proximity to the wastewater treatment plant. Motion carried
unanimously. Shirley Anderson and Clint Herbst voluateen:d W serve on
the non-profit corporation.
Page 6
Council Minutes - 7/11/94
14. Consideration of an application for a one-dav eambline license --Monticello
Rod and Gun Club Steak Fry.
Wolfsteller reported that the Monticello Jaycees is requesting approval of a
one -day gambling license to conduct a raffle as part of the Monticello Rod
and Gun Club's annual steak fry to be held on August 13, 1994. Before the
State of Minnesota will grant a license, the City Council must adopt a
resolution supporting the request or denying the application. After
discussion, the motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint
Herbst to adopt a resolution approving issuance of the license. Motion
carried unanimously.
15. Consideration of adopting Heartland Express Bus Management Plan for
1995.
Assistant Administrator O Neill outlined the proposed Management Plan for
1995. He noted that bus ridership continues to climb while expenses
remain relatively consistent. He noted that, as in years past, the cost to the
city to operate the bus under the plan in 1995 will amount to 25% of the
total cost to operate the system or $16,000. 75% of the cost to operate the
system will be derived from the combination of fare revenue and state and
federal funding. After discussion, the motion was made by Warren Smith
and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt the Heartland Express
Management Plan and associated budget for 1995. Motion carried
unanimously.
16. Consideration of aDnointine Wanda Kraemer to the Development Services
Technician position.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that City Council consider
appointing Wanda Kraemer to the position of Development Services
Technician. He noted that in response to the posting of the job opening
internally, city administration received 3 applications from current
employees. A staff conunittee made up of the Assistant Administrator, City
Administrator, Building Inspector, Economic Development Director, and
Office Manager reviewed the applications in terms of experience, education,
etc. and recommended Wanda Kraemer for the position. Brad Fyle
indicated that based on his assessment of her performance she will do fine
in her new position. Shirley Anderson expressed her support for hiring
Wanda Kraemer for the position and expressed her appreciation to the other
employees that applied. Clint Herbst noted his concern regarding the step
increases in pay as proposed. He recommended that the step increase
beyond the initial increase granted at the time of promotion not be granted
at the end of probation but be granted at the first anniversary of being
awarded the new position.
Page 7
Council Minutes - 7/11/94
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to appoint Wanda Kraemer to the position of Development
Services Technician and to authorize posting of the job Wanda Kraemer is
vacating. Eligibility for a step increase is to occur one year from the date of
the appointment. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Jeff ONeill
Assistant Adnrinistrator
Page 8
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
I. Public Hearing—Consideration of improvement to 7th Street
between Pine Street and Cedar Street Citv Prosect 94.03C.
II. Consideration of change order with Cardinal Hills IY arolect for
imorovemente to 7th Street and Cedar Street/Oakwood Drive
realignment Citv Prosect 94-W. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As previously discussed, this project involves the reconstruction of 7th
Street between Highway 25 and Cedar Street. The current street was
installed in 1982 and lasted 12 years, about 60% of its expected life.
Failure of the street was most likely due to heavier and more frequent
vehicle trips than the design could tolerate for a 20 -year period.
The feasibility study for the project indicates a construction cost of $34,410
for this portion of 7th Street. $1,720 would be allowed for contingency and
$6,503 for engineering and indirect costs. This would bring us to a project
cost of about $42,650. With the City picking up the north half of the street
due to the cemetery, we would propose to assess Perkins and Taco Bell for
the south half of the street. Since Perkins owns 198 feet. and Taco Bell 172
feet, the 2 assessments would work out to $11,412.72 and $9,914.08
respectively.
Since the street did not live up to its full useful life, there is a reason to
credit the benefitting properties with the 40% unused life of the existing
street and charge them only 60% of the cost of the new street. We have set
such a precedent with the Mississippi Drive construction and also have
charged only 50% for the Industrial Park upgrade of the street system.
This is concurrent with the spirit of the city's assessment ordinance. We,
therefore, sent notice to Perkins for a 60% assessment of $6,847 and to Taco
Bell for a 60% assessment of $5,948. Again, these estimates are based upon
the costs noted in the feasibility study. We are continuing to work toward
having the change order costs from R. P. Utilities in time for the agenda or
at least by Monday evening's meeting.
At the close of the public hearing, the Council is asked to discuss the cost
for both the 7th Street construction and the Cedar Street/Oakwood Drive
realignment. Both aro parts of Project 94-03C. The construction cost
estimate for the Cedar Street realigmuent is $10,610. Adding a 5%
contingency of $530.50 and an 18% indirect cost brings the total project cost
to $13,145.79. There are no anticipated assessments for this project as we
are making improvements to the realignment for the good of the entire
community. The total estimated construction costs based upon the
Council Agenda - 7/25194
feasibility study for both projects is $55,800. There are adequate funds in
the 1994 budget to complete these projects.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The first alternative, when reviewing the change order to R. P.
Utilities on the 4th Addition of Cardinal Hills, would be to approve
the change order and order the improvements to both Cedar Street
and 7th Street should the change order costs be near the cost of the
feasibility study estimates.
The second alternative, upon reviewing the change order costs or the
lack thereof, is to order the advertisement of bids for the two projects
with the bids to be reviewed at a future meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since we do not have the change order costs at this time and the alternative
action selected depends upon having, or lack of having, that information by
Monday evening, staff withholds its recommendation until that time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of change order (should it arrive in time). Please refer to your council
agenda of June 27, 1994, for these items and a copy of the feasibility study.
ki
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
5. Consideration of a variance reauest to allow a x►vlon sitrn to be
erected above the 32 -ft maximum height allowed. ADDlicant,
SuoerAmerica Grouo. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
SuperAmerica requests that the City allow a pylon sign to be extended
above the 32 -ft height maximum allowed by ordinance to a level of 55 ft.
As with each variance request, in order to retain the integrity of the
ordinance, the applicant needs to demonstrate a unique circumstance or
hardship associated with the variance request. What are the unusual
circumstances that limit reasonable use of the property without a variance?
As you know, on a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission recommended
granting a variance based on the finding that a hardship exists due to the
fact that SuperAmerica must attract freeway -bound customers, and the
pylon sign height at 32 ft is not high enough to be visible from the freeway.
Apparently there are trees on adjoining property that block the view of the
sign.
There is a precedent relating to a similar request in 1991. In 1991, the
Subway Shop submitted a very similar pylon sign height variance request.
The Subway Shop request for a higher pylon sign was denied based on the
finding that there was no hardship. Therefore, to approve the variance for
SuperAmerican would appear to be inconsistent with the Subway Shop
decision. Furthermore, the hardship defined by the Planning Commission
in their finding supporting the higher SuperAmerica sign does not establish
a specific standard as to when a variance should be granted to allow
visibility of the sign from the freeway. It could be argued that anv business
that needs freeway exposure could argue that they suffer from a hardship
because their business sign cannot be seen from the freeway. Where then
does the City draw the line?
From a planning and zoning code administration standpoint, it would
appear that if the Planning Commission and City Council aro comfortable
with the 55 ft high sign at SuperAmerica, then the ordinance should be
recrafied to allow for higher pylon signs but perhaps limit the area eligible
for such signs. Under the variance as granted, the door has been opened up
to allowing higher pylon signs throughout all areas within 800 ft of the
freeway bonus area.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to grant the variance allowing a sign in excess of the 32 -ft
height maximum.
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
This motion should be accompanied by a finding defining the
hardship or unique circumstances. Please see attached letter from
the attorney representing Superhmerica which outlines
SuperAmerica's showing of hardship. If City Council selects this
option, Council may wish to reference reasons for the variance as
outlined in the letter.
Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding that no
unique situation or hardship erdsts to justify the variance.
Under this alternative, City Council would determine that allowing a
sign height in excess of 32 ft is not acceptable because SuperAmerica
can achieve reasonable use of the property without the variance.
SuperAmerica might argue that the Amoco station had a sign in
excess of 32 ft; therefore, SuperAmerica should be allowed to have a
sign at the same height. According to the zoning ordinance,
maintenance of non -conforming signs is acceptable; however, complete
removal and replacement of a non -conforming sign with another non-
conforming sign is not allowed by ordinance.
1. Motion to deny variance but call for a public hearing on a zoning
ordinance amendment that would allow establishment of higher pylon
signs in the freeway bonus area,
Under this alternative, Council would deny the bariance based on
lack of hardship but be willing to explore the potential of amending
the zoning ordinance to allow SuperAmerica and other businesses in
the freeway bonus area (Subway, Holiday Stationstores, Kmart,
Hoglund Bus, Dave Peterson Ford, etc.) to construct pylon signs at an
elevation higher than 3211.
As you will note in the attached information collected in 1989, the
City reviewed the matter thoroughly and decided not to raise the
standard.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is our view that the variance be denied based on the difficulty in defining
a hardship completely unique to the site. If Council is inclined to support
pylon signs in excess of 32 ft in order to provide the freeway businesses
with the opportunity to allow pylon signs to be completely visible E rom the
freeway, then it is recommended that the process of amending the ordinance
be initiated.
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter from SuperAmerica's attorney; Copies of meeting minutes
pertaining to the Subway Shop pylon sign height variance request and
research on sign issues and associated ordinance amendments discussed in
1989.
Mayor Ren Maus J
Members of the City Council
City of Monticello
P .0. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
Re: SuperAmerica Sign Variance Request
:ar Mayor Maus and Members of the City Council:
This letter is offered in support of the request of the SuperAmerica
Group for a sign variance to construct a 55' sign at the former
location of Vance's Amoco in the Plaza at TH-25 and I-94. This
variance request was approved by the Planning Commission and comes to
the Council on appeal.
SuperAmerica proposes to redevelop the Amoco site with the
construction of a new SuperAmerica station convenience store. The
Amoco site is presently vacant. SuperAmerica estimates the total
project costs to be approximately $1 million. The Conditional Use
Permit for the SuperAmerica proposal was approved by the Monticello
City Council at its meeting of July 11, 1994.
The key issue in the consideration of a variance request is a finding
of hardship. The Monticello Planning Commission, based on the record
before it, determined that a hardship existed in approving the
variance request.
The subject site upon which SuperAmerica proposes to construct this
facility is one that is located within the TH-25/I-94 interchange that
is designed and intended to serve the traveling public. The traveling
-7blic must have an opportunity to visually determine what businesses
--re available to serve its traveling needs in order to make the
LARKIN, HOFFMAN. DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
pa(
w
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
uo�l owKou
16M NORWEST FWANCIAL CENTER uI•' o«a
r.womw.n �a. K
7800 %ER%ES AVENUE SOUTH +okw+mw
v
_
A ooww
9lO0MINOTON, MWNESOTA 65431 -1104 T
w-rew<[[racrtw
TELER14NE 18111 9367500 r.,p
rr no[•vr
r,walydr•
i
w:u:uwW'•'����
FAX 16121 589-3377 mow'
[e''u� co•u
rw
ntmpct �+�wae
� o rury
✓xl anew
a�rWlir r�r�w
wrt�D
cawr [ vwacuv[•
July 21, 1994
rao wlwrtco «wrca.m.
Mayor Ren Maus J
Members of the City Council
City of Monticello
P .0. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
Re: SuperAmerica Sign Variance Request
:ar Mayor Maus and Members of the City Council:
This letter is offered in support of the request of the SuperAmerica
Group for a sign variance to construct a 55' sign at the former
location of Vance's Amoco in the Plaza at TH-25 and I-94. This
variance request was approved by the Planning Commission and comes to
the Council on appeal.
SuperAmerica proposes to redevelop the Amoco site with the
construction of a new SuperAmerica station convenience store. The
Amoco site is presently vacant. SuperAmerica estimates the total
project costs to be approximately $1 million. The Conditional Use
Permit for the SuperAmerica proposal was approved by the Monticello
City Council at its meeting of July 11, 1994.
The key issue in the consideration of a variance request is a finding
of hardship. The Monticello Planning Commission, based on the record
before it, determined that a hardship existed in approving the
variance request.
The subject site upon which SuperAmerica proposes to construct this
facility is one that is located within the TH-25/I-94 interchange that
is designed and intended to serve the traveling public. The traveling
-7blic must have an opportunity to visually determine what businesses
--re available to serve its traveling needs in order to make the
LARKIN. HOFFMAN. DALY & LINDGREN. LTD.
Mayor Ken Maus
imbers of the City Council
lly 21, 1994
pace 2
decision to timely exit at Monticello/TH-25 and patronize the
businesses located there. Without that visual communication to the
traveling public, the businesses at the interchange have no
opportunity to intercept those trips and be afforded an opportunity
for business patronage.
The land use pattern and uses along the south side of the interchange
are almost exclusively designed and located there to serve I-94
travelers. Due to the topographical relationship to I-94 and the
TH-25 overpass, travelers along I-94 cannot see the businesses without
adequate signage. SuperAmerica, working with Lawrence Sign Company,
conducted a "balloon study" to establish that height necessary to
allow signage to be seen by eastbound and westbound I-94 traffic and
allow an opportunity for safe exit. A seven foot wide balloon was
elevated to various heights to determine visibility. At the 32'
height, it was impossible to see a sign located on the subject site
from eastbound or westbound. At 42' in height, a sign is barely
visible to westbound, but not visible to eastbound traffic. At the
proposed 55' height, a sign would be visible from one-quarter mile and
one-half mile distances to the eastbound and westbound exits
respectively.
noco had a 55' sign prior to abandoning the subject site. Other
:eeway businesses identified on this side of the interchange with 50+
foot signs include Comfort Inn, Tom Thumb/Amoco, Wendy's, and Beet
Western Motel.
The subject site is uniquely suited to the freeway service use at this
interchange. The subject site is burdened with a unique hardship if
not afforded the opportunity with this variance to provide adequate
signage to the travelers of I-94.
Conclusion
SuperAmerica Group respectfully requests affirmation and approval of
the sign variance request to permit erection of a 55' sign. Thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Keane, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
kw
-c: Ken Olson, SuperAmerica Group, Inc.
Roman Mueller, SuperAmerica Group, Inc.
TJK:LM6s 05—
Planning Cormnission Agenda - 4/4/89
3. Cons iderat ion of amendments to Section 3-9(El4 and 3-9(E)4(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the reguiatlon of onion sign height, sign
area , and the number allowed per business along the Highway 25/
Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of
Monticello. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In response to recent sign ordinance variance requests pertaining to sign
height and size limitations, the City Council directed staff and the
Planning Commission to examine the sign ordinance and consider making
recommendations to Council which would modify the ordinance. Two variance
requests were tabled pending the outcome of the deliberation over
amendments to the sign ordinance. The first variance request involved
First National Bank, which desired to place a pylon sign with a sign area
that is slightly more than twice as large as that which is allowed in the
30 mph zone. The other variance involved the Tom Thumb Store, which
desired to place two pylon signs on the Tom Thumb property. Following is
a review of the major sign related issues that the Planning Commission has
grappled with to date, a review of research done on other communities,
treatment of such issues, and also included is an assortment of proposed
changes to the existing sign ordinance.
FOUR MAJOR ISSUES
The planning Commission did not attempt to disect and rewrite the entire
sign ordinance; rather, four areas were singled out for analysis and
review. They included sign height and sign area, restrictions in the
Highway 25 corridor, the number of signs allowed, and sign night and size
limits for signs located near the intersection of Highway 25 and I-94 were
examined.
RESEARCH
In conducting our research in this matter, the City collected six sign
ordinances from various communities in the metro and outstate areas and
also obtained seven sign ordinances from various communities as chosen by
First National Bank. Each ordinance was reviewed in terms of the four
issues noted above. An abbreviated version of how those ordinances treat
those issues can be found on Exhibit A. Exhibit A lists each community
roughly on the basis of most liberal to most restrictive. Following is a
quick review of Exhibit A in terms of the four issues studied.
Maximum Height
In the 30 mph zone in a business district, sign height in Monticello is
limited to 18 feet. Sign heights in other coarmities in business zones
range from a low of 18 feet in Monticello to a 36 -foot maximum allowed in
Plymouth. There are a number of communities such as Waconia, Elk River,
Lakeville, Chaska, and Mound which limit sign height to lean than 25
feet, It, therefore, appears that relative to other communities, limiting
sign height to 18 feet in the business zone is relatively restrictive.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed.
In the 30 mph zone, sign area is limited in Monticello to 50 sa ft. The
research shows that sign area allowed in other communities ranges from
48 sq ft allowed in Mound to 250 sq ft allowed in Anoka. This particular
regulation was difficult to get a handle on, relatively speaking, because
each community tends to apply the maximum square foot area allowed for
pylon signs in a slightly different manner. However, generally speaking,
it appears that the average maximum square foot area allowed tends to fall
somewhere around 80 sq ft for signs located in a business area similar to
the Highway 25 corridor.
Number of Pylon Signs Allowed Per Property.
In looking at the research, you will note that most co=mnities limit
pylon signs to one pylon sign per property. However, some communities do
allow more than one pylon sign as long as certain conditions are met. For
instance, Minnetonka allows one pylon sign per every 200 feet of frontage
that a property might have on a corner lot. Minnetonka also restricts
pylon development to the extent that the pylon signs on a corner lot must
be at least 200 feet apart. The City of Fairbault allows more than one
pylon sign but limits the total sign area of all the signs to the same
area allowed for a single sign.
Freeway Sign Height and Size Limits.
As you know, the City of Monticello has provided variances to this section
of the ordinance on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, on some occasions,
a hardship or special circumstance was not clearly defined when granting
the variance, thus setting a precedence which has, in effect, raised the
sign height and size maximum allowed in the community. The Planning
Commission desired to look at this issue and determine if it wishes to
change the ordinance to reflect the variances, or if it would rather
reaffirm the pre-existing ordinance and hold firm on variance requests
until sufficient hardship can be presented to justify individual variance
requests.
The Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a 32 -toot sign to be placed in the
freeway bonus area, which is within 800 feet of the freeway. The maximum
sign area allowed for the freeway signs is 200 sq ft. Due to the granting
of variances, the sign height maximum has been indirectly set at
approximately 50 feet. Many of the communities noted in this survey do
not have a freeway passing through the co=unity. Therefore, their sign
ordinances are not as applicable. However, it appears that for those
communities that do have freeways passing through their coununieies, it
generally appears that the sign height limitations range between 30 feet
in Coon Rapids to 36 feet in Plymouth. It appears then that the
Monticello maximum of 32 feet is reasonable relative to how other
commmunitieo limit sign height along freeway areas.
Planning C0mmn453ion Agenda - 4/4/84
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SIGN SECTION OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
The survey noted above has been shared wit^ the Planning Commission, and
the Planning Commission has provided staff with some input prior to
development of the proposed changes to the sign ordinance. The following
outlines proposed changes in terms of each of the four issues noted
above.
Pylon Sign Height
The ordinance amendment proposes that the Pylon sign height along Highway
25 be increased from 18 feet to 22 feet. 'Nenty-two (22) feet happens to
be the sign height maximum for the 35 mph and seems to be an appropriate
height relative to height restrictions found in other communities. In
addition, if the pylon sign area allowed along the Highway 25 corridor is
allowed to increase, then the sign height should be allowed to increase as
well in order to maintain the proper sign height and size proportions.
Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed.
At tate last meeting of the planning Commission, the Commission directed
staff to apply the 35 mph restrictions to the Highway 25 corridor, which
would have allowed all signs along the Highway 25 corridor to have a
maximum sign area of 100 sq ft. There was some concern, however, at the
time that we needed to look at some of the smaller lots on Highway 25 and
possibly develop some kind of formula that would limit pylon sign size on
smaller lots to avoid the potential of 'stacking" 100 sq ft signs. in
response to that concern, staff put together an inventory of properties on
Highway 25 which included the existing front footage of those businesses.
We then star ted to work with numbers to try to establish a formula that
would on the one hand allow properties with significant frontage to have a
100 sq ft sign, but on the other hand limit properties that are stacked
together to signs of a lesser size. Exhibit A-1 reveals the property
inventory and outlines a proposed formula for calculating sign area
allowed along Highway 25. The basic formula is as follows: 10 sq ft of
sign area would be allowed per every 3.03 lineal front feet with the
following exceptions: a) All properties would be allowed a minimum of a
50 sq ft sign, which is consistent with the existing ordinance. This sign
area allowance of 50 sq ft would be provided regardless of the lineal
front feet cwned by a business along Highway 251 b) The maximum size
allowed would be capped at 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front
footage of the business along Highway 25. The impact of the proposed sign
ordinance on individual properties can be found in Exhibit A-1. in
summary, those businesses with 330 feet such as Security Financial, First
National Bank, and Wright County State Bank would be allowed to place
signs with a total sign area of 100 sq ft. On the other hand, numerous
properties possessing 165 lineal front feet (one city block) would not be
impacted by the proposed change, as those properties could be allowed a
50 oq ft sign. Under this ordinance, properties such as Royal Tire with
254 front feawt would bo allowed a sign that is greater than 50 sq ft but
less than 100 sq ft, as 254 x 3.03 • 77 sq ft allowed. Businesses such
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
as the Plumbery, which only has 122 lineal feet, would still be allowed to
have a 50 sq ft sign. Businesses such as Monticello Ford, with 646 lineal
feet, would not be allowed to have a 196 sq ft sign, as this ordinance
calls for capping the allowable sign area at 100 sq ft. Planning
Commission and Council may want to insert an adjustment which might allow
a business with a very long frontage to install more than one pylon sign.
This has been done in other communities such as Minnetonka.
The formula, along with the maximums and minimums provided, will result in
a potential increase in sign area along Highway 25 of 31 percent.
Number of Signs Allowed.
It is proposed that the number of pylon signs allowed remain at one sign
per property. It is the view of staff and the Planning Commission that
this is reasonable given the practice of other communities and given the
character of the community.
Sign Height and Size Limitations in the Freeway Bonus Area.
The Planning Commission recommends to Council that no changes be made to
this section of the zoning Ordinance and that the 32 -foot height maximum
in the freeway bonus area be reaffirmed. It is also the view of the
Planning Commission that future variance requests should be required to
show unique circumstances associated with the development which require
that variances be granted.
