City Council Agenda Packet 10-24-1994MIIVUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCII.
Monday, October 10, 1994 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan
Blonigen
Members Absent: None
ADnreval of minutes of the reeular meetine held September 26. 1994.
Councilmember Blonigen stated that at the September 26 Council meeting,
he was unable to hear a portion of the discussion on item #6 relating to
amending the zoning map from a combination of R'1 and Agricultural
zoning to a combination of R^1, R-2, B-3, and PZM zoning districts for the
proposed River Mill subdivision: consequently; he unintentionally voted for
approval of the rezoning request, when, in fact, he was opposed to the
density of the proposed R-2 zoning.
City Attorney Paul Weingarden explained to Council that it would not be
proper to discuss a change of vote without the applicant present. He noted
he would like to research the subject of amending a vote from a previous
meeting and report back to Council at their next meeting. It was
Weingarden's suggestion that Council approve the minutes of September 26
excluding items 6-9 relating to the River Mill subdivision until after
Weingarden informs Council on the proper procedure to handle this
situation. Weingarden also noted that public hearing notices should be
reissued if this subject is again opened for discussion.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 26,
1994, excluding items 6-9 relating to the River NEU subdivision until
Council receives a report from the City Attorney on whether or not the
subject may again be opened for discussion. Voting in favor of the motion:
Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Shirley Anderson,
Warren Smith. It was the view of Councihnembers Anderson and Smith
that the minutes should be accepted in their entirety, as it is an accurate
account of the meeting. Motion passed.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded
by Dan Blonigen to direct the City Attorney to research the procedure for
reopening discussion relating to a vote on an amendment to the rezoning
map. Voting in favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen, Brad Fyle.
Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Councilmembers Anderson and
Smith were opposed to the idea of reopening discussion of this matter two
Page 1 0
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
weeks after the original vote, as it was their view that it would be unfair to
the applicant to reopen the vote and set a precedent for allowing votes to be
reopened. Motion passed.
Consideration of addine items to the aeenda.
No items were added.
Citizens cwmments/oetitions. reouests. and comoWnts.
Duane Gates, Community Education Director for the Monticello
School District, presented the participation summary for the summer
recreation program as requested by Council and noted that the Parks
Commission is also reviewing the summary. No action was taken by
Council at this time.
B. Glen Posusta requested that Dundas Road be put on a maintenance
schedule, as the road needs to be graded on a regular basis to avoid a
washboard effect. He noted that this is the only access to his mini -
storage business located on Dundas Road.
Street Superintendent Roger Mack noted that Dundas Road has been
graded at least once a month in the past. Public Works Director John
Simola stated that they will make an attempt to handle the situation
with Dundas Road and that Posusta can notify the public works
department anytime he feels the road needs additional maintenance.
Considerption of amendmen4 to the zonine ordinance establighine zoning
district designation entitled "Public agd Semi -Public Lfses (PS)". APolicant,
Monticello Planning Commission. AND
Considefption of amendments tp the Monticello Comprehensive PlA v iGl
,Epuld allow uublic and semi-npblic uses at the western Portion of the
Gladys Hoelund Property. AND
Consideration of amgndmer)ta to the offigial ggnir)g man of the qjty of
Mopticello. j? ocosed is a change from -1 (light industrial) to PS (Public
and semi-nuhlic uwa). Applicant. St. Henry's Church/Glad_vs Hoelund.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that the zoning ordinance
amendment request calls for establishing a new zoning district entitled
"Public and Semi -Public Uses," which is specifically designed to regulate
public and semi-public uses (church uses, etc.). This request is made in
conjunction with the rezoning application made by St. Henry's Church and
Gladys Hoglund. O'Neill noted that the reason for establishment of this
district is to allow property to be zoned specifically for a church use without
Page 2 6)
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
the risk of the property being used for residential uses if the church use
fails to develop. The present ordinance allows development of a church as a
conditional use in the residential zoning districts. He also noted that at
their meeting on October 4, 1994, the Planning Commission found the
amendment to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended
approval.
O'Neill went on to explain that in conjunction with the establishment of the
PS zoning district and the rezoning application made by St. Henry's Church,
it is proposed that the comprehensive plan be amended to designate public
and semi-public uses rather than the present I-1 designation at the western
30 acres of the Gladys Hoglund property. He noted that if it is the view of
the City Council that the church use at this location meets the criteria for
amending the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, then the land
use guide plan should be amended accordingly.
O'Neill stated that Council is also asked to rezone the western 30 acres of
the Gladys Hoglund property from I.1 to the new PS zone to allow St.
Henry's Church to develop the property. He noted that originally the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 6 to discuss a
request to rezone 35 acres of the industrial land to an R-1 designation. The
Planning Commission was uncomfortable with rezoning to R-1 without
complete assurance that the site would be developed for church uses. In an
effort to block the possibility of residential uses at this location if the church
didn't develop, Planning Commission discussed the prospect of establishing
a "public and semi-public" use district at a subsequent meeting held on
October 4. Following the September Planning Commission meeting, St.
Henry's Church was contacted by the Malone family regarding the potential
sale of the property directly northwest of the Hoglund property. This
property consists of approximately 7.5 acres under the R-2 zoning
designation. ONeill explained that purchase of the Malone property would
result in a reduction of land proposed to be converted from industrial uses
to PS uses from 35 acres to 30 acres. The reduction in industrial land
inventory would result in approximately 205 acres of industrial land for
future development.
O'Neill informed Council that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning request based on consistency with the
comprehensive plan and consistency with other rezoning criteria. It was
their view that the PS uses were highly compatible with the nearby Little
Mountain Settlement and Rand Mansion. In addition, the