B. ALTERNATIVE A(7TIONS:
1. Motion to recommend adoption of proposed amendments.
2. Motion to modify and adopt proposed amendments.
3. Motion to deny adoption of proposed amendments.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendments as presented. It is
staff's view that the amendments as proposed do comply with Section 22 of
the Zoning ordinance: 1) The proposed amendments are consistent with the
Municipal Comprehensive Plan; 2) The proposed amendments will not
negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area
involvedl 3) The amendments as proposed will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effect; 4) The
demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A, comparison of freestanding/pylon sign regulations administered
by various communities; Exhibit A-1, proposed elements of sign ordinance
amendments pertaining to pylon signs located along Highway 251 Proposed
amendment to sign ordinance, Section 3-9-4(c).
COMPARISCN OF FREESTANDING/PYLCN SIGN REGULATIONS
�1TY
ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS COR"ITIES
,3/.JC/g�
04-, �
1. 2. 3.
a.
MAX IMAX I NUMBER
IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT
COWEN 75
IHT. ISO FT I ALLOWED
IANO SIZE LIMITS
I AREA I
SROOKLYN CENTER
I '
I I --i'
SIGN HEIGHT & AREA
132 I 160 E PYLON PER 400'
INO SPECIAL
LIMITA7IONS BASED ENTIRELY
I I I OF FRONTAGE. GAS
ICONSIDE.RATICN
ON SIZE OF BUILDING.
I I I STATIONS ALLOWED ONE
I I I ADDED PUMP PYLON
I
MAX HEIGHT 15'
I I I MAX AREA 20 SQFT.
I
ANOKA
I I I
I
TOTAL SIGN AREA
I 35 1 250 1 TOTAL SIGNS NOT TO
INOT APPLICABLE
IS LIMITED TO 250 SOFT
1 1 I TO D(C. E) SO FT MAX.
INCLUDING WALL SIGN
I I I
I
I
FARISAUI T
I I
I I
I
2 SO FT OF SIGN AREA
I 1 125 1 NOT TO EXCEEO THREE
1 55 FEET HIGH/STGN
ALLOWED PER LINEAL FT
I I I WITH TOTAL SIGN AREA
IMESSAGE LIMITED TO SIMPLE
OF BUILDING FRONT UP
I I I ALLOWED NOT TO EXCEED
I IDENTIFICATION
TO 125 SO FT, INFORMATION
I I I SUM OF INDIVIDUAL SIGN
I
SIGNS SEPARATE
I I I AREAS
I
I
'ASKA
I I I
I I
I
? SO FT SIGN PER FRONT FT
124 1 100 1 MORE THAN ONE WITH
INOT APPLICABLE
,F BU I LDING PLUS 1 SO FT
I I I SIGN AREA LIMITED
I
SIGN AREA PER LOT FRONT FT
I I I
I
NOT TCD EXCEED 100 SO FT
I I I
I
I
I
LAKEVILL-E
I I
I
SIGN BEGS ESTABLISHED
1 20 1 100 1 ONE
IVARIABLE-OWED ON
BY ZONING DISTRICT -
I I I
ICONDITICNAL USE PROCESS
NOT BY SPEED LIMIT
1 I I
I
OF ADJOINING ROADWAY
I I
I I
I
I
OWATONNA
I
SIGN SIZE REGJLATED BY
135 1 100 1 TWO PYLONS ALLOWED
(SIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
DISTRICT. OWATONNA
1 I I ON CORNER IAT
135' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
B-2 DISTRICT IS EQUAL
I I I PROVIDED TOTAL SIGN
1 200 SO FT MAX SIZE
TO OUR 8-4 DISTRICT.
I I I AREA DOES NOT EXCEED
IADOITIONAL 1 SOFT
I I I MAXIMUM ALLOWED AND
ISIGN AREA ALLOWED
I I I EACH CORNER HAS MIN
IFOR EVERY ADOITCNAL
I I OF 75' FRONTAGE
1 100 SO FT OF BUILDING
I I I
(OVER 2.000 SO FT.
I I I
ICOND USE PERMIT NEEDED
I I (
FOR LARGER SIGNS W/I 500'
COON RA PIDS
lI 30 I1 100 I, 1 SIGN PER FRONTAGE
IINO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
I I I WITH LIMITS
IF -OR HIGHWAY 10 SIGNAGE
I I 1
1 30' MAX HEIGHT
.,MDJT7-H
1 36 1 95 1 ONE
INO SPECIAL CONSIOCRATION
1
COMPARISON OF FREESTANDING/PYLON SIGN REGULATIONS
rITY
ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS CCMMJNITIES
1. 2. 3_
4•
IMAx IMAX I NUMBER
IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT
CCMr1ENTS
IHT. ISO FT I ALLOWED
(ANO SIZE LIMIT
I (AREA 1
I
I
1-1—!
I I I
IMAX HEIGHT IS 36'
WACONIA
120 1 80 1 ONE
1 I
INOT APPLICABLE
1
HOPK I NS
I
I 1
I
APoLICATION OF SIZE LIMITS
1 35 1 60-80 0, TOTAL SIGN AREA
INO SPECIAL
DEPENDS ON WHICH ZONING
I I I OF BOTH NOT TO EXCEED
1PROVISIONS NOTED
CATAGORY SIGN IS PLACED IN
I I I MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
1 35' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES
I I I ALLOWED
I
I
BUFFALO
I I I
1 25 1 64 1 ONE
I I
INOT APPLICABLE
I
ELK RIVER
I
I I I
1
SIGN REGG BASED ON
1 20 1 66 1 ONE
INOT APPLICABLE
DISTRICT REGS
1 I I
I I i
I
I
MINNETONKA
I I
TOTAL SIGN SURFACE PERMIT-
1 32 1 60 NE PER 200
1ZCNING DISTRICT
ED WALL/PYLCN COMBINED
I I I FOOT FRONTAGE.
IRULES APPLY - NO
IASEO ON BLONG FRCNTAGE
1 1 I TWO PER CORNER
(SPECIAL CONSIDERATON
OF STRUCTURE - OR 15% OF
I I I LOT IF MORE THAN
1 32' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES
JILDING FACE - NOT TO
I I I 200 FEET APART
1
EXCEED 300 SO FEET.
1 1 I
I I I
I
I
MCNTICELLO
I I I
I
SIGN BEGS BASED ON
1 18 1 50 1 ONE
1BY ORDINANCE -32' MAX
WALL SIZE/ROAD CLASS/SPEED
1 (30 MPH ZCNE)
1HEIGHT S 200' MAX AREA
FIRST NATIONAL BANK/
I I I
IBY VARIANCE - 50' MAX
TOM THUMB ON MAJOR
I I OR I
(HEIGHT & 7?' MAX AREA
THOROUC+IFARE - POSTED SPEED 1 22 1 100 I ONE
IWITHIN 800' OF FREEWAY
OF 30 MILES PER HOUR.
1 (35 MPH ZONE)
I
I
MCUNO
I I I
125 1 48 1 ONE
I_I I
INOT APPLICABLE
I
RECOMMENDATION
I I I
I
CONSIDER ADOPTING FORMULA
1 22 1 50 T01 ONE
IREAFFIRM MAXIMUM SIGN
FOR SIGNS ALONG HWY 25
I 1100 1 (NO CHANGE)
1HEICHT OF 32' FOR
PROvIDING MAX OF 100 SO FT/ I I 1
1PROPERTIES IN BONUS AREA.
MIN OF 50 SQUARE FEET AND
I I I
I (NO CHANGE)
10 SO FT SIGN AREA PER 3.031 1 I
1
LINEAL FEET FOR OTHERS.
I I I
I
See o,4, 6,el A
1 I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89
Public Hearing - Cons ideation of amendments to Section 3-9 IE14 and
3-9 (El4(c) of the =oninq Ordinance perta_ning to the regulation or pylon
sign heignt, sign area, and the nu=er allowed per business along the
E:r
awaX 25/Interstate 94 corridors :n the city of Monticello. Appi:cant,
C:tv or Mcnt:cello.
Ms. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant ,Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and members of the public the background to the
research which led to the flow chart as indicated in the agenda
supplement. The proposed sign ordinance amendment, with the changes as
indicated, came out of discussions with the Monticello Planning
Commission and the Monticello City Council at previous meetings. tie
proposed element of the sign ordinance asendment pertained primarily to
the corridor of the Highway 25/1-94 area. If adopted, the proposed
ordinance would increase the maximum amount of sign area Prom 50 feet of
sign area to 100 feet of maximum pylon sign area. The pylon sign height
would be increased from 18 feet in height to 22 feet in height. Zn the
area of the properties lying within 800 lineal feet of the I-94 freeway,
there would be no proposed changes to the maximum sign height of 32 feet
above the public right—of-way from whir`: it gets its major exposure; no
increase in the maximurn amount of pylon sign square footage which would
be 200 sq ft; and no additional pylon signs allowed per property, one
being the maximum number allowed per property.
With no further input, Chairperson Richer! Carlson then opened the
meeting for input from the public. There being no input from the public,
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any additional
comments from the Planning Commission memoers. It was the consensus of
the Planning Commission that City staff had done a good job in
researching this proposed ordinance amendment, and they felt quite
comfortable with the proposed changes as presented.
With no further input from the Planning commission members, motion was
made by Richard Martie:, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the formula
for the establishment of the maximum sign square footage in the
Highway 25/1-94 corridor as follows:
a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage with
the following exception:
1. All properties allowed a minimum of SO sq ft of sign area
regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25.
2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 sq ft regardless of the
lineal front feet on Highway 25. The motion carried unanimously,
with Dan Mcrprsnon absent.
In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25,
pylon sign area may range from SO feet to 100 feet, depending on the
total lineal feet fronting Highway 27. Ten 1101 square feet of pylon
sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal front footage with
the follcwing exception:
2 s
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89
1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of
50 sq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and the
maxi..mm pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of
total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25.
b) Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the maximum
sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to a maximum of 22 feet
in height. Motion carried unanimously, with Dan Mctonnon absent.
c) Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie, to reaffirm the
maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as
follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft;
the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public
right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the
maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property.
d) Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemur, to add to the three
above motions that these amendments do comply with Section 22 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the character
of the surrounding area or geographic area involved.
3. The amendments as proposed will not tend to actually depreciate
the area in which the amendments will take effect.
4. The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated.
motion carried unanimously, with Dan McCamon absent.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow additional pylon sign height
anc sign area. Applicant, Security Financiai.
Cary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members Security Financial's variance request to be allowed an additional
25 square feet of pylon sign area and an additional 8 feet in Pylon sign
height.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Linda Mielke, Branch Manager of Security Financial, explained
the request for the additional 25 square feet of pylon area to
accommodate the express teller message. They would like to just change
the faces on the existing 10 x 10 pylon sign to reflect their new name
change to Security Pinancial Banking a Saving.
with no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. The
Planning Cotmnission members felt a little uncomfortable considering an
application for a variance from the newly proposed ordinance amendments
to the Monticello Sign Ordinance.
3 0
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemur, to deny the variance
re -quest to allow additional pylon sign height and sign area. notion
carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent. Reason for denial:
LAx . Martie felt, the Planning Commission should stay within the newly
proposed sign ordinance amendment. Applicant failed to demonstrate
hardship and approving variance request would defeat intent of Zoning
Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
5. Public hearinc--A variance recuest to allow additional avlon
sicn heicht than the maximum 22-foct ovion heicr.t allowed.
Aoolicant, Mark Anderson.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and tate public Mr. Anderson's
request to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the
maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than
22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway
bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Anderson's
proposal was for a 13 -fact height variance for a total height
of 45 feet. Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission
members the City Council action that was taken on April 10,
1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the
800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area as follows: The maximum
pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and
the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public
right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and
the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to
explain to Planning Commission members and the public his
rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other
instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted
for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline
service stations. He indicated the precedent had already been
set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He
explained that a good share of his business would be in the
form of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway
Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other
eating establishments or local residents but to attract people
traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in
which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his
primary exposure would be the east bound I-94 traffic and the
people exiting the first exit off I-94, and he acknowledged
the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at
the 43 -foot height. He also explained that some exposure
would be gained from the west bound traffic on I-94 if the
sign was placed at the 45 -foot height.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning
Commission members. Planning Commission members felt
sympathetic to Mr. Andersons request to have additional pylon
sign height as do other businesses in the area.
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council
reaffirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the
maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94
area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at
200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the
public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure;
and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign
per property.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
Therefore, a notion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by
Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional
pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion
carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning
Commission would like to stick to the City Council's decision
made on April. 10, 1989, to reafflsa the maximum amounts
allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 ar-a, as no
hardship was sufficiently demonstrated.
0
VARIANCE REOIEST FORM (See chapter 23 of Zoning Ordinance?
Sub 'y � J17��
APP1-ICANT: 1 , DATE FILED: Rlb rJ,�,.FEE ON
APPLICANTS AODRESS:9a`Sl Izar;-JkACi..Iwrn.,PHCNE: HmI/ 5-6)12 WK 9HI•57VO
LEGAL OESCRIPTICN: LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION
DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST: Ie 5j1A
CURRENTLY ZCNED:1�-3 VARIANCE TO SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE
Describe any applicable precedents:
Z04, A,.r M a. yg``o ; S� �v i Oros s1a S
DEFINITION OF ALLEGED HARDSHIP:
What are the unicue circumstances associated with the tot that create
exceptional difficulties when utilizing lot in manner customary and
legally permissable7
�j
jQr4AC ry� M/' -�tl / /
-h ja, Y,Xo;Trof hr'ch-,6- Qf _n;, Si to 4J,%/ o li%n
-o `1, D(Iny 4k.+ 1RTp
will approval of this variance impair the intent of the ordinance to the
extent that a zoning ordinance amendment might be more aopropriata? YES - NO
PLANNING CGMISSICN FINDING: DATE: PLNG CORM.
FINDING
WILL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST:
A. IMPAIR ADECUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY? YES - NO
B. CREATE AN UNREASONABLE INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREET? YES - NO
C. INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY) YES - NO
0. UNREASONABLY DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN NEIGHBORHC007 YES - NO
E. BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE? - NO
CCWENTS REGARDING PLANNING CDM"ISSICN FINDING:
REPORT CCUNCIL FINDING IF PLANNING C"ISSION DECISION IS APPEPLEO:-
APPEAL DATE: CO"4e4TS:
Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9(E)4 and 3-9iE)4(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height,
sign area, and the number allowed per business along Highway 25/
Interstate 94 corridors in the city or Monticello. Applicant, city of
Monticello.
Assistant Administrator o'Nei 11 informed Council that the Planning
commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed sign amendments
and recommended passage of the sign ordinance amendments as noted in
the agenda supplement for the special meeting held April 3, 1989. It
was noted by Ken Maus that this item had been discussed at length at
the previous Council meeting and at that time it was agreed that the
amendment represents a workable compromise between the desire by some
businesses for larger signs and the need to control the size of signs
that might be placed in close proximity to each other. The amendment
does not propose to reduce the size of signs now allowed to any of the
property owners on Highway 25; while at the same, the total sign area
with any business, no matter how much frontage they own, is limited to
loo sq ft.
After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to adopt an ordinance amendment and approve the formula for
the establishment of a maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/
I-94 corridor as follows:
a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage
with the following exception:
1. All properties allowed a minimum of 50 aq ft of sign area
regardless of the 1 ineal front feet on Highway 25.
2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 eq ft regardless of the
lineal front feet on Highway 25.
In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25,
pylon sign area may range from 5o feet to 100 feet, depending on
the total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. Ten ( 10) square feet of
pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.o3 feet of lineal front
footage with the following exception:
1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of
50 aq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and
the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 eq ft
regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting
Highway 25.
b) Approve the maximum sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to
a maximum of 22 feet in height.
C) Reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from
the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage
remain at 200 aq ft, the maximum sign height rennin at 32 feet
above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major
exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one
sign per property.
d) notions all based on the conclusion by the City Council that such
action is consistent with Section 22 of the Zoning ordinance which
requires that:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipalt
Comprehenaive plan, J
Public hearing --A variance request to allow additional pylon
sign heicht than the maximum 22 -foot pylon height allowed.
ADolicant, Mark Anderson,
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Anderson's
request to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the
maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than
22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway
bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Anderson's
proposal was for a 13 -foot height variance for a total height
of 45 feet. Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission
members the City Council action that was taken on April 10,
1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the
800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum
pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and
the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public
right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and
the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to
explain to Planning Commission members and the public his
rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other
instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted
for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline
service stations. He indicated the precedent had already been
set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He
explained that a good share of his business would be in the
form of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway
Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other
eating establishments or local residents but to attract people
traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in
which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his
primary exposure would be the east bound I-94 traffic and the
people exiting the first exit off I-94, and he acknowledged
the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at
the 45 -foot height. He also explained that some exposure
would be gained from the west bound traffic on I-94 if the
sign was placed at the 45 -toot height.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning
Commission members. Planning Commission members felt
sympathetic to Mr. Anderson's request to have additional pylon
sign height as do other businesses in the area.
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council
reaffirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the
maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94
area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at
200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the
public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure;
and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign
per property.
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by
Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional
pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion
carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning
Commission would like to stick to the City Council's decision
made on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts
allowed In the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area, as no
hardship was sufficiently demonstrated.
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
8. Consideration of vacating a portion of former Trunk Highway_ 25 to
Super America Group and vacate a portion of the old Cedar Street
utility and drainage 4Basement. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
City Council is asked by SuperAmerica to vacate the entire section of old
Highway 25 now encumbering the proposed development site and vacate a 15 -
ft section of the 60 ft right of way for utility and drainage easement associated
with old Cedar Street. Both actions are necessary to allow construction of the
facility as identified at the previous meeting. Please see the attached map for
detail regarding the area proposed to be vacated and their relationship to the
site plan.
Vacation of the 15 -ft portion of the Cedar Street easements leaves the city with
a 45 -ft wide easement which is quite sufficient to accommodate existing and
future needs.
The vacation of old Highway 26 right of way is essentially a housekeeping
matter that stems from action taken some time ago to realign State Highway
25 in conjunction with development of the freeway overpass. When Highway
25 was realigned to its present position, the authority over the old right of way
automatically passed from the state to the county. Later, when the 1-94 Tri -
Plaza area was platted over the old right of way in 1979, no concurrent action
was taken to vacate the affected portion of right of way. As a result, Vance's
Standard building was actually constructed on the old Highway 25 right of
way. SuperAmerica spotted this problem and is unable to develop the site
until old Highway 25 is vacated. The city is now involved because the county,
in an effort to step out of the situation, simply passed a resolution revoking a
portion of the former Hiighway 25 right of way to the city.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to vacate a 16 -ft section of the old Cedar Street easement and
vacate the entire portion of the old Highway 26 right of way as
identified on the attached map and require SuperAmerica to enter into
an agreement accept future liability for future costs associated with
repairing or replacing private site improvements impacted by future city
improvements constructed in the remaining 45 -ft easement area.
Under this alternative, the entire building and sidewalk area on the
east side of the naw structure will be located outside of the easement
area. The requirement that SuperAmerica accept liability for costs
associated with repairing or replacing site improvements damaged by
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
city construction activity in the easement area is similar to the
requirement imposed by the city on Taco Bell when the city vacated a
portion of the Cedar Street utility easements.
In this situation, since the roads vacated were not part of the original
plat and therefore never "owned" by the city, the city has no authority
to require a cash payment in exchange for the road area vacated.
2. Motion to deny vacation requests as submitted.
This alternative does not make sense unless it is found that the city
needs to maintain fiill control of the 60 ft right of way associated with
the old Cedar Street.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map showing street vacation area; Copy of resolution and associated
documentation from county revoking a portion of the former Trunk Highway
25 right of way to the city of Monticello.
II
Plat of —MONTI CELLO I-94 TAI PLAZA" c
^ r
W N
N
yy� Q 94
kfp(i1QSY .�W'--. M�
a
1
-�suo-
1
-was-
7
• _tea»etie'�►.oatr- ama
I L.
BLOCK
OLD HIGHWAY 25 '� McDooaldo Co i
!• RIGHT OF WAY
Z
VACAIE 9NTIRE EASEMENT \
)i ROW. ` OLD CEDAR $T'
aMcDonalde Restaurn t _ VACATE '15� /
'w
APPROXIMATE .0CAT10 r�
\ OF SUPER ERICA o
\ STRUC F. ancen 3ery ce nC.
ItEMAINIt� EASEMENT AREA
c
� b
j P
0
i �
JUL-22-94 FRI 11:43 WRIGHT COUNTY FAX N0. 6126826178 P.06
Resolution Revoking a portion of
former Trunk Highway 25 Right of Way
to City of Monticello
WHEREAS, the construction of Internat0 94 within the City of Monticello caused a relocation of Tnuhk
Highway 25 thereby leaving a portion no longer needed for Trunk Highway purposes, and
WHEREAS, this portion of former Trunk Highway was conveyed to the County of Wright in 1981 for
highway purposes, with no further conveying action since acted upon by the County of Wright, and
WHEREAS, this parcel is currently under a plat known as MONTICELLO 1-94 TRI PLAZA being used
commercially and is not required as a part of Wright County's Highway system, and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello and Wright County have agreed that the conveyance of this former
segment of Trunk Highway 25, no longer needed for highway purposes, to the City of Monticello, would be
in the best interest of the City and the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Ne Wright County Board of Commissioners, that the former
portion of Trunk Highway 25, a 100 That wide parcel of land lying between the south right-of-way line of
Interstate 94 and the northerly right-of-way line of County Road 117 In the City of Monticello, described as
follows:
That pact of Tract A described below:
Tract A. The South 40 rods of Lot "A' of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Seaton
It, Township 121 North, Range 25 West, Wright County, Minnesota;
which Iles within a distance of 50 feet on each side of Line I described below and southerly of a line run
parallel with and distant 100 feet southerly of Line 2 described below:
Lino 1. Beginning at the point of intersection of the center Imes of Broadway Avenue and pine Street
In the Village (now City) of Monticello; thence run southwesterly along the center line of said
Pine Street and Its southwesterly extension for 2594,1 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 4
degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 28 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds) for 707.5
feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 314.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 4 degree
00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 30 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds) for 370 feet and
there terminating;
Line 2. From a point on the east line of said Section 11, distant 99.8 feat north of the southeast
comer thereof, run northwesterly at as angle of 64 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds from said
east section line (measured ftom north to wast) ibr 209.8 fest; thence deflect to the Ish at an
angle of 10 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds for 2090A3 feet; thence deflect to the left at an
angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 84 feet to the point of beginning of Line 2 to
be described; thence deflect to the tight at an angle of 85 degrees 34 minutes 13 seconds for
336.67 fat; thence deflea to the left on a 6 degree 00 minute 00 "mad curve (delta angle 17
degrees 28 minutes 12 aeaonds) for 191.2 feet; thence on twilm to said curve for 303.7 feet;
thence deflect to the right on a 4 dsgta 00 minute 00 second curve (delts angle 12 degrees 54
minutes 38 secothds) for 322.8 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 200 feet and there
tertoithating.
together widh any rights, Interests and easements of record.
BE, and is hereby revoked to the City of Monticello in accordance with Statute 163.11, Subd. S. 1f/
JUL-22-94 FRI 11:40
WRIGHT COUNTY FAX NO. 6126826178 P.01
oe
WRIGHT COUNTY
,NTY
4
Office of County Attorney
4 q
Wright County Government Center
a
to N.W. 2nd Street
9r dY
BWfalo, Minnesota 55313.1193
74366
Wyman A. Nelson
Phone: (612)682-7340 Metro: (612) 3394881
C-1, All.—,
Toll Free: /-800.362.3667 Fax: (612) 682.6178
honwe N. 11y
M�Ltwa
ML — elah.aa+
Du
ChW Cwww� DiuLiw
r'M„w C. f,,
ti,.'r r,.,r�.
Brian J. AstesOn
Kahl— A. MaN
chi./ Civil a,o4w.
Sc M. s—w'p
17 February 1994
Pa"" brow tax var,sm flat memo 70 1 t of Paw@ 7
"i- e r '"" . QRS' les. n
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
C o 2-: ^ q(-* Ccs
Assistant City Administrator
°`" pb.-r482- 73 Y.�,
250 East Broadway
"'' 09S-'ii0y F1i1 L$a- W.?
P. 0. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: Revocation of Former Trunk Highway 25 to City of Monticello
Dear Jeff:
As per our phone conversation earlier this month, the Wright County Board of
Commissioners, on February 8, 1994, passed a Resolution revoking to the City of Monticello
e portion of the former Trunk Highway 25 right-of-way. You will recall that this former right-
of-way bisects the Plat of Monticello 1-94 Tri Plaza.
I have enclosed a copy of the Resolution revoking the former right-of-way to the City of
Monticello. 1 have also enclosed the original Quit Claim Deed for the same parcel from
Wright County to the City of Monticello.
I expect that Matt Burton, Bankruptcy counsel for Vance's Service Center, Inc., will be
anxious for the City to undortako a vacation of this same former right-of-way. If and when
the City undertakes that, you will probably want to record this Quit Claim Deed from the
County at the some time as you record your vacation documents. Resolution 94-11, from
the Wright County Board, hes already been submitted to the County Recorder for recording.
e--]
JUL-22-94 FRI 11:41 WRIGHT COUNTY FAX NO, 6126826118 P.02
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
PAGE TWO
17 February 1994
If either you or Mr. Burton have any additional questions for the County, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Brian J. Asleson
Assistant Wright County Attorney
BJA4b
Enclosures
cc: Matthew R. Burton (with enclosures)
Attorney at taw
Southdale Office Centra, Suite 526
6600 France Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
cc: Richard Marquette, Wright County Highway Department, with enclosures
�K]
JUL-22-94 FRI 1142 WRIGHT COUNTY FAX N0. 6126826178 P. 03 e
,,,. w. ae r_auir..•rnr•n ,.,_.....e.,.._,.__...,.. a,....nn.r _.a..... ..........
u.enr,.uo..,r.or.Ib V �
Vo d.livqucnt ta:c..nd uun(a .nlr„+I; (:.nifie.te
of ft..l Eu•l. V.Ivc I 1 fihd ( 1 not reauved
CuG Gw4 u( Kw F—W Vat— N,,.
I ..__
— ---�—i (..vdy Audlter
t,y
ly
u
.V ATN ONAl)TA% DUE INA(Cr1N:
Dol.•Its _..
(resened for recordlnp data)
FOIL VALUABLE CONSIDERATION County of Wright, a municipal
corporation uad"aw I..•of
t;h9_*to to .91v'._tlAPRL0.9!t e_. , (l, Uw, hrr.by.. -y. and quikl&6m to,
�lt]L £i.21311kff,1:,13__�_�— ,Oronlre,
r_.Q(yp�=1,�1 cerYorwtl,Qp,tuwllm to+a ur_kq State of Minncaota ,r Im.lydyln
Wright__(%ouoL7.Mh,n..ol.,d.srribedaa follows:
See Blthibit 'A' attached hereto
In..n r• Y.rl.anw r cal
Iayrther ..In all hrlodllaturnu and apptplanuwr b.loanq Uwr.se.
COUNTYT�9IIi i
ill„ I i.wl I'm Nh,mp Ilwn
�/
er 'ice
p'a�
o -yoor
VTATM or MINNFSOTA
lb
Bouncy �ooraanac.r
I;UUN'1'Y Uy WRIGHT
r•
Thr runWyulna w u Kknowledpd before ms Wb eta day of February
Or*
�Oj�9d.YAtIK^
ua :I+theca w. Mormon
Urr ghalrpa Inns County Board
rad county Coorarnst r
u[ _49MRCY�GS-�Lj9ht
,a munscoras corroracaun
wwlcr llm tows or 3 5o tat 0 or ntnn9ooce
a„ bel of 0* grwGcor
I .,,,. ., r.mvt,row oiiiia lnu eu:au
Ww'wIIMMNMrIW
nIrIAN I AEI.FBr1N
�Vl,n1' MCJ41 COON rr
E
•a.11� cul o. Y.awaAr
...,�p/.
., sry tra ttr mal. saps
AMMI.
city of Montiealle
ISO Beat Broadway
Ibnticalle, rinnoaote 55167-914S
urrr.u.r. •no.Pnaaur
...na.ane or
IrOrion a. Aaleaon i.n, 911656y
J"a"son
Aaai slant County Attorney
W,Ight County Government canter
10 Norhwoot Second Stroot
Burfale, tinncoota 55111-1191
(6171 6e7-11,7
JUL-22-94 FRI 11:42 NRIGHT COUNTY FAX NO. 8128828178 P.04
That part of Tract A dc=lbed belov. ..
Trsat A. The South 40 rads of Cat 'A' of tno SoAust Qhuum of du Southwest Quuur of Soudan
It, Tomblp 111 North, Asage 25 West, Wtlght County, Minnesota;
wtilch liri'Mtnin a dlstsoee of SO Rat on auh tide of Una 1 desalbed below androudwiy of a Itnt ran
parallel i ldt and d4mi 100 fees southerly of Line 1 described below:
1.10. 1. -t ftInning at the point of imusecdon of the center lima of Broadway (tvtaus and Pins Savd
to the Village (pow City) of Monticello; diem run southwesterly along the'c6ner Itne of said
Pine Serest and Its wuthwahsty esteruioo for 1594.1 feet; thence deflat to the! Isft on a 4
degree 00 minute 00 second ane (dolts angle 28 degrees 11 MIMM 00 seconds) for 707.1•
fee; O=s on unCat to uld carr* lbs 714.1 fat theaee dollar to tae clot on a 4 dcgrss
00 mlmae 00 s=ad t:arve (pelts angle 70 dq= 14 mimu s; 00 seconds) for )70 Orel and
there terminstiv, t
[Jae 1 From a poles an the eau line of Bald Section 11, db= 99.811M moth of the oouthesu
coma thereof, run Omewaterly at in plgte of.64 dagrpgs 36:my4tw O amb from said
au wagon line (messmd ftm north m w'a0 Ibr 209.8 fart; Ounce ddea, ro'me left it to
angle of 10 degrees 30 talmtta 00 seconds lbr 2090.03 Ron Ounce ddleri to the tett tt in
asps of 90 degrees 00 mlmtu 00 wwnds Ibt 84 be to do palet of btyMq of Ung 2 to
be daalbod; thence dcflcc to the right at an angle of 83 deg = 34 mints IS seconds for
SK67hxa; dseoce dellax to the ISA on a d dugs 00 admin 00 secoad am (delta utgte l7
dcVm 28 m1nutta i? seeonm) tbt 7913 fhet; theaeo on taogmt to stdd save for 3031.71 bot;
000 68e9 to ms right on a 4 degree 00 MIB= 00 second mare (dent angle 1,2 degroa 54
minutes 38 secunda) for 322.11 QtG Chance on two ent to pfd curve @r 700 fm and there
• Ihaminattfhg{.
etigethsr cubit sty dptk tractors and euemena of mord..
MMIHIT law
P -M
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
7. Consideration of adopting an ordinance Heensimg and regulating
the sale of tobacco within the city of Monticello.. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
In early 1990, the City Council discussed the need of establishing an
ordinance regulating or eliminating cigarette vending machines within the
city. A few months after the initial discussion had occurred, a new state
law took effect that outlined where cigarette vending machines could be
located. In light of the new state law, the City Council did not feel that
there was a need for establishing our own cigarette vending machine
ordinance to further regulate the sale of tobacco products or to completely
outlaw vending machines entirely.
As you may recall, Patrice Bogart appeared before the Council a few months
ago requesting again that the City Council consider establishing an
ordinance that would not only license cigarette vendors but also restrict
where sales could occur and to, hopefully, outlaw vending machines entirely.
The Council had asked the staff to investigate what was being done in other
communities and to get sample ordinances from various sources. As a
result of this request and also in light of the renewed public interest against
smoking in general, I have put together two possible ordinance amendments
that the Council may want to consider concerning regulating tobacco sales
and licensing of vendors.
Although Monticello has never licensed cigarette sales, most communities do
so. Although licensing by itself would not appear to have much affect on
eliminating tobacco products from minors, the ordinance could be structured
to reinforce current state laws regarding selling of tobacco products to
underage individuals by noting that the license could be suspended if
someone was convicted of selling to minors. In addition to the basic
licensing requirement so that the city knows who is selling cigarettes, the
city could take it further and also restrict where vending machines can be
located or actually outlaw vending machines entirely. The ordinance
amendment titled "Option #2" specifically addresses vending machine sales
and limits the locations to private businesses and liquor establishments. In
addition, other locations can have vending machines hM they must be
operated an electronic device or by special tokens. This language should
help control the accessibility of vending machines to underage minors by
requiring an employee of the establishment to be aware of anyone trying to
use the machine.
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
Another change noted in Option #2 relates to the requirement that all
tobacco products should not be accessible to the customer by a self-service
method and must be obtained from a clerk or employee behind the counter.
This requirement is intended to eliminate underage individuals from
shoplifting cigarettes that are easily accessible to the customer from display
areas. Cigarette displays that are easily accessible to minors are a prime
target for shoplifting cigarettes by underage individuals.
Although it would appear that current state statutes regarding vending
machines sales of tobacco should be adequate to limit accessibility for
purchasing by minors, I do not believe that there is much effort by anyone,
including our police department, in enforcing the current vending machine
statutes. From my understanding of the statutes, if a vending machine is
located anywhere other than a liquor establishment, it has to be
electronically operated or operated by tokens. I'm not aware of any
machines outside of liquor establishments in Monticello that are
electronically operated or operated by tokens. Therefore, currently most of
the machines in Monticello probably violate state statute although no one ie
specifically out to enforce this statute. If the City Council would like to see
this state statute followed more closely, it makes sense for the city to adopt
its own ordinance that is similar to state statutes and instruct the Sheriff e
Department to enforce our new ordinance regulations.
In addition to the general licensing requirements, there are certainly
number of optional amendments that could be added to a licensing
ordinance.
The Council could set up a licensing ordinance only, and anyone
convicted of selling to minors could be subject to losing their license
to sell cigarettes.
In addition to the licensing requirement, the Council could also
restrict, in some fashion, tobacco sales through vending machines.
One possible option would he to follow the state statute format by
prohibiting vending machines except in liquor establishments, private
businesses, or in other establishments when controlled by electronic
devices or special tokens.
Council could, in addition to licensing and regulating vending
machine locations, place additional restrictions requiring all sales to
take place through an employee of the vendor and make it unlawful
to have self-service of cigarettes available to the public.
Council Agenda - 7/26/94
4. In addition to licensing, Council could prohibit vending machines
entirely and require all sales to be assisted by the employer with self-
service prohibited.
Council could have any combination of the above in an ordinance if it
desired. In addition to the restrictions noted above, other possible
restrictions come to mind including the restricting of sales of
cigarettes near school buildings, etc. If one of the prime reasons the
city enacts any type of tobacco -related ordinance is to prohibit or
eliminate accessibility to minors, it may make sense to add as a
restriction that no license will be issued to a place closer than
feet from a school building. As you can see, the options are probably
endless, but I have tried to cover the major areas used by other
communities.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the ordinance proposed under Option 111.
This option generally outlines the licensing requirements for cigarette
sales and indicates that the penalty for violation of any part of the
ordinance could be suspension of their license.
2. The Council could adopt the ordinance regulating cigarettes as
proposed in Option 02.
This option not only indicates the requirements for obtaining a
license but also futher clarifies where vending machines will be
allowed and also indicates that self-service sales are not allowed and
must be made through an employee of the business.
3. The Council could propose a licensing requirement and completely
outlaw vending machines along with requiring all sales to be assisted
by an employee.
4. Do not adopt any ordinance regulating cigarettes.
Under this option, the Council would not see any merit to licensing
merchants who sell cigarettes and could indicate that current state
statutes aro sufficient for covering vending machine sales and
locations.
/0
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
From a pratical standpoint, just adopting an ordinance licensing cigarette
Wes may not do a lot of good if the real reason is to hopefully stop sales to
minors. With recent public sentiment being expressed against smoking, it
would appear more beneficial to adopt an ordinance that not only licenses
cigarette sales but also requires sales to be assisted by an employee of the
establishment. By also reinforcing the locations where vending machines
can be located, similar to state statutes, accessibility by minors should be
minimal. As a result, it is recommended that, if the Council would like to
implement some type of regulations on tobacco sales, alternative 42 would
provide the beat method of restricting availability to minors.
City Attorney, Paul Weingarden, has reviewed the ordinance for general
context and wanted the Council to be aware that with the adoption of an
ordinance as suggested under Option r2, this could put city personnel
and/or the city police department in the position of being tobacco cops with
the public requesting that the city get out there and enforce its own
ordinances against violators. It is Mr. Weingarden's opinion that if the City
Council is looking for some type of restriction on where vending machines
can be located, it may not be necessary to go as far as requiring some of the
machines to be operated electronically or with tokens. I do agree with Mr.
Weingarden's words of caution in that if we do adopt a very stringent
ordinance, someone from the public will certainly expect us to be out there
enforcing this ordinance. The Council should be aware of that before any
restrictions are adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of two proposed ordinances; Copy of current state statutes regarding
vending machine locations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE 1: ADMINISTRATIVE
Official Code
Savings Clause
Definitions
Penalty
Council
Personnel
TITLE 2: BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND DEPARTMENTS
Planning Commission
Civil Defense
Economic Development Authority
Department of Public Safety
Library Board
Parks Commission
Police Advisory Commission
TITLE 3: BUSINESS REGULATIONS
Beer
1
Liquor
2
Municipal Liquor Stores
3
Liquor by the Drink
4
Scavengers
6
Moving Buildings
6
Mobile Home Parks
7
Bingo Games
8
Traveling Shows
9
Transient Merchants
10
On•salo Wine License
I I
Regulation, Licensing, 8c Use of Gambling Devices
12
Licensing of Adult Use Businesses
13
Sale of Tobacco
14 G AM IMM
O
TITLE 3
BUSINESS REGULATIONS
Beer
1
Liquor
2
Municipal Liquor Stores
3
Liquor By The Drink
4
Scavengers
5
Moving Buildings
6
Mobile Home Parke
7
Bingo Games
8
Traveling Shows
9
Transient Merchants
10
On -Sale Wine License
11
Regulation, Licensing & Use of
Gambling Devices
12
Licensing of Adult Use Businesses
13
Sale of Tobacco
14 G ADD THIS
70
THIS IS OPTION #1
(1)
CHAPTER 14
SALE OF TOBACCO
SECTION
3-14-1:
Definition
3-14-2:
License Required
3-14-3:
Application and Issuance of License
3-14-4:
License Fee
3-14-5:
Displaying of License
3-14-6:
Restrictions
3-14-7:
Revocation of License
3-14-8:
Appeal
3-14-9:
Responsibility for Agents and Employees
3-14-1: DEFINITION: As used in this chapter, the term "tobacco" means and
includes tobacco in any form, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars,
or bagged, canned, or packaged product.
3-14-2: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of
any device or machine keep for retail sale, sell at retail,
exchange, barter, dispose of, or giveaway any tobacco at any place in the city of Monticello
without first obtaining a license from the city. The sale of tobacco by vending machine shall
require a license under this chapter.
3-14-3: APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSE: Application for a license shall
he made to the City Administrator on a form supplied by the city. Such
application shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the
building and the part thereof intended to be used by the applicant under the license, the
kind of business conducted at the location, and any other relevant informaiton as shall be
required by the application form. Upon the filing of such application with the
Administrator, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration, and, if granted
by the Council, a license shall be issued by the City Administrator upon payment of the
required fee.
3.14-4: LICENSE FEE: The annual license fee shall be an amount established by the
City Council. All licenses shall expire on December 31. For any
license issued after January 1 in any year, the fee shall be computed by prorating the
annual fee over the remaining months or fraction thereof until December 31.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Page 1
A penalty of fifty percent of the license fee shall be imposed if license is not applied for
within the same calendar month that first sale of tobacco is made, or within the firt month
after the license expires.
3-14.5: DISPLAYING OF LICENSE: Every license shall be kept conspicuously posted
at the location for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any
person upon request.
3-14-6: RESTRICTIONS:
(A) Separate licenses shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of
business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business.
(B) It is unlawful for any person to sell, furnish, or give away any tobacco in any fora
to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(C) It is unlawful for any person to keep for sale, sell, or dispose of any tobacco in any
form containing opium, morphine, near jimson weed, bells donna, strychnos, cocaine,
marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine.
3-14.7: REVOCATION OF LICENSE: Every license granted under this chapter may
be revoked, suspended, or not renewed by the City Council, for any of the
following reasons:
(A) Viol stion of section 3-14-5 (B) or any other provision of this chapter.
(B) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.685 relating to sale of tobacco to persons
under eighteen (18) year of age.
(C) Failure of the license holder to monitor, supervise, and control the purchase of
tobacco from a vending machine so as to prevent the purchase of tobacco from a
vending machine by persons under eighteen (18) years of age.
The City Council shall suspend a license issued under this chapter for a minimum of three
(3) days on a first violation of any section of this ordinance or the license holder may opt to
pay a $250 fine in lieu of license suspension. The City Council shall suspend a license for
a minimum period of thirty (30) days for a second violation within a three (3) year period.
TheCity Council shall revoke a license, for a third violation occurring within thirty-six (36 )
months of the second violation, for a period of one (1) year.
The licensee shall be sent written notice at least ten (10) days in advance informing the
licensee of the specific ordinance or statutory violation upon which any suspension or
revocation would be based, and the licensee has the right to be represented by counsel and
present evidence on its behalf.
MONTICEI,LO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE IIVChpt 141Page 2
C�
3-14-8: APPEAL:
(A) Notice. If the City Council suspends or revokes a license, the City Administrator
shall send to the licensee, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice
of the action, and the right to an appeal. The aggrieved party may appeal the
decision of the City Council within ten (10) days of receiving notice of the city's
action. The filing of an appeal stays the action of the City Council in suspending or
revoking a license until the City Council makes a final decision.
(B) Procedure. The City Council shall hear the matter and make a report of the findings.
Hearings on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee or applicant shall
have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence on
its behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall make a final
decision.
3-14.9: RESPONSIBILITY FOR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES: Every act or omission
constituting a violation of any of the provisions of this section by an officer,
director, manager, or other agent or employee of any licensee shall be deemed and held
punishable in the same manner as if the licensee personally committed the act or omission.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/P 3
THIS IS OPTION #2
0
CHAPTER 14
SALE OF TOBACCO
SECTION
3-14-1:
Definition
3-14-2:
License Required
3-14-3:
Application and Issuance of License
3-14-4:
License Fee
3-14-5:
Displaying of License
3-14-6:
Restrictions
3-14-7:
Revocation of License
3-14-8:
Tobacco Vending Machines
3-14-9:
Appeal
3-14-10:
Responsibility for Agents and Employees
3-14-1: DEFINITIONS:
TOBACCO: As used in this chapter, the term "tobacco" means and includes tobacco in any
form, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, or bagged, canned, or packaged
product.
SELF-SERVICE MERCHANDISING: The term "self-service merchandising" means a
method of displaying tobacco products other than through a vending machine so that they
are accessible to the public without the intervention of an employee.
3-14-2: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of
any device or machine keep for retail sale, sell at retail,
exchange, barter, dispose of, or giveaway any tobacco at any place in the city of Monticello
without first obtaining a license from the city. The sale of tobacco by vending machine shall
require a license under this chapter.
3-14-3: APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSE: Application for a license shall
be made to the City Administrator on a form supplied by the city. Such
application shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the
building and the part thereof intended to be used by the applicant under the license, the
kind of business conducted at the location, and any other relevant informaiton as shall be
required by the application form. Upon the filing of such application with the
Administrator, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration, and, if granted
by the Council, a license shall be issued by the City Administrator upon payment of the
required fee.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE I11/Chpt 14/Page 1
3.14-4: LICENSE FEE: The annual license fee shall be an amount established by the
City Council. All licenses shall expire on December 31. For any
license issued after January 1 in any year, the fee shall be computed by prorating the
annual fee over the remaining months or fraction thereof until December 31.
A penalty of fifty percent of the license fee shall be imposed if license is not applied for
within the same calendar month that first sale of tobacco is made, or within the firt month
after the license expires.
3-14-5: DISPLAYING OF LICENSE: Every license shall be kept conspicuously posted
at the location for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any
person upon request.
3-14-6: RESTRICTIONS:
(A) Separate licenses shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of
business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business.
(B) It is unlawful for any person to sell, furnish, or give away any tobacco in any form
to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(C) It is unlawful for any person to keep for sale, sell, or dispose of any tobacco in any
form containing opium, morphine, near jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine,
marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine.
(D) It is unlawful for any person to offer for We any tobacco product by means of self-
service merchandising other than through a licensed tobacco vending machine
according to Section 3-14-8.
3-14-7: REVOCATION OF LICENSE: Every license granted under this chapter may
be revoked, suspended, or not renewed by the City Council, for any of the
following reasons:
(A) Violation of section 3.14-5 (B) or any other provision of this chapter.
(B) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.685 relating to sale of tobacco to persons
under eighteen (18) year of age.
(C) Failure of the license holder to monitor, supervise, and control the purchase of
tobacco from a vending machine so as to prevent the purchase of tobacco from a
vending machine by persons under eighteen (18) years of age.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE I11/Chpt 14/Page 2
The City Council shall suspend a license issued under this chapter for a minimum of three
(3) days on a first violation of any section of this ordinance or the license holder may opt to
pay a $250 fine in lieu of license suspension. The City Council shall suspend a license for
a minimum period of thirty (30) days for a second violation within a three (3) year period.
The City Council shall revoke a license, for a third violation occurring within thirty-six (36)
months of the second violation, for. a period of one (1) year.
The licensee shall be sent written notice at least ten (10) days in advance informing the
licensee of the specific ordinance or statutory violation upon which any suspension or
revocation would be based, and the licensee has the right to be represented by counsel and
present evidence on its behalf.
3-14-8: TOBACCO VENDING MACHINES: No license shall be issued for a tobacco
vending machine located in a public accommodation as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 363.01, Subdivision 18, with the following exceptions:
(A) A tobacco vending machine may be located in an area within a factory, business,
office, or similar place not open to the general public, to which persons under
eighteen (18) year of age are not generally permitted access.
(B) A tobacco vending machine may be located in an on -sale alcoholic beverage
establishment, or an off -sale liquor store, upon the following conditions:
The tobacco vending machine shall be located within the immediate vicinity
and plain view of a responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will be
readily observable by that employee; the tobacco vending machine shall not be
located in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored hallway, outer waiting area, or
similar unmonitored area; the tobacco vending machine shall be inaccessible
to the public when the establishment is closed.
(C) A tobacco vending machine may be located in other establishments, under the
following conditions:
When operated by the activation of an electronic switch operated by an
employee of the establishment before each sale or by the insertion of tokens or
a key sold or given by an employee of the establishment.
2. The tobacco vending machine shall be located within the immediate vicinity
and plain view of a responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will be
readily observable by that employee; the tobacco vending machine shall not be
located in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored hallway, outer waiting area, or
similar unmonitored area; the tobacco vending machine shall be inaccessible
to the public when the establishment is closed.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Pa 3
1
3.14-9: APPEAL
(A) Notice. If the City Council suspends or revokes a license, the City Administrator
shall send to the licensee, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice
of the action, and the right to an appeal. The aggrieved party may appeal the
decision of the City Council within ten (10) days of receiving notice of the city's
action. The filing of an appeal stays the action of the City Council in suspending or
revoking a license until the City Council makes a final decision.
(B) Procedure. The City Council small hear the matter and make a report of the findings.
Hearings on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee or applicant shall
have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence on
its behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Coundl shall make a final
decision.
3.14-10: RESPONSIBILITY FOR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES: Every act or omission
constituting a violation of any of the provisions of this section by an officer,
director, manager, or other agent or employee of any licensee shall be deemed and held
punishable in the same manner as if the licensee personally committed the act or omission.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE IIUChpt 1
a» atcutdrTON old TRADE PRACTICES 3159.015
379-0684 REKEDIE&
V an equipment manufacturer violates sections 323E-068 to 325E.0684, an equip-
ment dealer may bring an action against the manufacturer in a court of oompetent juris-
diction for damages sustained by the dealer as a conseouenre of the rnanubmser's
violation, togaber with the actual caw of the action, including reasonable attorney's
fees The dealer also may be granted injunctivetchef against unlawful termination, can-
ceWtiou, nonrenewal, or substantial change of competitive circumstances. The reme-
dies in this section art in addition to any other remedies permitted by law.
Histmr; 1989 c 267 s S
CIGAEEM VENDING MACHINES
32Slr 7 CIGAB.EPIE VENDING MACIIINM NOTICE RELATING TO SALES.
Subdivision 1. In a conupicuous place on each cigarette vending machine in use
within the state, them &ball be posted, and kept in easily legible form and repair, by the
owner, Lessee, or person having control thereof, a warning to persons under 18 years
of age which shall be printed in bold type linen each of which shall be at hast one-half
inch high and which shall read as follows:
"Any Person Under 18 Year of Age Is Forbidden By Law To Purchase Cigarettes
From This Machin.'
Subd 2. Any owner, any lestee, and any person having control of any cigarette
vending machme which does not bear the warning required by this section shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.
Histcge 1963 c 545 s 1
32MMS SALE OF TOBACCO BY VENDING MACHINE.
Subdivision 1. De9dtloa. For purposes of this seetion,'tobacco" has the meaning
given the term in section 604.683.
Solid. 2. Prohi Ad&L Tobacco may be o6tted for sale or sold in this suit by or
from a vending machine or appliance or any other medium, device, or object desi8-
eated or used for vending purposes only at the following locations:
(t) in an area within a factory, business, office, or other place not open to the gen-
oil public or to which persons under 18 yean of age are not generally permitted access;
(2) in an on- ale alcoholic beverage esubtiahment or an of4ale Liquor store, iE
(i) the tobacco vending machine to located within the immediate vicinity, plain
view, and control of • responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will he read-
Ity observable by that tmpfoyce;
(ii) the tobacco vending ntaobine is cot located in a coatroom, restroom, unmoni.
tored hallway, outer waiting arta, at similar unmonitored arca; and
((Li) the tobacco vending machine is inaccessible to the public when the establish.
extent is closed; and
(3) in other establishments, upon the following condhloor.
(i) it must be located within the immediate vicinity, plain view and control of a
responsible employee, so that all tobacco purchases will be readily observable by that
employee; it meat not be Coated in a coatroom, restroom, unmonitored hallway, outer
waiting area, or similar unmaaitomd arra; and it must be inaccessible to the public
when the establishment is closW; and
(il) it must be operable only by activation of an electronic switch operated by an
empiayce, of the esmblishmeat before each sale, or by inscrion of tokaas provided by
an employee of the agabli:hment before ucbb sale.
Subd. 3. Last regulation, no governing body of a Local unit of government may
adopt rules or ordinances relating to vending machine sales of tobacco that are more
restrictive than the restrictions imposed by this section.
History: 1990 c 421 s 1
Council Agenda - 7/26/94
8. Review otLiauor Store six month financial statement. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Joe Hartman will be in attendance at the Council meeting Monday
night to review with the Council the six month financial report ending June
30th.
To briefly summarize, sales for the fust six months of 1994 compared to
1993 were up $26,800 or approximately 4%. The resulting gross profit was
up only $2,750 because our cost of merchandise sold also increased $24,000
over last year. The overall gross profit percentage of 23.8% is generally
acceptable and is within the area we were targeting.
Expenses for 1994 were also up $1,639 over the same period last year which
resulted in a operating income of $67,071 which is $1,115 higher than last
year's first six months. Overall, the financial report is very comparable to
last year's results.
As sales continue to increase at our facility, I have had a couple of
conversations with Joe regarding the feasibility of enlarging the walk-in
cooler area in the near future. Joe will be able to expand on this topic, but
there does appear to be a need for investigating the cost effectiveness of
enlarging the walk-in cooler area to accomodate more beer storage. In order
to do this, the building would likely have to be expanded in a westerly
direction. In order to provide more information for the Council to consider
in the future, Joe and I will be attempting to get some cost estimates on the
feasibility of expanding the building.
No other action is needed by the Council other than acceptance of the report
at this time.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Liquor Store financial reports.
Current Assets:
Cash
Change Fund
Investments
Accounts Receivable
A/R - NSF Checks
Inventory
Prepaid Insurance
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
30Jun94
114,467.61
1,600.00
351,205.84
66.58
201,367.47
7,215.12
------------
675,922.62
Fixed Assets
Land & Parking Lot
Buildings
Furniture & Equipment
less. Accumulated Depreciation
,i-TAL FIXED ASSETS
TOTAL ASSETS
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Due to EDA Fund
Sales Tax Payable
Salaries Payable
Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave
Other Accrued Expenses
TOTAL LIABILITIES
RETAINED EARNINGS
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
46,591.03
199,285.65
75,993.73
(205,040.75)
------------
116,829.66
------------
792,752.28
aaaaaa�aaaaa
63,612.50
40,000.00
12,847.86
1,865.82
14,246.06
321.41
------------
132,893.65
659,858.63
------------
792,752.28
aaaaaaaaoasa
v,
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUN 30, 1993 AND 1994
1993 1994
YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
SALES
Liquor
187,219
186,715
Beer
395,210
425,387
wine
66,946
69,312
Other Merchandise
25,183
19,783
Misc Non -Taxable Sales
917
1,178
Discounts
TOTAL SALES
675,536
702,375
COST OF GOODS SOLD
(511,373)
(535,458)
GROSS PROFIT
164,163 24.3%
�=aaaasa==
166,917
aseaaaa= a:a
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
arsonal Services
salaries
51,758
54,495
PERA
1,911
2,261
FICA
3,916
4,161
Insurance
5,504
4,862
Unemployment Benefits
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
63,089 9.3%
65,836
Supplies
Office Supplies
379
150
General Operating Supplie
3,059
3,187
Other Supplies
40
60
TOTAL SUPPLIES
3,478 .5%
3,397
23.85
9.41
.5%
0
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUN 30, 1993 AND 1994
1993 1994
YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
Other Services & Charges
Professional Services
2,500
Maintenance Agreements
Communication
567
565
Travel -Conference -Schools
98
Advertising
2,705
2,815
Insurance
10,554
7,567
Utilities, Electric
5,293
5,162
Utilities, Heating
813
987
Utilities, Sewer & water
6
319
Utilities, Refuse;
Maintenance, Equipment
857
635
Maintenance, Building
937
11258
Maintenance, Other
74
74
Depreciation --Acquired As
9,286
8,013
Other Misc Expenses
465
----------
542
----------
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH
31,640
4.7Z
30,613
4.42
TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS
98,207
----------
14.52
99,846
----------
14.3%
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME
65,956
a aaaaaaena
9.8%
67,071
oaanaaaaaa
9.52
Other Income (Expense)
Interest Income
6,756
5,205
Cash Long/Short
69
91
Sale of Property
----------
----------
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
6,826
1.0%
5,297
.82
NET INCOME (EXPENSE)
72,871
aDaaaaaaaa
10.8%
72,368
Daaaaaaaaa
10.3%
Transfers In/Out
ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE
72,971
oaaaaaaaaa
10.82
72,368
aaaaaaaaaa
10.32
1994
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
YEAR-TO-DATE
GROSS PROFIT
BY PRODUCT
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUN 30,
1993 AND 1994
47,276
1993
425,387
YEAR-TO-DATE
91,219
AMOUNT
69,311
Liquor Sales
181,219
DiSCOUntS
36.5%
19,783
Cost of Sales
136,112
GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR
51,108
27.3%
Beer Sales
395,210
Cost of Sales
317,494
702,375
GROSS PROFIT - BEER
77,716
19.7%
Wine Sales
66,946
166,917
moamamaaaa
Cost of sales
43,627
GROSS PROFIT - WINE
23,319
34.8%
sc Sales
25,183
t -oat of sales
10,898
GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE 14,286
56.7%
Mise Non-taxable Sales
977
Cost of Sales
528
GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAXA 449
46.0%
TOTAL SALES
675,536
TOTAL COST OF SALES
508,658
TOTAL FREIGHT COST
2,714
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
164,163
mmommammam
24.3%
1994
YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT
186,715
139,439
47,276
25.3%
425,387
334,168
91,219
21.4%
69,311
44,017
----------
25,294
36.5%
19,783
13,810
5,973
30.2%
1,178
506
672
57.0%
702,375
531,941
3,517
166,917
moamamaaaa
23.81
f'L
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
Consideration of installation of electrical pump lockouts for
protection of the secogd stage digester at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP). (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
One of the contributing factors to the shortened life of the second stage
digester cover at the WWTP was that the controls at the WWTP allowed the
operators to pump sludge after the digester cover was in its down position.
Without a careful eye by the operators during this procedure, air could be
drawn into the second stage digester causing a more corrosive atmosphere
to occur inside the tank and the possibility of a more volatile gas mixture.
We, therefore, have asked the City Engineer to design an electaial lockout
system that would have to be physically overridden to pump sludge from
the digester once the cover is in its lowered position. Based upon the
drawings provided from OSM, Kelsie McGuire has solicited proposals to
install the lockouts from 4 electrical contractors. We only received 1
proposal from Olson & Sons Electric. The dollars for the construction would
come from the sewer access fund.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To authorize Olson & Sons Electric to install the electrical pump
lockouts for $3,223.60.
2. To try to obtain additional quotes and install the lockouts at a later
date. This does not appear to be practical as we wish to install the
lockouts prior to startup, and we are ready to stagy � up the aticend
stage digester at this time.
3. To do nothing, but continue to operate and have the operators pay as
close attention as possible to see that pumping is not carried out
when the cover is down.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Professional
Services Croup that the City Council authorize installation of the electrical
pump lockouts as outlined in alternative 81.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of plan sheet from OSM; copy of quotes from electrical contractors.
a,
\ .00
t
I U
q �:%I STING /
I J
1 •� C. Mtn DQ STIMG
1 I'C. on4 t 7-12
I
1
I
1
I alsrlNCJ
I ' 'n C. 4W4 & W2
E%I STIRG
UNDER GRDlR10�
I
I
I ❑
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I /
I
1
DIGESTER BLDG. BASEMENT PLAN
n um
r� wuo Krto
n/vwnn�m i � �C
t`ut'Ttw
sty
In
mo—
I1
I I i
�
1 i
iq �» nOtO RM1Tgq b .tQ
DIGESTER BLDG. FIRST FLOOR PLAN
'}--
CONTRONRL;o G Di GRAM STARTER BUCKET CONTROL WIRING DIAGRAM
a
NERAL NOTES:
CONDUIT TO BE RIGID STEEL WITH APPROPRIATE FITTINGS.
A. NUMBERED NOTES:
EXISTING PULL BOX AND CONDUITS RACEWAYS TO MCC AF-OVE. CONTRACTOR TO PULL
1
( 4 )
414 EXISTING LIMIT SWITCH CONDUCTORS BACK FROM BOILER CONTROL PANEL AND
ROUTE UP TO PUMP INTERLOCK CABINET BEING INSTALLED IN MCC ROOM.
EXISTING BOILER CONTROL PANEL. CONTRACTOR TO DISCONNECT ( 4)EXISTING LIMIT SWITCH
OCONDUCTORS (2 -BLUE d 2 -YELLOW) FOR REROUTING TO FUMP INTERLOCK CABINET BEING
INSTALLED. CONTRACTOR TO PROv10E JUMPER CONDUCTOR BETWEEN TERMINAL 65 ON
TERMINAL STRIP AND TERMINAL B ON DAYTON 45X841F RELAY BASE.
FURNISH d INSTALL PUMP INTERLOCK CABINET WITH COMPONENTS AS SPECIFIED IN CONTROL
OWIRING DIAGRAM. CABINET TO NEMA 12 ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTED OF 16 GAUGE STEEL WITH
POWDERCOAT FINNISH. CABINET TO HAVE KEYED SWITCH MOUNTED TO DEAD FRONT PANEL WITH
ENGRAVED LABEL "DIGESTER TRANSFER PUMPS". MOUNT o 54'.
OEXISTING JUNCTION BOX MOUNTED 0 TOP OF TANK. DISCONNECT AND REMOVE EXISTING
JUNCTION BOX, FLEXIBLE WHIPS AND LIMIT SWITCHES THAT ARE HANGING LOOSE.
OFURNISH d INSTALL HIGH/LOW LIMIT SWITCHES AND FLEXIBLE CO NDUIT/WIRE
CONNECTION TO JUNCTION BOX AND EXISTING CONDUIT/VIIRE. INSTALL (1) LIMIT SWITCH ON
GUIDE RAIL AT LEVEL 2'0" (FOR PUMP OFF) AND ( 1 ) AT 2'6" ( FOR PUMP ON) ABOVE CONCRETE TANK.
FURNISH d INSTALL ACTUATOR ATTACHED TO FLOATING DIGESTER COVER. ACTUATOR SHOULD BE 6'6"
ABOVE EDGE OF DIGESTER COVER. VERIFY ELEVATIONS WITH ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
JUNCTION BOX. FLEXIBLE CONNECTORS AND LIMIT SWITCHES TO BE RATED FOR USE IN CLASSI. DIV. 1 LOCATION.
OEXISTING 120/208V PANELBOARD. PROVIDE 120V CONNECTION OF INTERLOCK PANEL POWER
CONDUCTORS TO EXISTING 20A SINGLE POLE CIRCUIT BREAKER.
OROUTE 6x+14 FROM PULL BOX BELOW TO MCC BUCKETS FOR TRANSFER PUMPS. TRANS -N. TRANS -S d TRANS -M.
REFER TO BUCKET WIRING DIAGRAM.
EXISTING MCC. CONTRACTOR TO WIRE PUMP INTERLOCK RELAY CONTACT INTO CONTROL CIRCUIT
OB AS INDICATED IN STARTER BUCKET CONTROL WIRING DIAGRAM. TYPICAL OF (3) PUMP STARTERS TRANS -S.
TRANS -N d TRANS -M.
OFURNISH d INSTALL CONDUIT SEALING FITTING IN EXISTING""" CONDUIT.
FITTING TO BE O -Z GEDNEY VEYA-50 OR EQUAL.
Olson & Sons Electric Inc.
240 West Oakwood Drive Monticello. MN. 55362 (612)295-2690 FAX (612)295-2691
Date: 7/22194
TO: Prot: Servtces Group, Inc.
Attn.: KeLde McGuire
1401 Had Bvld.
Monticello, MN. 55362
Dear Kclsic,
We would 11c to submit & following estimate regardh* your Digester Tank Pump Interlocks. The
equipment supplied by us will be suitable for Class I Div. 1 HaMdorm Locations, and installed according to rhe
1794 NEC requirements for this arca.
The estimate includes the necessary welding S. construction of an actuator arm attached to the moveable
top of the Digester tank. This actuator arm will acumw the limit switches provided, and be ccnatructed so as to
allow adjustment of the limits as per your specificatioro.
TOTAL ....... $ 3.233.50
• Includes Eleca"- Inspection & Ci rMf "W
If you Isw any questions, please foal tree to call.
Wc:21 y�, Olson
w\
Olson & Sons Electric Inc.
Council Agenda - 7/26/94
10. Cgnsideration of aooroval of annual MPCA Wastewater Treatment
Plant survey. O.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last year, Kelsie McGuire and myself participated in the first pilot program
for the MPCA annual wastewater treatment plant survey. The survey is
intended to open lines of communication between city councils, staff, and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in regard to needs of the individual
plants and communities. This year's annual survey is completed for your
review. The format for the survey has been changed to a 611 in the dots
type of form. Please review the document and fill free to contact me or
Kelsie to the meeting or raise individual questions during the meeting itself.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIC)NS:
1. Approve the annual suurvey report as drafted
2. Approve the annual survey report with some minor changes.
3. Not to approve the annual survey report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
approve the annual survey report as outlined in alternative #1. The report
Jhas not changed much since last year. We are still under a study period
looking for major expansion within the next 3 to 6 years.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 1994 report; Copy of resolution for adoption.
MHNNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
ANNUAL EVALUATION AND PLANNING SYSTEM
Nunicipalih .Name
�I
e 7p e
Z p � s s e e t •�
a -!•� p r e c
NiAR.M\G INSTRUCTIONS
• L ;e No. 1 pencil or blue or black ink pen only. Inco, -rest .Narks
• Do not a -e red ink'!r felt tip pen,. / R •
• MAP ;olid mark, that 611 the rehnnnw completely. —_
• hake nn stra, marks on Ihi> form. Correct .Nark
• Do ru tear or mutilate this form.
��'vriV'Cr:�`_''� �C�ih+/.1ir,�rr?'rj" t 1 td;!i�•,:ull.af.-l..lea;a'��altt�,!iaw�t��•a�,+F•'.4�1�N �
Sod treatment Systems (Spray lrri>:aiion. Rapid Inl7ltration, Drainfieldsl .............. I —_
If n.•• .vii aide. ,,r to yne,tion 11. _
I. Tae nduent design Ilan int ,our .oil:r,j uent —tern i,:
.. the rulu,•nt design hiu, hon,ical o„—n demand JUDI for sour treatment —tem Is:
1. In the past year. how mam month, did the iullnNin, e,ceed 40 percent of the design ,alurs listed ab-,
Li_ a
G _! 4! e__r__ -
J. In 'he lad -,v. hon m•m, month, did the iollo„ing ewved dmiCn -lues:
4.1 __ o ----- -- - - - -
-
�'-
:. Ne•e the dr,Icn h,oraoli, .lpoli,tuou rales est ceded un an, sitv%i ............... .......... ....... • M —
tt�
t.• 11 ,•rr'h-•re .ut, dist hmg,s Io .uua, r Nater, in the pa,t ,ra,f , •I —
r
Doe, the „stem h-- enough .u, a, mage to accept all of the water recei,edf .......................... -
-
It. U„ Ie•t.w•s e,. rem,e Io.—ept N.uer per thou leas, agret'mentsf .... .... ' o N•
9. Dud an, noo-ooring Nell wmple results e, erdo......................................................
—
'I :vo mttrL I bloc ulrsf ........... r' —
IllmQL nitrala•-n imgenf ... .........................................................
III. sudif nal t u..... ,if nrl rs, 1,,: - _ _ -__--_
■• ■ ■ -- -- `•`a!IfIrtDO
NOT rualt IN rNl9 APB _
2131
0
1 0- ENr. SYSTEM PHYSICAL CONDITION
SECTION 1W TREAMM
_ All Systems
It. Age of the I o a + s e - f v (Thi, i,detined a, the numberoi sean+ince the la+t construction
iacilih: z,
is a s e - t a 1 to increase the organic or h%draulic capaeil% of the fatilit),I
It. Are there-, yaks e., piping, pump,, etc. that will require major repair nr replacement ssithin the next five
scant ........... .
...................................................................... x
1 i. Identify 'tem, nee line repair or rrplacrment: �!{A'f�_ge.edrj_F_�/
/{1Cztl�
&-_
Ali
ILt1 ire i oJee-,
Mechanical Unit �rocesses
i
If not applicable, gn to question Li,
14, Fur the proce,n listed het—, indicate sshether equipment, ,tructurn, etc., still require major repair or replacement
,it in the nest mevean:
1,4.1 Artiratrd Sludge ................. .. ............. ....... ... ................ r lea
14.2 Chemical Feed Equipment Ifncludingpho+phorus removal. pH adjustment. etc.! ................. 9"A
14.3 Claritirn (includingprimary, secondary. Imhoff tanks, etc.) .................................. "A
x
14.4 Di,imet'tion ( including dechlurinauum.................................................. r "A
r. 14.> Effluent Fill er...................................................................... .
•1
I4.6 Invinvntion................................................... .............. .
4._ I termi(tent Sand Filler. ................................................ . ..I.......... r "
14.3 Preliminary Treatment ( including grit +rmosal, c(imminuior,. screening etc.( ...... .............. r • ++
14.9 Rotating Riolugical Contatlors............... I.I ... I ............... ..... .............. r n
rr.. I4.1) )rquen(ing Batch Realtun............................................................ r x
11. I Sx
1 I lr.
4. 2 dg,
Drys atenng ........................ ........ . .................. .............. r r+
14.11 )fudge Diges ten...... • n xa t
14.74 Study Thickening .................................................. ..............
� 44 va
I4.1 i Tru klin a Fill ord0iotiltcr+ • • • . . ■ '' "'
V ................. ........ .............................
• Pond Unit Processes (such as Stabilization, Aerated, Polishing, Sludge Storage, etc.) ...... •
If not applicable• qu to que,tion .n.
r•
11. 1, there am' dwp rooted segetation e.g., cattails• etc.( in p(md+or dikesf .............. r v
Ib. Are (herr am burro-ing rodent, lismq in the pends or d4nl ........................ .............. r x
a� 17. \1 ill ans of the follusn inµ need major repair or replacement within the next five }rant
� I7.1 lion nr seal ........................... ..... ....... ................. .... ........ .. r n
ILift .tatiu is ............................. ............................. r n
I"..l kipoap................................................ .... .......... .... .......... r n
17.4 1),ke, ......... ........ ......... .......................... .... ...... r x
r. IT.: Gml rel slructur. ..... ......... ....... ..... .......... .... ..... ..... r x
r. 17,h ,U4weather roa.... ................................................... . x
IR. 1v ill am other rqurpnvnt requne major repair or replacement within the nest tine seanl + x
19. 1deniiis in•ms mrd i ng it, pair or rep Iat etttenl:
Soil Treatment Systems (such as Spray Irrigation, Rapid Infiltration, Drainftelds, etc.) .... •
If nod applit ahle' go) to lunlion th.
� tR. Davinµ do weather conditions, aro (here ant .pods, dra•page ar pdsdlnµ of walrr rm the prwand wnacer .... r x
I I. I, there an, unusual growth of n,getalinn inns near the +iul treatment .n .dons area Ie.µ., can ail., plu.h green
arrJ,, rll.it...... ........................................................................ r M
� !:. I, their (•,labinhrd ayrHlisr unrr
in the auk Uralmrnlnxtrmr .............. ..... ..... ... ....... r v
f. : 1. If present. are the gn+and wafer numltorint wells up to AGnnesuta Department of Health ended!.......... r "
lh,ILal.114aN 1'.. I-1, I A, - 1. 1'• 1111a1. 114 a. I IA. 111 A a1
•. �.
2J. Will am ether equipment require major repair or replacement -thin the n-1 live wean! ................
_
•
25. Identiiv items needing repair Air replacement:
a
�
26. Additional comments an treatment +v+lem physical condition if necessarv:
a •a �• .ata
.7. Hose mam loss in the last year did hvpasses Air overflows occur( (M%VCC is nut required to answer 27.1.1
_7.1 In part of the +ev%er collection systemf
/am,
D_• �: o f f• r a o
_
At the treatment +vstemf
O•�: 7 a e• e v i
_
C 0 0 � s•• o
.7.:I Of the number listed in 27.1 and '27.2, how manv were due I):
27.4 Rain or Sm- Melt (lntiltratiunilnfl—)
o � a f• e f
^ o s I• r e f
Equipment Failure
_
of s f o r 1 1",
!_ 7 o t o •• 7• e
211. Uues a pl.tn rvist In remove ant imihratiun m in0uw f ............................................
0-4
29. How mar,, rainialls in the last sear caused basement Iwr Lupsf t.NWCC is not required to are,wer this que+tion.)
__O � t o f f e • •�
_
.11). Are lift wiu., adequately maintained and operated( ............................................
_
it. Dor+ a .c hrrlul -d presenli.e maintenance pnrgram e%isf fur the collection -stem( ......................
_
v _
.12. Dttc•s a roulinr Inspecliou program rsisl fur the collection —Is mf ..................................
_
0.
_
.M. Dra rihe am major repair or egwpment replaaemrnt that wrre made in the last year. Dn mfl include if the systrm is _
less than one sear uld las indicated In gwabon 1 t ).
aJ, Addiiirmal wmnx•nh. if ntvevwr:
2131• • • •�
PLEASE DO NOT IaAHK IN ts•IS aRE..
ra'AIU1s'1'i111'si:PllULif __—llri't•;�!t..:..�;.� ,s.R r1 1titer ba-..'c��„�': _5
If not applirahle, go to question 4h. S►v.,
1.5. Does the ss.trm generate a sludge Ihat is land applied? ......... ..... ........... ......... I ...... 1 '+
11.1 If ses• dne> the .,st em emplos ar amlratt wilh a ... lifted Apr I\ -w, s.trm rnludgr, operator!
lb. If sludge is landspresd, dues the stem hase at leas) si, Inmthv ui suoagr! ......................... .. 0 : "
17. Are an adequate numht•r of AIPCA apprused atres asailahle w apph the stem ..Iuke prrnlut lion fur Ihr
nest �rar!..... ...... .......... • • �•
��
tri. Will am mss landvpreading site, he applied for in the n,�t,l I
.19. Hase am site tumplainl, iwen recessed regarding, sludge!........ .... � •:
40. Dots the sludge mert Class 6 sludge reduction requirement, (old I^NP clan-ui, .unnu! .................. '+
41. Dues :he dudCv mer: vr.:ur altrattiun reduoiun requirwnrn M! ..... ... ..... ''
42. If the sludge is not land applied. is it transferred to another facilily! ...... .. + +• •
42.1 If —, list the name of Ihr reteising i.16HIs:--
4:3. Will am uthrr rgbaymeru require major ..peri. ur rrpla,en' •�:1 ]ulhin '1 • n+�• ' �. .. .... . • '
44. Identiis items needing repair nr ..plat rn� u• - _ _ /�/�,(/ t f "I+'� t�� '! rr r
4.
41. Additional tumment, if nec—ars:---
• w
If not applicable, go tel question L. '
4h. Ho. mans individual us. age Irealment.Prmms rsist in the wrvi,e arra! (J •0 = t ; ^ + ^ r y
• s i
".I Huss mem buildings do then senrf p ,: ' t n + s r r t ♦ yy
0 I r a
_fD tilt^ r
C. Hase the indkidual sNrms' wptie tanks ht•en l,uml>.•d in the Lw Ilirceer srarsf.,.J. n. ............ ... +
411. DnrI the muni, ipalils hair a se•plage di'W—i plan( ..,.... Ited-4.... le'�...... .....I v ru
411.1 Is the srpjair dkjbb)ul plan in ae, urdanee %ith the- permit! ......... . v
411.: Dors the wpiage disposal plan add,.,, huildings cud ..nme, ted In the .aIle, tion —1—f ..........
49. Is wplageaueptedin the I rraunrrsl...temf.................................................... +
SII. Will .un other equipment rrvpuire major repair or replitemenl ssilhin Ilse ne%] inr se.sr.f ............... r
S 1. Ideutils ilems needing repair or repla. ement: _ - _
-.., \dditinnal nrmm,•nls, a m,rssn:
+�+ �LBASE OO;IOT MARK In THIS SAE. ■ ■ MAI
—
System Operation
1. Huts mans dates Per , •ek is the t,adrw acre ne.vmem .t.lent staiied!
—7 . , ) s + s s jp-
54. Hum main hours per das is the ttatt—mer t-alment —Ie. .laved!
L9._, - e 1 w LUT TH15 AS A TOTAL PER DAY IgE., HOURS), NOT 1 TOTAL PER PERSON
l o r x 0+ s 4, e/ PER DAY. ee�
i. Total daih flow measurement:
55.1 Has the influent I- effluent) flow meter that measures total daih )low been calibrated within the last
tear! .... .......... ..................... .... .................................. .
r
If local daih dots is determined bt running time mo,— on lilt ,tatiun pumps. were the pumps
calibrated w1hin the last tear! .............................................. ......... + .) 0
153 If flow is not measured using a flow meter or running ;ime meters, hum are total daih flows measured! ecce.
,h. Have am significant meLhaniral or Pott—related operational problems been experienced within the last year! + 0 IIA
s7. Please describe:
r_
OIL If item he is fes, mere ans of the problems attributable to a nmmrrvial ur industrial discharges! ............ • u 'o �
i -I. Is %our liboratun wnth LonduLted at a )eriniL•d laboratun �—Juding disuhed o,-4vn, pH and chlorine _
re,iduallf.................................................................... ..... i
Please list the following:
510.1 facillt, Lalm,ato-
510.2 Certifacalion Number
510.d ContratI Lahuralnn
510.4 Cerlifilaliun Number
System Maintenance
h0. Dues a se heduled preventise maintenaru a program exist for the treatment system! ...................... 0 u e�
hl. Is the pmsencise maintenance ,e hnlule being adhered to and are at curate returdv heing maintained? ...... 0, H•
h2, \Vere ..it, major, repairs or equipment replan emem made in the fast tea,! Drs nul im lude if the sx stem is 1—
than one t ear old las indit aged In question II) ................................................... 0"
62.1 Plraw dtse ri e: �7
--dle 00'Operator Certification and Training /`�
io �2C�IA" �en
61. %%h.tt is the I—itment —tem'
Llasvifie ,Ilion ImarL unci ...... .. .. .. ... .. ..... .
64, v 1 the fieoperator In resp)mihle t harge of the ss,tem a artiftod at a e las. equal In or greater than the svoem s
tl.assiaxionl........................................................................... d "
r. i. Has the alone operalor attended .uw training -1hln the last veer!
.................................
hh. Hum man, uln•raosrs dues the —t rn Id—f
l l�Ilq ltel. alR;tail6.Ir.Itl'r aw7li.. ltl)42:� cIt 1/l.-liscl,. a l l�f r7 t;lt,latlall4all M. l l a llama
ntttv�tr�.�1
h'. How man. of them arc certified at risme lesel?
'40 t I 3
1 ra t I r 1 r
��!s 11 a IRA, _. r a t
:'
hit. Does an ongoing wieh uai.iroz pro4ram etisl f ........................... ........................ a
h9. Additional almments, ii ort r+tan: __ _ _
SECTIONORDINANCF STATUS
?U. Please i omplete the following it.r the
/� entire wastewater system using information from the last fiscal sear-
REVENUES User Chagas 5 y13� EXPENDITURES Operation dstailltertance S 'y(�/,'17
Tate, -5 Depreciafiii. -S 339.3-
Other -S 7 -Q"� Capital Reptuement -S
Total =S J��- Debt Sere ice •S '-
1-
_ Other S
Total =Sper--,
1. Did expenditures iur operation and maintenance etceed user charges by ten perr.-enif. .................... r
72. Did user charges etceed expenditures for operation and maintenance by len percent!. ............ ...... ' •
� 'S. Dors the municip4lit, hose an equipment replan emenl at room?.................................... 01-
74.
s,a. Are resenues and rtpenditures iti r the wastewater treatment Ssstems kept in atcounts wparate irnm rum—ser
account, (e.g., water utilities, ptlblit works. etc.!? ........................ ...I, ...................r +
JS. What was the sear of the last sewer sersit a chargr astern resiew by the municipal ,mncit?
t e l r l
t, �--�t_ of _ s_• 3 r s S : • s
: S.l Year of the last rale adiu%tmeni:
13 a .• 1 =/
i Th. Manthh Residential Uwr Rate
� ib.t Base Rate 4
7b.2 li you uu a per unit thlrre:
Per 1,0I0 galhwh S
ttt� Or Per l 00cubirfeet 5 ,�•,�� ___ t h,hR a S__'�'�l ( f%f �'4e/ �� �(i ,�•LL T+•�
e_ Th..l Total Rmidentul Uwr Rale chased un an average
ttt� '.0141 gaR,ms pis household per mtmthltinr►...Rl+it o S 7. t r� i ii "a- t- r r
i
76.4 Dehl Srnitr l:harge per rmmth
_ _
7ba lural Residential Rat, t'ts..l . 7h.4l � 5 TO 0
0• o ;w
0 1 t r+ 1 4P r i 0 4
IS (herr a fer iur a new umnettinn to the sewer tWem? .............. ..... ....................... .
77.1
t li s M, piss• Iia the n•r: S' " ,� a 1 a r • r t i `
'0
NitiI,
i
t • • i
r
sEcnON.RDINANCE
STATUS (CONTINUED)I
a
'It.
Are all
u.•n char,ed proportionate, to th••ir-ef................................................
4@ n
74.
Does an Industrial user rate schedule or .urcharge rave e,iW......................................
• '+ _ a
80.
Has the
municipality adopted a sewer u,e ordinanu•f ............... .......... .................
01
If yrs,
doe, the ordinam r:
811.1
Control new connections ............................................................
I v = .
Prohibit dear water connection,.....................................................
r •
2.!
.3
Prohibit loxics......................................................................
40"
80.4
Allow the municipalih to require pretreatment ............................................
• o r.
80.3
Require annual nofitrcation of cast to all usen............................................
+ •
80.6
Pro, ide for enforcement of the ordinance ................................................
• r, — .
81.
Dries
the municipality have pretreatment agreemen i./permits with sitniticani industrial went ............
� a
■ n .•
8I.1
If vs•s. do the agreements have limitsf....................................................
r. .
0,
111.1
Have there been any violations of limits in the last sear? ....................................
4W '• — .
82.
For oil
treatment sv,tems:.......................................................................
82.1
It a sewer use ordinance exists, due, it address routine maintenance for individual sewage treatment
..stem, and prolwr disp—I of the seplagef .
r a n•
82.!
I)— the municapalit% require individual vv stems be insppercted and brought up to code at the time of
r.
building permit application, point of sale or complaints! ....................................
r n n•
82.3
Doar the municipality restrict the discharge of non-domestic waste to individual sewage treatment
..........................................................................
w,trmsfe
s n•
112.4
Does the municipality allow newt% constructed homes to Lr served by individual sewage treatment
.v+u•ms!................................................. .... ......
r N n•
If ,e,, does the munir ipalih have ordinances and an inspection program to ensure that the new —tem
is proper, Located. deigned and huiW..................................................
- n
83.
Additional
comments, if nec—m:
�
r.
H4. What i, the expected increase in the average wet weather tmaviimum mrmlthlvi flow uvrr the neat fpive )eanf
r ZS Million gallons per day t (Zp 00 1 TiO�C . %j A, /E
I1 :. What is the rxpec ted in• rease in the maximum rnonthly loadings for the following live vranf
lli.l Hinrhrmical Uxv gen DemandjDlitf _ Ipgmnd,/monthi dear%
_._
Hi.! Total Susprndrvl Solids`IS_7�7 gt,mml,/monlhf
E
oAJ -16
115.,1 %nuramia /�//�_ _ tp•mnd,/muntht 7• / bJ
85.4 Phosphorus NV -n tpuunds/muntht '
Hb. will the five-year proje, td average wet weather flow rate excred the —tem cepat iW ........ I ......... V '+ '
HC. Will the 8v r•v ear projra rid .wmage maximum mumhly Loadings exceed the % tern d sign capa(it, f ........ v
811. Are airs major treatment baa ility or r ollet tion worm impnwemenl, or rvpamionv planned in the next hive '
)rarsf.................... ... ...... .....................................................
�
811.1 If yrs, plea.- complete the follow int: '
De. ription of Work \ran of C onstrur bum Fxtirnated Cusl
-- - - f11� �N `C!1./'t: /i•i_h!. '!f•(e _"fOC �'! _ _ ---- - - _ �
r.
rs
rs
NEEDS.
88.2 Name, author and date of document that listed the cost estimate on presious page legg., facilities plan,
engineering report. engineer ouds, etc.) "'rite None' if estimate was not documenlyd.
8Y. Do amAlam exist to connect an% of the unsesfered homes in the sen ice area to the municipal treatment system
sfith in r m•xt fife scan!.................................................................. 0-1
na
89.1 If yes, hnff many!
0 1 1+ s e; e s
89.2 Anticipated feansi ni contraction:
_u 1, 1+ s e r{ a N/f�
0 1 1 1+ 1 4 1 1
89.3 Total estimated cnst
911. If future const ruction project nl %v ere identified in 8:.1. are yuu interested in receif ing information regarding
financial assistance through the State Revolving Loan Programi ....... s 11PAtQeaxD y ' NAv� !T
91. Additional comments, if ne,,x,san:
92. • Completed Its: —F• /��G%Nt Dale: xtDNIH —U
e r t 1+ 1{ 1 0
V 1iHoc f► Dal — ° •
{ 1. 1 a s e r{ a
YEAR { 1 1 1+ 1 1 r a•
l e 1 2 e{ 1
If sou hafr question concerning this document• please cunlact
Deb Lindllef
43 rationw1raining Unit
Water Qwlily Division
I Iww•hi7•186A
16I D 2%.8ih6
Caprnpnx — MUMtµ Carnpnw n.— i- e1 �pn� irMry�e
7■ ■ •
as 0
•eAGE 00 NOT MARK IM TMt9 AAAA
..1. in ua• {YarMMA Oy MCO UYIM{1111
2131 d
RESOLUTION 94.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL EVALUATION AND PLANNING
SURVEY FOR THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has recently passed a law that will require
municipalities to annually complete an evaluation and planning survey of their
wastewater treatment facilities for MPCA review, and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello was requested to participate in an annual
evaluation and planning survey pilot project by completing a copy of the survey
report, and
WHEREAS, the annual evaluation and planning survey report has been completed,
presented, and reviewed by the City Council of Monticello;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA that the annual evaluation and planning report as
prepared is accurate to the best of our knowledge and is authorized to be submitted
to the MPCA as part of the pilot project.
Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July, 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator
0
BENNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
ANNUAL EVALUATION AND PLANNING SURVEY
City of Monticello
State of Monticello
We certify per the attached resolution that the information provided in the Annual
Evaluation and Planning Survey is wrrect to the best of our knowledge.
Mayor
Date
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Date
City Administrator Date
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
11. Consideration of adopting a resolution of residential antidieplacement,
relocation assistance. and displacement minimization plan for
Monticello. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On September 27, 1993, the City Council adopted a resolution as applicant of
a Small Cities Economic Development Grant (SCERG) to fund the H -Window
Company expansion and authorized Public Resource Group, Inc. (PRG) to
prepare the application. The grant was for $400,000 with escalated interest
rates of 0% for years 1-2, 2% for year 3, 3% for year 4, 4% for year 5, and 5%
for years 6 to 10. The city would retain the state's first $100,000 principal and
interest payback. Later, the state reduced the loan amount for consideration
to $250,000.
In addition, a $100,000 loan application to the Central Minnesota Initative
Fund (CMIF) was prepared and submitted. The loan was denied because the
Norwegian ownership did not satisfy the CMIF residency requirement.
Thereafter, the EDA and Council approved a $50,000 Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund (GMEF) loan to assist with the financial gap created by the
CMIF denial.
The State now recommends the $250,000 be funded by Federal (Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG)) dollars rather than SCERG dollars.
Listed below are some differences between the Federal and State programs as
it relates to the City of Monticello and the H -Window Company:
1. 51% of all jobs created must either be taken or considered to be
available for low/moderate income persons. (Accountable by the H -
Window Company)
2. Loan payback dollars must again be used to benefit low/moderate
income (L.III) persons until such time as released by the State.
(Separate accountability by City)
3. Compliance of Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Standards such as the Davis -Bacon Act and Residential Displacement
Plan, etc.
4. City retains total $250,000 principal and interest payback for the
GMEF.
5. GMEF guidelines must be amended to accommodate LMI persons.
1.<"
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
ItMOLUMON FOR AnomoN
The adoption of this resolution of residential antidisplacement, relocation
assistance, and displacement minimization plan is a HUD formality procedure
of the CDBG application. The resolution applies to projects funding
redevelopment, housing, or construction and does not apply to projects funding
equipment. However, to satisfy HUD formality procedures, Council is asked
to consider adoption of the enclosed resolution.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution of residential antidisplacement, relocation
assistance, and displacement minimization plan.
2. Deny adoption of the resolution of residential antidisplacement,
relocation assistance, and displacement minimization plan.
3. Table any action.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator, Assistant Administrator, and Economic Development
Director recommend alternative 01. Although reporting and accountability for
CDBG funds is greater than for the SCERG funds, staff views the $250,000
principal and interest payback is worth the time of reporting and
documentation. Mr. Steve Lemme at the H•Window Company agrees to
comply with reporting and accountability.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution for adoption.
J(0
RESOLUTION f 94 -
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Residential Anti -displacement, Relocation Assistance and
Displacement Minimization (FP -18) (page 1)
Applicant Name: City of Monticello, Minnesota
Residential Antidisplacement. Relocation Assistance and Displacement Minimization Plan requires the following information:
A. The City/Coumy will replace all occupied and vacant livable low/moderate income dwelling units demolished or convened
to a use other than as low/moderate income housing in connection with an activity assisted with funds provided under
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. as amended.
All replacement housing will be provided within thea years after the commencement of the demolition or conversion.
Before entering into a contract committing the Ciry/Courry to provide funds for an activity that will directly result in
such demolton or conversion. the City/County will make public and submit to the Minnesota Deportment of Trade and
Economic Development. Business and Community Development Division the following information in writing:
1. A description of the proposed assisted activity:
2. The location on a map and number of dwelling units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be demolished or
convened to a use other than as low/moderate income dwelling units as a direct result of the assisted activities:
J. A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or conversions:
4. The location on a map and the number of dweUing units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be provided as
replacement dwelling units. If such data are Trot available at the time of the genual submission, the CitytCounty will
identify the general location on an arca map and the approximate number of dwelling units by size and provide
information identifying the specific location and number of dwelling units by size as soon as it is available:
7. The sauce of funding and a time schedule for the provision of replacement dwelling units:
6. The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a low/moderate income dwelling unit for at
[cast 10 years from the date of initial occupancy.
7. Information demonstrating that any progosM replacement ofdwelling units with smaller dwelling urtin (eg.. a 2bedroo n unit
with two I•bed co n units) u com;Lvma with the hatscmg ands of low- and mhoderate•6aarrhe handholds in the JmisBttion.
The City/Cou ry n%3y request the Minnesota Department of Trude and Economic Development to recommend Ilea the US.
Departmentof Hommng ansd UrbanDe elapmen v;Vmw m exception to re used mpLxww t horsing tf dwm is m mkotate local
supply of vacant bwhnode= income dwelling mann in standard condition. Excepdorn will he reviewed on a c sebyctse harts.
B. The City/Counry will provide relocation assistance to any lower income person displaced by derrntition of any dwelling
unit or the conversion of a low/moderate income dwelling unit to another use in connection with an assisted activity.
C. Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the Act. the (jurisdiction) wiU take the following step
to minimize the displacement of persons from thew homes.
I. Continua to utilize the existing comprehensive plan to encourage and foster
development of compatible land uses.
2. Continue to comply with existing zoning ordinnnco of the City of Monticello with
all developments.
J.
�d
RESOLUTION 094 -
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Page 2
Residential Anti -displacement, Relocation Assistance and
Displacement Minimization (FP -18) (page 2)
Applicant Name: City of Monticello, Minnesota
D. Definitions for the purposes of this plan are as follows:
"Low/moderate income dwelling unit is a unit with a market rem. including utility cost, that does not exceed the applicable
fair market rens for existing lousing and moderate tehabiliradm. as established undo the Secion 9 existing housing program.
-Vacant livable dwelling unit" is a vacant unit that is in standard condition: or in subavdard condition, suitable for
rehabilitation: or in dilapidated conditim and occupied len dun a year ftcm the date of ft grants agreement
"Livable dwelling unit' is a unit shat is in standard condition or has been raised to a standard condition from a substandard
condition, suitable for rehabilitation.
"Standard livable dwelling unit" is a well built wit with adequtte space for persons living there. These are no major defects in
the scrucnae and only minor maintenance its required. Such dwelling wiU have the following chamtteristia: reliable
roofs: sound wells and foundations: adequate and stable floors. walls and adingr, surfs= and woodwork that ne nes
seriously damaged nor have pains deterioration: sound windows and doom: adequate heating. plumbing, and electrical
systems which do nes present safety hazards: adequate insulation for local climatic conditions. and is in compliance with
local building and housing coda.
-Substandard condition dwelling unit. suitable for rehabi6udow will show a lot of deferred maintenance with permanent
damage to structural items. Conditions contributing to substandard dwelling, include but ire not limited to sagging.
cracked. roving or leaking roofs, walls, foundations. ceilings, floor. doon. tad windows•, deteriorated surfaces and
woodwork: unreliable heating. plumbing. or electrical tyrterns which present safety hatasds or inadequate insulation.
The toss of rehabilitation of the unit should be determined as ecomystically feasible.
RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION OF RESIDENTIAL AtMDISPIACEMENT. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND
DISPLACEMENT MINIMIZATION PLAN,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT (JURISDICTION) HEREBY ADOPTS THE RESIDENTIAL ANTIDISPLACEMEM.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND DISPLACEMENT M IMMIZATiON PLAN FOR (JURISDICTION)
I certify that the above resolution wits adopted by the
City Council dr The City of Monticello
tLny lamcl( �wm' nowt acl ISpmma U"d 0—r—M)
on
IUWI
SIGNED: WITNESSED:
I INH lel IWMI IUY11/
r ,1
Council Agenda - 7/26/94
12. Consideration of adond" a resolution of compliance with Federal
Housina and Urban Develonment (HUD) requirements. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider adoption of the resolution of compliances with
Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. The enclosed
checkmark compliances are standard requirements followed by most local
governments.
Again, the adoption of the resolution is part of the CDBG application for
$250,000 to assist the H -Window expansion. The CDBG is funded by the
Federal HUD.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution of compliances with Federal HUD requirements.
2. Deny adoption of the resolution of compliances with Federal HUD
requirements.
3. Table any action.
C STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator and Economic Development Director recommend
alternative #1 because the HUD checkmark compliances are local
governmental standards of the city of Monticello.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of list of compliances; Copy of resolution for adoption.
�7
Forms Package
r Compliances (FP•20) (page 1)
.Applicant Mame: City of 11onticello, Minnesota
1. 0%4B Circular A-123 —Issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act of 1984 (P.L. 98.502), which establishes audit
requirements for sate and local governments receiving federal funds.
2. ONM Circular A-87 — Establishes "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable m Grants and Contr its with State.
Local and Federa8y Recognized Indian lnbal Governments.-
Pl 3. Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). MN Statutes 1990.
Chapter 363 Minnesota Human Rights Act — Require that all public facilities and programs be designed and
constructed to be accessible to the physically handicapped.
E1 4. The Undorn Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to Scale and Locat Governments
(Federal Register March It. 1988, Volume 53. Number 48) — Establishes requirements for procurement and
frrancial management
$1 5. Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 19154 (Pl_ 8&352) and subsequent regulations — Ensures access to facilities or
programs regardless of race, color, national origin or sex.
Z 6. Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Orden 11375 and 12086 and subsequent regulations —Prohibits
employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
7. Title 0 of the Undomt Reloestien Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended and
subsequent regulauons — Identifies procedures for the acquisition of property and the relocation of persons and
businesses.
8. Section 104td) of the Housin 8 and Community Developmem Act — Requires recipients to adopt make public. and
cendy a restdental antidisplacement and relocation plan.
9. Executive Orden 11988 and 12148. Floodplain Management — Requires action to minimize the impact of floods on
assisted projects.
10. Executive Orden 11625 and 12138 — Encourage recipients to award construction. supply and professional sera
conaracts to mmority and women's business enterprises.
H. . The Mood Insurance Purchase Requirements of Section 1021 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. (P.L.
93.234) — Requires the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available for
construction or acquisition projects in any area having special flood barards.
12. The National Envuonmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC. Section 4321 et. seq.) and other related acts relating to the
environment — Requires an analysis of a project's environmental impact and a description of efforts to mitigate she
impact Other related acts refer to environmental quality.
0 13. Section 401 f of the Lead. Based Poisoning Prevention Aa. as amended (42 USC. Section 4831b)— Requires the
removal and prohibits the use of lead-based paint for housthg rehabditauon projects.
0
Forms Package
Compliances (Fp-20) (page 2)
Applicant Name: City of Monticello, Minnesota
B 14. Federal Far Labor Standards Act (29 USC. Section 201 et. seq.) — Requites that employes be paid at least minunum
wage and that they be paid one and one-half times their basic wage for all hours worked in excess of the prescribed
work week.
® 15. State Laws. the Davis Bacon Act (40 USC. Section 276a -276a5). Copeland Act (Anti -kickback ACL 40usc 276c) and
the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act of 1962 (40 USC. Section 327-333) — Requires the payment of
wages. at hourly rates. as established by the Deparanem of Labor.
® 16. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. as amended — Encourages the employment and training
of lower-income people and ;warding of contracts to businesses located within the community receiving assistance.
® 17. Title V U1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended. and Executive Order 12259 — Require equal opportunity in
housing and non-discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. and actions to affumuively further fair housing.
Q 18. Requirements specified in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended — Establishes the
Small Cities Development Grant Program.
19. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 — Prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.
20. Minnesota statutes section 176.181.176.182 — Requires recipients and subcontractors to have workers' eompensasion
insurance coverage.
O 21. Requirements Specified in the Water Quality Act of 1987 — Authorizes funding for the State's Water Pollution Control
Revolving Loan Fund Program.
0 22. Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11298—Requires protection of surface and ground water resources.
1 23. Minnesoa Statute. Section 471.87 and 471.88 — Forbids public officials from engaging in activities which ora or have
the appearance of being. in conflict of ineeress.
® 24. The Minnesota Government Practices Act — Protects the privacy of individuals who participate in Community
Development -assisted programs by prohibiting the public disclosure of participant's income and ether personal
information.
25. Antitrust or unfair trade prrcuces laws — Regulates and controls sale of goods and services and prohibits deceptive and
unfair competition between businesses.
26. The prevailing wage rate law (MN Laws 1990, Chapter 604. Article 10. Section 7) — Requires that businesses certify to
the Department of Labor and Industry that laborers and mechanics will be paid prevailing wage rates established by
the Deparmient of Labor and Industry.
27. 43 USC. Section 18.100. entitled "Limitation on use of appropntated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and
financial transactions" — Requires a certification Mar no Federal funds have be utilized to lobby or gam undue
influence in connection with Federal grant or loan funds. 9
Forms Package
Compliances (FP -20) (page 3)
Applicant `lame: City of Monticello, Minnesota
® 28. Executive Order 12549. Debarment and Suspension (43 CFR. Pan 12.
Section 12.510) — Requires a certification regarding Federal debarment suspension and other responsibility manes.
® 29. Executive Order9l-3. Wetlands — Requires grant and loan recipients to apply the principlesof no -net -loss of wetlands
during the condua of their project
30. The Drug Free Workplace Act(P.L. 100490. Title V, Subtitle D). - Requites that grantees certify that they will provide
a drug free workplace.
D 31. Section 519 of Public Law 101.144 (1990 HUD Appropriations Act) and Selman 1040) of HCD Act - Requires that
each local unit of government adopt. enforce a policy prohibiting the use of etces ve face by taw enforcement
agencies within iisjurisdictim against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights dearnnstra[im
(M 32. Section 1352. Tide 3l. U.S. Code - Requints that Language of certification regarding lobbying for contracts, loans and
agreements be included in award documents for all subawards at a0 ties. Section 319 of Dnepartment of Interior and
Relaed Agencies Appropriations Act, also known as the "Byrd Arnendrnem", prohibits the me of federally
appropriated funds for influencing any Executive or LegWative Branch personnel in the awarding of Federal
/ contracts. grants. or loans. It also requite, when appropriate. the completion of Disclosure fonts SF -LLL.
{ ` ® 33. Subpart C of 24 CFR Pan 12 - Provides fa DisclosuNUpdate from applica uyrxipicrus of HUD assistance relating to
amount of assistance received. sources and uses of funds. and interested parties, and requires the completion of HUD
Form 2880.
® 34. M.S. 290.9705 - Requires that 8 percent of each paymem paid to outof-stare Contractors for work dons in Minnesota
must be withheld on any contract shall taceeds or could reasonably be expected to exceed S 100.000, unless the
requiremem is waived.
O 35. Secuon 129 of Public law 104590 Smog Businm Administration Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 1988
The City of Monticella. Minnenoto cenjj}esemplianctwith the compliance arm indkatedasapplimble
IApp.0 )
by cheekmark, and as so stated in the accompanying "Local Government Resolution.'
RESOLUTION 194 -
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION OF COMPLIANCES
WITH FEDERAL HUD REQUMEMMM
WHEMM. the City of Monticello has applied to the Minnesom Depwonew of TMs
turd Economic Development requesting financial assistance from the Boaoomle Recovery
Ptogtam to aid the expansion of the H -Window Company, and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Trade and Hconomie Development hu deemed
that the H -Window Company Expansion Project is an appropriate use of Community
Development Block Grant ftmds originated from Federal HUD sources, and
WHEREAS, these HUD Funds require compliance with federal standards, outlined on
the aCached Form FP -20.
RE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Monticello hereby aft to amply with the
requirements referenced on attached Form FP -20 as applicable and flrther agrees to perlbrm any
and all necessary reporting and documentation. as required.
I certify that the attached resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Mond"llo
on this 25th day of My 1994.
Mayor
•�Tf�Tf'',T"!i
0
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
18. Consideration of aoproying an apollcation for a gambling license at
J. P.'s Annex—Monticello Lions Club. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lions Club is seeking City Council approval of an
application for a gambling license to conduct a pulltab operation at J. P.'s
Annex Restaumnt/Sporta Bar. Before the State Gambling Control Board
will consider granting the pulltab license, the City Council must submit a
resolution indicating it is not opposed to the state issuing a license.
Currently, the Monticello lions Club operates pulltab gambling facilities at
the Monte Club and Hawk's Bar, both in Monticello Township. The Lions
Club does not currently operate at a location within the city of Monticello.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the Lions Club's application for a
gambling license at J. P.'s Annex.
2. Do not support the application request.
It has been the Council's past policy not to oppose any gambling license
application or renewal. The city staff does not have any reason to
recommend that this application be denied.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution.
j
RESOLUTION 94-
RESOLUTION
4
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF A GAMBLING LICENSE
WHEREAS, the Monticello Lions Club has submitted an application to the City
Council of Monticello for issuance of a charitable gambling license to conduct
gambling at J. P.'s Annex located in Monticello, Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, upon review of the organization's activities, the Council is not opposed
to the gambling license being issued by the State Gambling Control Board, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the
Monticello Lions Club application for license issuance listed above is hereby approved,
and the State Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the application.
Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of July, 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator
9
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
14. Citv Council uodate•-old Fire Ball renovation for Motor Vehicle
Department.
This information will be presented Monday night.
i9
Council Agenda - 7/26/94
15. Consideration of appointing a replacement for UtWty BUlin4L Clerk/
Receptionist. (J.O.)
This information will be presented Monday night.
,2D
Council Agenda - 7/25/94
16. Consideration of advertising in Fall Parade of Homes booklet—
Suburban Northwest Builders Assn. (R.W.)
/;� 7 �1 �l �.��1 �[�a1:`►11]JTN �Zt7 i�1ii��+LP,
The city has again been contacted by the Elk River Star News, which
produces the Suburban Northwest Builders Association Parade of Homes
magazines, inquiring whether the city of Monticello would consider placing
an ad in their Fall Parade of Homes. While this Parade of Homes magazine
primarily services the Elk River area and Elk River builders, I believe Tony
Emmerich has advertised the Oak Ridge subdivision in the Spring Home
Preview and will likely do so in the Fall Parade also.
Sales Representative Peg Zoccoli has requested to be on the agenda to ask
for City Council support. While it appears that the magazine is starting to
target a larger area, I do not see any other ads placed by municipalities
such as Albertville, Rogers, Big Lake, etc. Generally speaking,
advertisements are placed by builders, suppliers, and other vendors
associated with home building and not necessarily by a municipality.
As you can see from the advertisement rate sheet, rates range from $199 for
a Wpage ad to $1,107 for a full-page advertisement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the placement of an ad, size to be determined by the
Council.
2. Do not place an ad at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, I am not convinced that the city of Monticello would benefit
from placing a municipal ad in the parade magazine. The primary targeted
area for this parade magazine is the Elk River vicinity, and I have not been
informed whether any local builders will even have a home on this parade.
Even if Mr. Emmerich has a home on the parade, I'm not sure if Cho city
would benefit from any type of advertisement since most other communities
do not advertise in the magazines.
1). SUPPORTING DATA;
Copy of advertising rates and letter from Peg Zoecoli
zI
tSUBUR13AN
SSTECMPRINTINGBUILDEROCACN
July 8, 1994
Dear Advertiser,
The 1994 Fall Home Preview is fast approaching us. This year's preview dates are September 10
through 25
ECM Publishing, Inc., Printing Division is proud to be publishing this magazine for the Suburban
Northwest Builders Association and will again he assisting in members' and others' marketing
needs.
This annual promotion excites the market and mak--s it aware of the many builders' model homes
and subcontractors. The association is expecting over 25 models to be featured in this publication.
The deadline for advertising is August 1st. I am contacting you now so you may arrange your 1994
budget and not miss your opportunity to advertise.
I have enclosed an advertising contract for your perusal plus a copy of the Spring Home Preview.
If you need any assistance with your ad please feel free to contact me.
,Cordially,
eg
Advertising Consultant
Elk River Star News/Shopper
ECM Publishers, Inc.
(6 12) 441-3500
Fax(612)441-6401
ox
EGM Publishing, IncJElk River Star News
Printing Division
649 Main Street, Elk River, MN 55330
441-3500 • Fax:441.6401
1994 Suburban Northwest Builders Association Fall Home Preview
September 10 through 25
AD1VERTISING AGREEMENT
ADVERTISING RATES
Members Non ,Members
1/8 page $173 $199
114 page $317 $366
112 page $577 $664
Full page $963 $1107
COVER $1750 $1850
DEADLINES
Space reservation deadline July 25,1994
Ad copy deadline August 1, 1994
ECM Publications Inc. is not responsible for any errors if copy is
not received by deadline. Proofs will be provided. Buyer must sign
approved copy of advertising.
PLACEMENT
All advertising in the magazine is on a first-come basis.
TERMS
Payment is due by September 30, 1994. Make checks payable to
ECM Publishing, Inc.
DISTRIBUTION 46,000 total distribution, 43,200 to the following areas: Elk River,
Rogers, Zimmerman, Big Lake, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove,
Osseo, Monticello, Dayton, Otsego, Ramsey, St Michael, Albertville.
2,000* to be distributed by the individual advertisers and Preview
of Homes registrants.
ADVERTISING AGREEMENT
ECM Publishers, Inc. agrees to produce the 1994 Suburban Northwest Fall Home Preview
magazine as described above.
Advertiser agrees to buy page advertising space at $ Advertiser
agrees to make payment by September 30, 1994,
Advertiser
Address
Phone/Fax
Advertiser Signature DatA
ECM Publishing, Incl
Elk River Star News Signature Dat-
Additional Items - 7/26/94
18. Citv Council update—Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet.
Please see attached items: Copy of letter from Rinke-Noonan, attorneys;
Copy of letter from Wright County Attorney; Copy of memo from Bret
Weiss, OSM; Copy of letter from Minnesota Department of Transportation..
.2,L
si1�'��l
■ RXXA MooNOW GROTE, SAIwLPY, DETER, CCLOMaO,
WANT. VON KORFF. DEGM)VANN7. AND ROfiLn Lto.
'Jmatrs AT LAW
poster* brand tatvwsmitW memo 7" 16COO�SO.�. a
1
�—_6`idfld
°"�"• -.7 I,4 '-S7o
�Var , wr l
SWM M mamma claret r a" 1497 St C,;—Y. vM SO =
(612) 257.67W
Far (672, 257.5174
July 5, 1994
Wright County Board of Commisaionsre ! d vn(w
c/o Wright County Auditor
vJ,�
Wright County Courthouse
Buffalo, i4; 55313
o. 41FdiW Noxa+
Re: Wright County Ditch 33
oKsuanG
Our Yile Ho. 10496.001
M7utaTA fir'
Dear Commissioners:
Kw7 w Dann
Pursuant to your appointment of no as the attorney for
&ionLCokwreo
the ditch committee for Wright County Ditch 33, 1 have
had an opportunity to meet with members of the ditch
umsuLMvn7
committee to discuss possible resolutions of the
_d w• ,m,K�
overloaded outlet of Wright County Ditch 33.
JAM-6AVOW,,w
On June 21, 1994, I had the opportunity to mast with
several persons concerned about this current condition of
swan r)6 4000
Wright County Ditch 33. As a result of that meatinq and
my review of notes of past meetings on Wright County
Ditch 33, it: is my opinion that the project to improve
the outlet of Wright County Ditch 3 3 should be pursued.
lona -A VOLW4
nar"MF pays
Kinnesota Stsatutes 103E.221 states that a County Board
has the autturity to petition its own motion for the
AVOW r AIS ^
improvement of an outlet.
jam J. axbcocA
In my opinion we have a unique situation on Wright County
Ditch 33 that leaves a shcr' amount of time in which the
JOA ,,.
County, the City of Montic4llo and the Minnesota
tA7. s. tarnr'
Department of Transportatic i might work together to
resolve a pro�lsm that conc.+rns all three entities. It
is my understanding that thu County Board has asked the
City of Montricello to take alternate, bids for a storm
mn vnrnc.
"war project that could be used to improve the outlet o!
Wright Country Ditch 33. Assuming that has boon done, it
is my auggesst:on on behalf of the ditch co=ittes that
.7.�.r....r..r
the County Sward petition On its own motion that the
outlet to wriciht County Ditch 33 needs to be improved.
;w.....�w�+.
Curr w
By simply ai.gning a petition to exp2wre the improvement
JLL ; 'Sa CS:01 05M MR -S. MM
Wright County Board of Commissioners
July 5, 1994
Page 2
of the outlet of Wright County Ditch 33, the County Board
does not in any way obligate itself to actually do the
improvement. It simply starts the process which is
needed immediately so that an opportunity with the City
of Monticello and possibly the Minnesota Department of
Transportation is not missed. I know the County Board
will have ocnaerns that the benefits exceed the cast
before proceeding with the actual project. The only way
to get to that point is for the petition to be, signed and
then immediately a meeting be set up with representatives
of the County, the ditch committee, the City of
Monticello and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. Technical assistants may also be
provided by the Soil and Water Conservation District. I
would ask that the County Board immediately sign a
petition for the improvement of the outlet of Wright
County Ditch 33 and than imeesdiataly arrange for a
meeting between the above entities. It was my
andarstanding from the Jun* 21st meeting that
representatives of the soil and Water Conservation
District are compiling the necessary technical and cost
analysis of a proposed project. It was the ditch
committee's hope that the City of Monticello will foal it
is, in their beat interest to share same of the costs,
that the Minnesota Department of Transportation may feel
it is in their best interest to share part of the cost to
avoid potential litigation and that any costs remaining
would be assessed against the benefited landowners on
Wright County Ditch 33. •I an not sure when your County
Board meets next to act an this request, but I an sending
a copy of ttis letter to Wyman Belson to keep him
appraised of the ditch committee's request. I don't kno%4
exactly who would arrange this meeting between the
entities, but it is imperative that this meeting be set
up as soon as possible so that this potential opportunity
for shared funding is not missed.
If'you have any questions or would like a apocific
presentation from me when you are going to consider this,
request, plea" contact me.
Very truly ,ours, tIECEiVED
OrrSi�816a�Ytayeran6A3S�c. �
nlxxs: ZeW Comm It
By A. Deter JUL 21 994
K=/=
cc: wym" Nelson
Bill Carlson
10496.001hl0703A.KAD
.*M wow "aim" Cm
7J
JUL-22-94 FRI 14: 38
pJNTw Oe
g6�� yr
?Y60
Wyman A. Nelmon
f .nlr Al—y
Thomas N. Kelly
Brian J. Antrann
rhu.l rh,a
WRIGHT COUNTY FAX N0. 61268261 78 P 01
Mr. Rick Wolfateller
City Adminietrator
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
WRIGHT COUNTY
Office of County Attormey
Wright ('ounty Government Center
10 N.W. 2nd Street
Ruffato. Minnesota 553131193
Phone: (612) 682-7340 Metra: (612)339-6 U1
Toff Free: 1-800.362.3667 Fax: 16121682-6178
MdAanb
A.- /- Mnh..y
M.. C. fj.
July 22, 1996 Kvh4rnA Mwd
Peon Y aa,d6,rp
R6: Meadow Oak Storm Sever Outlet
City Project No. 93-12C
OSM Project No. 5489.00
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
Wright County is interested in finding a possible solution to the outlet
for County Ditch 133. I do not believe that it would be possible to
obtain any type of a contribution from the Department of Transportation
and at the same time satisfy the procedural requirements of tho ditch
laws. We are hopeful that some accommodation could be made to allow for
the time requirements for ditch procedures.
This letter is merely to let you know that the county is interested in
working with you in any way posoible, but I cannot make any commitments
at this early date.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
�j�
Wyman A. Nelson
Wright county Attornoy
WAN: lyd
CC: Pat Savatake, Wright County Board of Commissioners
PoW.0- brand tai tranarnitw mans -Am s ul pmow r J'
w-jn7rw
jLL 22 '94 14:38 USM "LS. My
COUMM UPDATE
July 22, 1994
Adeadow Omit Storm Sewer project
City Project No. 93-120
From: Bret A. Weiss, PX.
City Engineer
Pb"" brand fax ward mw memo 7879 {"s 0.4- .
y�
I 154 "�17N".'1
r'.!M,,.ib C -
Imo" �-255-yyoy ►...
Mu project known as Meadow Oaks Storm Sewn Outlet was advertised in the appropriate,
;spent on July 21 and July 22, 1994 for the purposes of accepting bids from contractors on
August 12, 1494. It is anticipated that if acceptable bids are received, the contract will be
awarded on August 22,1994 for construction during the months of September and October
of this year. The project, as designed, includes a base alternative for controlling the
szormwater for the City of Monticello only and an alternative bid that prwsdea for
,additional rapacity to accommodate storwwwa from Wright County Ditch No, 33.
Following the July 11th Council Meeting, I sent a letter to Mn/DOT, Wright County and
Monticello Township, informing them of the C.auaeii's decision to authorize the project for
bid and requesting them to contact us with stave of the project from their respcc&n
organizations The following is an update based upon conversations; with each organir—d—
As is apparent ttom the attached letter from Jerry Kreutzer, Ma/DOT District 3.
Mn/DOT has catered into a contract with OSM to Complete a drainage an0fi s of
a portion of the Ditch 33 watershed that pertains to property controlled by Mn/DCIT,
This study is proposed to be completed by July 25th at whish time it will be delivered
to Mn/DOT and discussed with the appropriate personnel. The OSM Water
Resources Department has been completing the activities and has provided see with
spedfic unions for tho altemte bid design for a pipe size and depth that would be
able to be utilized for both Mn/DOT and county stormwater rumor It is my
undcnaand#tg that Mn/DOT has several options -at this time to deal with their water
independent of the County or try to work out an agreement between all of the
governing bodies. In ounvwwdan wads W. Kreutzer, it is my feeling that Mn/DOT
would be willing to cater into some type of agreement with the City of MoaaicaYo
to accept their water but is more imaesW in a king -term solution for this problem
and would rather have the other goveming bodies involved in any 690Aan that it
made. That being raid, Mr. Kreuter is not cowmed that agreemaaa with all
affected governmental traits could be completed in a manner adequate to meet with
the schedule for maastruction this year.
County
Upon receiving my letter, W. Pat Sawatd w and I had discussions regarding the
County, position, While Mr. Sawautica was not wmfontabk speaking for the entire
County Board, be did relay his opiadoat that the Cmc would not be tehle to
complete public hearliW and assesmnem bearings for the potential Caumya abase
y�OYaVeRY�1MNM.17cMIC
JLL 22 '94 1a:39 OSM MPLS• MN P.2
of tie bid alternate pro*c: until after the bid opening, lie also related that be telt
tbu as portions of the CSty developed along County Ditch 33, the City would bre
1 rewired to complete small slam spun pmjeeta, somewhat piece-mealigg a storm
1 sewer system together to deal 946 Ditch 33. Thaetora, be felt that the City of
Monticello may be more interested in participating thaw has been currently discussed
In addition, the County Board has appointed Kurt Deter of the Rinire-Noonan Isw
Tire to wive as the ancrsey dadkg with this Issue- In his letter to the County
Board that is attached, be now that the County Board does have the authority to
pedtiotn Its aura mutton for the improvement of an outlet This is in &ea conflict
with what we have heard from the County previously as to why they were not willing
to order a study of the improvement of the ditch. Mr. Deter has recommended that
the Wright County Board all a meeting of do entities involved in this pmom to
discuss the potential City of Monticello project. He it very adamant that he does not
want to miss this opportunity and bob that the County Board dxwId Whim the
li process as soon as pes -Ne Mr. Sswsmdra did mention to me that be would be
acting on this letter at tbdr board meeting on Tuesday, July 26tb. It does seem,
bow mew, that the Courcy will not be able to enter into a contract with the City of
1+lCntioello for the bid alternate iteral sometime after when the project is peoposed
to be awarded unless they are further encouraged,
Mmtlallo TawndLip
PrankUn Dern and I disauwd the possibilitiesof Monmiodlo Township catering into
an agreement with the (Sty out Monticello for payment of some of the charges
associated with the bid alternate. Franklin basically stated that he felt the project
was a county -initiated project and that the Township .would not be committing any
I dollars toward the projret at this time. He feels that there is ttuading or gtransa
available for thew types of projects from the state, bomwever, that would take sottt►e
time to arrange the fhadieg. He dw thinks that it would be two to get a
commitment from the gcwerning bodies with the short amount of time that the
Monticello project is dealing with. He feels that the situation needs some addiriona+l
time to work out the details. VA* regard to patying for additional street costs. be
stated that the Towaship Board thought that situetioa had been resolved in the
meeting previously with the City Staff and at this dme they are am willing to pay fax
additioml Costs. If we are intent on pasting the situatlos>, we should mnmet
Darlene Sawattke to arrange a time to attend one of the Township Board meetings
In s msoory, it appears that there b some interest in participating in the City of Monticello
project. however, no direct etammitttaents bava been made to date nor is them nay
that i< ilio project is held oft: a eammitment wfII be made u a later duo. To
prwMe some idea of what type of was we aro disco-"— the bid alternate is for a 604och
pipe which is an increase of S32 ZDD0 over the base project as proposed. A 344ad pipe its
app =mmssely 3252.000 and a 48inch pipe Is appreaimately f 197,000 more agenda than
the base bid aheraare. I have stated to the entities that the City of Monticello may be
Interested In baying those other organizations pay for a pordm of the but project alonS
with the amount over and above tint base bid alternate. If the project is not under
cotmoru tion on or around September L 1994. h is very uoOLO that the project could be,
completed ibis year. We 6) not at ft time have an agreement with Gene Bauer to udlime
his property, however, we feel that we have an ogre emem to corm that he is behind the'
project We have recently determined the wetland area according to the Soil Comervadom P
i1011aUMe00O\YN01�J11C �{
JLL 22 '94 14:40 OSM MPLS, MN
W.J
Viola for the Towmbip wbwb has iaeremod the ia= of the wetland area on the Gm
M= poperty and It is very passible that we may request the City to acquire the lead by
be title to ooatml the attire drainage atm Doe to aU of the uncu u : io*mng the
poman ky that the project costa mq be boa thea ai;laally anddp wd duo to the c imai
bidditog dim ac are sO feel that the project should be We this rima m the manner that
it is developed, In ad&don aro fol that a litre; should be seat from the City Council to
the appropeim parniog bodice regoatiag that Nt y provide a sponse to the Citi' prior
to Augmt ?2, 1994 as to whatber they wdil eout&ote to the addltimal paoJoet camfor the
Edd alternate If the Cm, --O would Uloe to Nd mc&a thanative alba tbaa the Win*
we feel that that ootid be added to the paeJea whbout delaft the proposed bid data Pal
Sawatrha did ante that it may be potttdhle io spm the Maodow Oat pond bWkbead if no
pomm waald be addm*uW]y Hooded dog DiUt U It do toe Use is closed ftmthe
Batter ptropaw ad the Batter's are acceptable to boidiag the water oa their property Lor
a tM this would tohro our sbosatmta c ntoorm. TW Bum% world aced to be
iodemoM ' at s0 tisbalky with this apioa 'Ibis optica seeds btrtbta `, bdore
we decide to delay the projat Aid I feel that d w Coomy AMM commk m deaUag with
the god= either by uAq w paopmW Wttem or nae developed elsewbae bdate we
o mw" Waytog the FOjOM
tog
JLL 22 '94 14:46 OSM "'LS, Mi
r JLL.22 '94 12:47PM MN DOT C0r6-rFJCTIOW 218 82B 6105 P.1 .4
Wrw4sft DeparWmt of.lF�ortegon
op T DrsM s'
1991 WuWW AL Rd
Baxter. Hinnesata 69r0t (218) 928,2460
.. SerYiCA.7hrougH b►dirrpuia Coi+a'x�7asrrt ., .
July 20, 1994
Brat Weiss
Ors, Sehelen, Mayeron a Assoc., Sno.
300 parx place Center
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MS1 95416-1328
In reply refer to: - »
Monticello Meadow oaks storm sewer outlet
Dear Bret,
Thank you for your letter or JUly 14, :994 out3L3aing the status
of the Monticello storm sever projeat. AA 4isewsed on June 9 in
Monticello at our taetLnf with Wright County ottioiels, MnDOT has
retained the services of Orr, sohelen, Kaysron a Aseeo., Inc.
(Can) to-do a drainage analysis an the segment Of I-94 that is in
the Wright county bitch 73 watershed. We expesct to receive a
draft analysis from OSK by July is, 1994. 2 do sat•ftxpect that
we will be able to provide information to the city council tar
their July 2s meeting, but I do want to assure you that MnDOT is
very committed to vorklm6 with the appropriate agencies to find a
long-term solution.
It doesnOt appear, at this time, that Mn= V&21 be able to
analyze the various alternetiveo and impacts to seat the present
project timeline for the City of Monticello. Z will call you as
soon as we have had a dance to anslyse the aL terZativos. Thanks,
to you and the city or Monticello for your assistance on this
issue.
tiinoersly,
Gerald 1Cteuttar
Asst. Dist. Engineer — construction
Cal
Dan Raisanan - Baxter
hick .7►rnabeck - at. Claud
Dave Halvorson/John Boynton - U.S. ato
Gary Diriam/Lori van"rbidar - santar
Pat schwartske • bright County COmsllesionOr
• ,w err oar+arfb 81"ANO v
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
06/30/94 12:51:04
.ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36944 06/29/94 U.S. POSTMASTER
36945 06/29/94 SAFELITE AUTO GLASS
36946 06/29/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
36947 06/29/94 I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT
36948 06/29/94 YAGER/ELDON
36949 06/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
36950 06/29/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement •Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL/
210 CITY HALL POSTAGE 1,500.00
.90352 NEW WINDSHIELD/NATER 218.48
221 C.D./INVESTMENTS 850,000.00
Be PAYROLL DEDUCTION/RIC 103.31
.90353 TREE REPLACEMENT PROGRM 9.00
116 WATERCRAFT TITLE 236.00
118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 870.00
TOTAL 852,936.79
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/0 2/94 12:59:52
WARRANT GATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36951 07/05/94 ADAM' S PEST CONTROL
369 52 07/05/94 AFFORDABLE SANITATIO
369 53 07/05/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE
36954 07/05/94 ANDERSON/OONNA
369 55 07/05/94 CELLULAR 200C OF ST
369 55 07/05/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
369 55 07/05/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF $T
36956 07/05/94 OYNA SYSTEMS
36951 07/05/94 ELECTRO -MECHANICAL I
36958 0)/05/94 FAIR'S GARDEN CENTER
36959 07/05/94 FIRST TRUST CENTER
36960 0)/05/94 HATCH -PETERSON SALES
36960 07/05/94 HATCH -PETERSON SALES
36961 07/05/94 HERMES/JERRY
36962 07/05/94 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC
36963 07/05/94 LIGHTING PLUS
36964 07/05/94 LITTLE MOUNTAIN FLOW
36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
36965 07/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
36966 07/05/94 MAPLE LAKE LUMBER CO
36967 07/05/94 MARCO BUSINESS PROOU
36968 07/05/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
36969 07/05/94 MONTICELLO COMMUNITY
36970 0)/05/94 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI
Di2bur,em>nt Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ,
3 PEST CONTROL/LIBRAR Y 46.80
802 LATRINE RENTAL/PARK S 58.58
10 PA1NT/STREET DEPT 126.72
90356 REIMB/PAINT FOR REN TAL 7 2. 13
794 CAR PHONE CHGS/C OE FE 106.49
794 CAR PHONE CHGS/WATER 10.47
794 CAR PHONE CHGS/PW I NS 126.57
243.53
50 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPL_ IE 467.42
817 400 AMP SWITCH/WATE 3, 18 1 .16
55 TREE REPLACEMENT/ST 1,710.00
58 1984 GO BOND FEES 646.25
94 STREET SUPPLIES/CONES 345.90
94 HARD HATS & VESTS/STR 142.12
488.02 '
81 LIBRARY CONTRACT PVMT 227.50
85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 61.49
782 LIGHTS/SENIOR CIT BLD 137.00
566 KEN MAUS PARTY SUPPLIE 1 1.72
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 72.93
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 24.31
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 24.31
327 MILEAGE EXPENSE 24.30
145.85
904 SENIOR CITIZENS REMOD 140.30
106 TYPEWRITER MTC 175.00
185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00
320 COMM EO REC PROGRA 11.500.00
139 JULY MONTHLY CONTRA 2,833.33
BRC FINANCIAL SY, TEM
07/03/94 12:59:52
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATE'S P --WE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36971 07/05/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
36972 07/05/94 NORWEST BANK MINNESO
36972 07/05/94 NORWEST BANK MINNESO
36973 07/05/94 PASSEL/HOWARD S
36974 01/05/94 PETTY CASH
36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH
36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH
36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH
36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH
36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH
36974 07/05/94 PETTY CASH
36975 07/05/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION
36975 07/05/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION
36975 07/05/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION
36976 07/05/94 RIGDEWAY/JENNIFER
36976 07/05/94 RIGDEWAY/JENNIFER
36977 07/05/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
36911 01/05/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
36978 07/05/94 SCHARSER 8 SONS, INC
36979 07/05/94 SHELTON COMPANY
0 i;o urs5rn?nt Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
148 UTILITIES 3,655.74
148 UTILITIES 293.58
148 UTILITIES 4,546.77
148 UTILITIES 80.82
148 UTILITIES 645.91
148 UTILITIES 14.14
148 UTILITIES 4?7.15
148 UTILITIES 235.13
148 UTILITIES 585.41
148 UTILITIES 916.29
11,400.94
154 GO BOND INTEREST/11 8,492.50
154 PAYING FEES/11-1-77 8 200.00
8,692.50
90355 VEH DAMAGE REIMB/STRE 188.74
166 POSTAGE REIMS 14.90
166 POSTAGE REIMB/WATER DEP 8.42
166 POSTAGE REIMS/SEWER 3.75
166 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 44.88
166 TRAVEL REIMB/J SIMOLA 6.70
166 JUNK AMNESTY DAY SUP 7.50
166 TRAVEL REIMS/GARY A 5.00
91.15
179 MISC COMPUTER SUP/C HA 11.42
179 BOOK CART/FINANCE 110.33
119 MISC OFFICE SUP/C HALL 23.46
145.21
158 INFO CENTER SALARY 183.65
759 INFO CENTER SALARY 53.75CR
129.90
22) MTC OF VEHICLES/STREETS 4.20
227 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 24.96
29.16
229 MTC OF EQUIPMENT/STREE 94.40
269 RECYCLING SCANNER TIPS 49.10
36980
07/05/94
SIMONSON
LUMBER
COMP
193
PARK
FURNITURE
323.49
36980
07/05/94
SIMONSON
LUMBER
COMP
193
MISC
SUPPLIES/SEWER
0.02
36980
07/05/94
SIMONSON
LUMBER
COMP
193
MISC
SUPPLIES/PARKS
73.41
36980
07/05/94
S I M 0 N S 0 N
LUMBER
COMP
193
MISC
SUPPLIES/STREET
6.33
` 36980
07/05/94
SIMONSON
LUMBER
COMP
193
SMALL
TOOLS/STREETS
28.55
36930
07/05/94
S I M 0 N S 0 N
L U M 8 E R
COMP
193
KRAMER
RENTAL REPAIRS
9.34
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/02/94 12:59:52
WAR kANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36 980 07/05/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
36981 07/05/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO.
36 981 07/05/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO.
36 981 07/05/94 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO.
36 982 07/05/94 TRUEMAN-WELTERS. INC
36983 07/05/94 UNITED LABORATORIES
36 984
07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL
SERVIC
36984
07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL
SERVIC
36 984
07/05/94 UNI TOG RENTAL
SERVIC
36984
07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL
SERVIC
36 984
07/05/94 UNI TOG RENTAL
SERVIC
36 984
07/05/94 UNITOG RENTAL
SERVIC
36985 07/05/94 WRIGHT COUNTY MAYOR`
36986 07/05/94 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT '
193
SENIOR CITIZEN REMODE
206.43
647.57
498
STREET SUPPLIES
66.57
498
SAFETY GLASSES/STREETS
43.98
496
PARK SUPPLIES
205.16
315.71
207
EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STR
29.33
634
CLEANING SUP/PARKS
114.26
211
UNIFORM RENTAL
13.64
211
UNIFORM RENTAL
27.28
211
UNIFORM RENTAL
12.80
211
UNIFORM RENTAL
12.80
211
UNIFORM RENTAL
59.39
211
UNIFORM RENTAL
59.39
185.30
220 MAYORS DUES 150.00
$12 UTILITIES 9.00
TOTAL 51,694.57
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/13/94 14:13:26
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36939 07/12/94 RENNER & SONS INC./E
36939 07/12/94 RENNER & SONS INC./E
A.- ... VI: .917
36945 07/12/94 SAFE LITE AUTO .90
36945 07/12/94 SAFE LITE AUTO .90
36987 07/12/94 D & K REFUSE RECYCLI
36988 07/12/94 MONTICELLO DEPUTY RE
36989 07/12/94 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
36990 07/12/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
36991 07/12/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl
181 CHECK VOIDED 290.0OCR
101 CHECK VOIDED 40.000R
320.00:!,
;•;) .•)kFi;[,I' ,:;iifNG 218.48CR
352 CORRECT CODING 109.24
352 CORRECT CODING 109.24
0.00 *CF
611 RECYCLING CONTRACT 2,571.53
134 REG & TAX/NEW SNOW 2,397.54
254 RECORDING FEES 20.00
118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 333.00
118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,103.00
TOTAL 6,195.07
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/13/94 14:11:27
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
36992 07/13/94 A T d T INFO SYSTEMS
36993 07/13/91 AME GROUP
36994 07/13/94 AROPLAX CORPORATION
36995 07/13/94 BIG LAKE LUMBER
36995 07/13/94 BIG LAKE LUMBER
3699S 07/13/94 BIG LAKE LUMBER
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWAT ER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
38996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWAT ER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIDGEWAT ER TELEPHON
36996 07/13/94 BRIOGEWATER TELEPHON
36997 07/13/94 COPY DUPLCATING PROD
36998 07/13/94 CULLIGAN
36999 07/13/94 DOUBLE D ELECTRIC
36999 07/13/94 DOUBLE 0 ELECTRIC
31000 07/13/94 ECM PUBLISHERS, INC.
37001 07/13/94 GOPHER STATE ONE CAL
31002 07/13/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC
37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O
37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O
37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O
37007 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O
37003 07/13/94 MINNEGASC O
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C!
15 FIRE PHONE CHARGES 27.60
8 IMPROVEMENTS/PARKS 1,179.35
701 SCERG REPAYMENT 4,936.86
316 CREDIT/MERCHANOIS£ RET
81.58CR
316 PICNIC TABLES/DARKS
460.52
316 KRAMER RENTAL REPAIRS
76.18
455.12
24 PHONE CHARGES
63.67
24 PHONE CHARGES
60.54
24 PHONE CHARGES
115.20
24 PHONE CHARGES
32.13
24 PHONE CHARGES
246.78
24 PHONE CHARGES
45.00
24 PHONE CHARGES
20.75
24 PHONE CHARGES
114.99
24 PHONE CHARGES
3S.97
24 PHONE CHARGES
685.85
1,421.76
41 LIBRARY COPY MCH MTC
50.40
153 WATER SOFTNER RENTAL C 23.11
805 BALLFIELO S/ELECTRIC S
255.00
SOS SENIOR CITIZENS REMODE
42.70
297.70
619 AO/DEP REG HELP
40.00
69 PROF SERVICES/WATER 0
260.00
101 LAWN MIX/PARKS
183.32
772 UTILITIES
15.59
172 UTILITIES
7.31
772 UTILITIES
21.54
772 UTILITIES
20.03
772 UTILITIES
35.08
99.54
370 n4 0;,'t #%'!A rar • .I >
37005 07/13/9# MN PLANNING ASSOCIAT 360 MEMBERSHIP DUES/GARY S2.SO
scr
•C.
&C,
sC
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/13/94 14:11:27
dARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37006 07/13/94 MONTICELLO ATHLETIC
37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK
37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK
37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK
37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK
31007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK
37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK
37001 01/13/94 PAGE LINK
37007 07/13/94 PAGE LINK
37006 07/13/94 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN
37009 07/13/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
37009 07/13/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
37010 07/13/94 WRIGHT COUNTY JOURNA
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
90356 TREE REPLACMENT/STR 1,000.00
103
PAGER
CHARGES
67.60
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER
CHARGES
24.50
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
103
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
219.90 *C
319 MOWING CHARGES 1,142.50
S24 GARBAGE CONTRACT PY 9,437.52
524 SALES TAX 607.56
10,065.08 *C
233 DEP REG AD/HELP WANTED 55.60
TOTAL 23,541.76
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/15/94 08:06 :20
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37011 07/1S/94 R. P. UTILITIES
37012 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37013 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37014 01/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37014 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37014 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37014 07/15/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37015 07/15/94 A.E. MICHAELS
37015 07/15/94 A.E. MICHAELS
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
37016 07/15/94 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
3 70 17 07/15/94 ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMEN
37018 07/15/94 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT
3 70 19 07/15/94 ASSOCIATED VETERINAR
37020 07/15/ 94 BECKER FURNITURE WOR
37020 07/15/94 BECKER FURNITURE WOR
37021 07/15/94 BOYER
37022 07/15/94 BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIO
37022 07/15/94 BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIO
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
821 CONST COSTS/C HIL 201,066.32
118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 100.00
118 WATER & SNOW REG 820.00
119 SALES TAX ADJ 0.45CR
119 SALES TAX/2ND QTR 59.17
119 SALES TAX/MATER/2ND Q 685.84
119 SALES TAX/TREE/2ND QTR 37.44
702.00
338 PAINT/KRAMER RENTAL HS 79.90
338 MTC OF PARK BLOS 323.47
403.37
7 INTRST/92 FIRE HALL 7,325.00
7 INTRST/TIF 90A KMA 14,247.50
7 INTRST/89-1.2-3- 80 5.192.50
7 INTRST/90B GO 8 15,287.50
7 INTRST/TIF NAWCO 00 3,117.50
7 INTRST/TIF CONSTR 5 7,365.00
7 INTRST/TIF VEIT BO 11.697.SO
7 INTRST/86-1 BOND 9,510.00
7 INTRST/INTERCEPTOR 24,072.50
7 INTRST/88 WATER SY 29,356.25
7 INTRST/98-I,1B,2 G 43.986.25
7 INTRST/TIF ELDERLY 10,697.50
7 INTRST/90C (SANDBER 6,920.00
7 INTRST/TIF 900 REM 10,032.50
7 INTRST/91A-1-2-3 G 10,191.25
7 INTRST/92A C HILLS 16,202.50
227,001.25
722 ANIMAL SUPPLIES 210.28
400 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 42.00
683 ANIMAL SUPPLIES 73.90
C
[h1•
692 CARPET CLEAN/KRAMER H 196.75
692 CARPET CLEAN/FIRE HAL 213.75
410.50
406 NEW SNOWPLOW TRUCK 38,439.00
638 ENG FEES/CHILLS 4T 4,183.04
638 ENG FEES/EASTWOOD K 1,859.70 1
6.022.74
a.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/15/94 08:06:20
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37023 07/15/94 CAMPBELL ABSTRACT CO
37024 07/15/94 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT
37025 07/15/94 COMMUNICATION AUDITO
37026 07/15/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
37027 07/15194 GARTNER'S OFFICE PRO
37028 07/15/94 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE
37029 07/15/94 GOLDEN VALLEY FURNIT
37030 07/15/94 GRUYS BORDEN CARLS
3 703 1 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
3 703 1 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37031 07/15/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37032 07/!5/94 HERMES/JERRY
37033 07/15/94 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN
37034 07/15/94 KRAMB£R & ASSOCIATES
37035 07/15/94 M & P TRANSPORT, INC
37036 07/15/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
37036 07/15/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS
37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS
37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS
37037 07/15/94 MAUS FOODS
37038 07/15/94 MCDOWALL COMPANY
37039 07/15/94 METRO SALES INCORPOR
37039 07/15/94 METRO SALES INCORPOR
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C'
28 EASTWOOD KNOLL PROF S 259.00
822 CMIF GRANT PAYMENT 1,100.21
38 PAGER REPAIR/FIRE DEPT 76.44
56 MISC PROF SERVICES 60.00
377 KEN MAUS PARTY SUPPLIE 14.93
64 DOLLY USE/LIBRARY 9.00
720 CARPET/KRAMER RENTAL 503.75
74 AUDIT SERVICES 12.450.00
78 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 8.24
78 SMALL TOOLS/STREET DEPT 8.29
78 MISC SUPPLIES/STREETS 14.99
78 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 25.23
78 MISC SUPPLIES/SHOP & G 16.77
78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 4.91
78.43
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
697 PROF SERV/ANIMAL CONTR 95.86
688 JULY ASSESSING PYMT 1,245.83
265 SAND/PARKS 257.34
221 C C/CHEMICAL BANK 176,000.00
221 C 0 WIRE CHARGES 15.00
176,015.00
108 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 116.71
108 ANIMAL CONTROL SUPPLIE 31.95
108 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 71.32
108 PW INSPECTION SUPPLIES 10.75
230.73
111 ICE MCN REPAIR/SHOP 432.94
819 NEW FAX MACHINE/C H 2,974.55
619 TONER/CITY HALL FAX 208.18
3,192.73
M
M
BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/15/94 09:0 6:20
Oisbursement Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
C
GENERAL
CHECKING
37040
07/15/94
MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL SU
114
EQUIP REPA ZR PARTS/ST 175.18
37041
07/15/91,
MN CITY MANAGEMENT A
230
MEMBERSHIP DUES/RICK W 60.00
37042
07/15/94
MONTICELLO ANIMAL C0
185
ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00
37043
07/15/94
MONTICELLO PRINTING
137
BLD DEPART PERMITS, E 217.69
37043
07/15/94
MONTICELLO PRINTING
137
INCIDENT REPORTS/FIRE 37.54
255.23
+C
37044
07/15/94
MOON MOTOR SALES, IN
142
EQUIP REPAIR/TREE DEPT 69.48
37044
07/15/94
MOON MOTOR SALES, IN
142
STRING TRI MMER/PARKS 307.79
37044
07/15/94
MOON MOTOR SALES, IN
142
EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/PA 137.28
37044
07/15/94
MOON MOTOR SALES, IN
142
MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS 9.56
524.11
*i
37045
07/15/94
NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS
550
MISC PROF SER/PLAN & 703.00
37046
07/15/94
OLSON, USSET,AGAN &
292
PROF SERVI CES/E CON DE 209.25
37046
07/15/94
OLSON, USSET,AGAN &
292
PROF SERV ICES/ECON OE 209.25
37046
07/15/94
OLSON, USSET,AGAN &
292
LEGAL FEES/HRA DEVELO 985.00
1,403.50
37047
07/15/94
PLUMB£RY-PURCELL'S P
251
KRAMER RENTAL REPAIRS 50.01
37047
07/15/ 94
PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P
251
EQUIP REPAIR. PARTS/STR 22.26
72.27
37048
07/15/ 94
PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
173
FIRE HALL CLEANING PYM 50.00
37048
07/15/ 94
PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
173
CITY HALL CLEANING PY 400.00
450.00
37049
07/15/ 94
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
175
WWTP CONTRACT PYMT 31,840.50
37050
07/15/94
R.A.K. INDUSTRIES
648
RAINSUIT/ MATER DEPT 61.87
37050
07/15/94
R.A.K. INOUSTRIES
649
RAINSUIT/ SEWER DEPT 61.87
123.74
37051
07/15/94
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
184
SHOP & GAR MTC AGRMT 65.50
37052
07/15/94
SCHWAAB, INC.
684
OEP REG STAMP 22.75
37053
07/15/94
STATE OF MINNESOTA
404
ENERGY CODE BOOK/BLD 111.47
37054
07/15/94
VIKING COCA COLA
778
POP PURCHASE/CONCESSI 104.55
37055
07/15/94
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
219
SCERG GRANT PYMT 2;760.51
37055
07/15/84
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
219
SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 23,322.33
37055
07/15/94
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
218
ADO'L LANDFILL CHAR 8,158.50
34,241.34
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/15/94 08:06:20
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37056 07/15/94 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
224 MONTHLY CONTRACT PYMT 625.00
TOTAL 741,369.09
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
06/29/94
16:05:03
Disbursement
Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENOOR
OESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
LIQUOR FUND
17583
06/30/94
BkIDGEWATEk TEL EPHON
800002
TELEPHONE CHARGES
110.95
17584
06/30/94
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
800037
LIQUOR PURCHASE
414.05
17564
06/30/94
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
800037
WINE P9RCHASE
473 .99
888.04 '
17585
06/30/94
U S WEST COMMUNICATI
800093
ADVERTISING
26.10
17586
06/30/94
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2,334.01
17586
06/30/94
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
WINE PURCHASE
71 1 .79
3,045.80 '
1)581
06/30/94
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
WINE PURCHASE
1,086.69
17588
06/30/94
C,ROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I
800019
BEER PUCHASE
15,915.60
17589
06/30/94
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1800019
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
5 1.00
15,966.60
17589
06/30/94
MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
800053
PURCHASE C.D.
98,304.25
17589
06/30/94
MARQUETTE BANK MONTI
800053
WIRE CHARGES/C 0
7.50
98.31 1 •75
17590
06/30/94
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800018
LIQUOR PURCHAS
4,16 1.23
17590
06/30/94
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800018
WINE PURCHASE
172.16
17590
06/30/94
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800018
MIX FOR RESALE
125.57
4,459.56 '
17591
06/30/94
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
WINE PURCHASE
59 7.89
17591
06/30/94
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
818.35
1,416.24 '
1)592
06/30/94
MCDOWALL COMPANY
800065
REPAIR EQUIPMENT
205.50
17593
06/30/94
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
800037
MIX FOR RESALE
21 6.15
17593
06/30/94
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
800037
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1,463.29
1,679.44 '
17594
06/30/94
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
494.90
11581
06/30/94
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
WINE PURCHASE
41 0.04
904.84 '
17595
06/30/94
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800018
LIQUOR PURCHASE
3,382.43
17596
06/30/94
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
MIX FOR RESALE
84.74
17596
06/30/94
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
WINE PURCHASE
?4.99
159.73
17597
06/30/94
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
800037
WINE PURCHASE
609.98
17597
06/30/94
PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E
800037
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1,581.59
2, 191.57 '
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
06/29/94 16:05:03
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
LIQUOR FUND
17598 06/30/94 PAUSTIS & SONS
17598 06/30/94 PAUSTIS & SONS
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT J
800103 WINE PURCHASE
800!03 BEER PURCHASE
17599 06/30/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE
17600 06/30/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 BEER PURCHASE
17600 06/30/94 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 ICE PACKS
LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL
100.50
111.50
212.00
3 71. 96
11,045.80
85.00
11,130.80
145,550.00
BkC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/02/94 10:29:41 Oisbtirsement JournAI
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRI PTION AMOUNT
LIQUOR FUND
17601 07/05/94 BERNICK', PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE/JUNE 251 .60
17602 07/05/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 OVERPAYMENT IN MAY 12.50CR
17602 07/05/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 NON ALCOHOLIC BEEF/JUN 37.70
17602 07/05/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 BEER PURCHASE/JUNE 564 .30
609.50
17603 07/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 800011 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 42.60
17603 07/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 800011 BEER PURCHASE/JUNE 3,701.55
17603 07/05/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER/JUN 95.20
3.839.35
17 604 07/05/94 FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 BAGS. ETC/SUPPLIES/JUN 206.32
17604 07/05/94 FLESCH'S PAPER.. SEkVI 800116 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 18.06
3 14.36
17605 07/05/94 G & K SERVICE 800129 MTC OF BLD/RUGS/JUNE 62.07
17 606 07/05/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE/JUN 1,064.57
17606 07/05/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHAS/JUNE 75.64
17606 07/05/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHAS/JULY 667.01
1,807.22
17607 07/05/94 HOME JUICE 800136 JUICE PURCHASE/JUNE 49. 35
17608 07/05/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE/JUNE 521.93
17608 07/05/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE/JUNE 402.97
1,014.90
17609 07/05/94 •JUOE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 GIGS/CIGARS/JUNE 71.86
17609 07/05/94 JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 129.60
201,46
17610 07/05/94 MCDOWALL COMPANY 800065 AIR CONDITIONER REP/J 266.36
17611 07/05/94 MN BAR SUPPLY 800130 COOLE RS FOR RESALE/JU 195.12
17612 07/05/94 NORTHER14 STATES POWE 800035 UTILI TIES/JUNE 1.239.62
17613 07/05/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE/JUN 2,173.60
17614 07/05/94 BON'S ICE COMPANY 800041 ICE P URCHASE/JUNE 1,375.54
17615 07/05/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 ITEMS FOR RESALE/JUNE 190.31
17615 07/05/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 JUICE FOR RESALE/JUNE 20.20
17615 07/05/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 LIQUOR STORE SUP/JUNE 66. 70
27 7.27
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/02/94 10:29:41
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUN'
LIQ U'0 R' FUND
17616 07/05/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER/JU 279.55
17616 07/05/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE/JUNE 24,877.30
25,156.85
17617 07/05/94 TWIN CITIES FLAG SOU 800049 FLAG, REPAIR/.JUNE 74.20
17618 07/05/94 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE/JUNE 453.10
17619 07/05/94 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 800054 MEDICAL SUP/JUNE 26.09
LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 39,387.60
BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
07/13/94 14: 12:31 Disbursement Journal
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
LIQUOR FUND
17620 07/13/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800002 PHONE CHARGES
105.52
11621 07/13/94 CONSOLIDATED COMM DI 800163 ADVERTISING
39.25
17622 07/13/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 JUICE FOR RESALE
12.50
17622 01/13/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 N40NALC OHOLIC BEER
354.75
17622 07/13/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 BEER PURCHASE 19,301.70
19,668.95
17623 0)/ 13/ 94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 J ULY MIX PURCHASE
25 1.56
17624 01/13/94 GRIGGS, COOPER 4 COM 800018 J ULY LIQUOR PURCHAS
1,648.02
17624 07/13/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 JULY MIX FOR RESALE
122.62
17624 07/13/94 GRIGGS, COOPER d COM 900018 JULY VINE PURCHASE
941.95
2,71 2.59
17625 07/13/ 94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 600022 JULY LIQUOR PURCHASE
43.34
17625 07/13/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 MAY WINE PURCHASE
483.94
11625 07/13/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 900022 MAY BEER PURCHASE
113.93
616 1.21
11626 01/13/94 LIEFERT TRUCKING 800025 JUNE FREIGHT CHARGES
578.43
17627 07/13/S4 MINNEGASCO 800160 UTILITIES
13.17
17628 07/13/94 MN BAR SUPPLY 800130 JUNE MISC ITEMS FOR
SA 61.20
17629 07/13/ 94 MN MUNICIPAL BEVERAG 800029 MEMBERSHIP DUES
378.00
17630 01/13/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 800032 ADVERTISING
102.80
17631 07/13/94 PHILLIPS & SONS CO/E 600037 JULY LIQUOR PURCHAS
2,888.80
17831 01/13/ 94 PHILLIPS 8 SONS CO/E 800031 JUNE LIQUOR PURCHAS
1,783.99
4,672.59
17632 01/13/04 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS 800048 MAY PURCHASE/ SHELVES 153.30
17632 0)/13/94 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS 600046 JULY PURCHASE/SHELVES
20).82
9461.12
17633 07/13/94 U S WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 JUNE ADVERTISING
26.10
LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 30,212.49
sr,
• fJ
•CF
a
COUNCIL AGENDA
JULY 25, 1994
19. Consideration to adopt a resolution calling for a public
hearing for the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for
Re.cleveJoument Pro'iect No. 1, mudification (if the TIF Plans for
TIF D.istrJuL l4or.. 1 I tc; i lb, and the adoption of the TIF
Plan for TIF D.istr.ict Nu. 1-17. O.K.
Reference and Background:
Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 1-17, an eleven -year
Economic District, is being created for Fay -Mar Metal
Fabricators, Inc. The Private Redevelopment Contract,
prepared by Holmes & Graven, is between the IiRA and Ronald S.
Musich, a single person. Minimum improvements include the
constru-,tion of a 15,000 sq ft precast office/production
facility on approximately 3 acres within the Monticello
Commerce Cooter (eaitt of Suburban Manufacturing.) The fruut-•
tip TIF assistance of $50,000 will write-down the land cost for
the property described as "Three Acres located in the
Northwe-st Quarter of the North Ralf of Section 13, Township
121, Range 25, Monticello, Wright County." Immediate job
creation of 17 with projection of an additional B-13 jobs
Within two years. Minimum estimated market value (EMV) for
the land and building Is $400,000.
0n July 1, 1994, copies of the TIF Plan for TIF District No,
1-17 were distributed to the school, county, and hospital
districts. On July 6, the RRA adopted the resolution relating
to TIF No. 1-17 and requesting the City Council call for a
public hearing. The 11RA will hold a public hearing on the
acquisitlon and disposition of raw lands on August 3. The
nate and building plan review, nod committment for financing
through a local lending Institution and the Small Business
Admliti:stration (SBA) are in process.
At this time, the City Council is asked to adopt the enclosed
resolution calling for a public hearing on Monday, August B,
1904 at approximately 7:00 p.m.
Alternative Action.
11 A motion to adopt the enclosed resolution calling for a
I3,ibiic hearing on August B, 1994 for TIF District No. i-
17,
A motion to deny the adoption of the enclosed reoolutlon
cnlling for a pnhlic hearing on August B.
A motion to table any action.
rage 1
COUNCIL AGENDA
JULY 25, 1994
Staff Recommendation.
As the project development plans are on schedule, staff
recommends Alternative Action No. 1.
Supporting Data.
Copy of the resolution for adoption.
Paye 2
Councilmember introduced the following resolution,
the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its
adoption:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. —
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-16
AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-17,
ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows;
Section 1. R,bl--!S— Hearrim, This Council shall meet on August 8. 1994,
at approximately 7:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a)
the proposed modification, by increased project coats and enlarged geographic
area, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (the "Authority")
Redevelopment Project No. 1; (b) the proposed modification, by increased project
costa, of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-16, located within
Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the establlahment of Tax Inurement Financing
District No. 1-17, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (d) the proposed
adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Pian for Redevelopment Project No. 1;
(e) the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax Increment Pinancing Plans for Tax
Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1.16 (f) the proposed adoption of
the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17,
all pursuant to and in accordance with Mlnnesom Stamwa, Sections 469.001 to
469.047, Inclusive, as amended. and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, Inclusive, es
amended.
Section 2. Notiim of HANIng: Filing of Emgmm. The City Administrator
is authorized ad directed to cause notice of hearing, substantially in the form
attacW hereto as Bxhihit A. to be given as required by law, to glace a oapy of
the proposed. Modified RedevelopumW Plan. Modified Tax Increment Financing
Pians and Tax Increzuent Financing Plan on file in the Adminstrator's office at
City hall and to make rich copy available for inspection by the public no later
than July 23. 1994.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing rewha wn was duty seconded
by Councilmembet , and upon vo u being intent thereon. the
following voted in favor ftmf
And the follovAq voted against the same:
Whereapan said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the
Council in and for the City of Monticello. MWaeaottt, on . 1994.
May"
ATTW:
STATE OF hUNNESOTA )
aa.
CITY OF MONTICELLO )
I, the undersigned, being the dLdy qwfifwd and acting Administrator of the
City Council (the 'Council') in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, DO
HEMY CERTIFY that I have camfauy compared the attached and foregoing
wttract of minutes of a meeting of the Council held on the date indicated with the
original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the same is a full, true and
correct transcript thereof insofar as said minutes relate to Resohuion No.
WITNESS my hand of&Wly and the official seal of the Council this _
day of 1994.
City Administrator
7/25/94
Dear Mayor and Council members:
Please let this letter serve as my notice of resignation of my council
seat effective immediately. This resignation has nothing to do with
place of residency or question of it. I owe an explanation to the public
who elected me into this office; that letter will be published in the
next addition of the newsletter published by the City of Monticello.
In respect to me, I would appreciate if any questions by the Monticello
Times are either referred to me or a "no comment" is given. In the
past I (obviously) have had problems with them. I would appreciate
your cooperation in this matter since there are still some issues
concerning me which are unresolved.
Thank you.
Sin
Patty Olsen
Council member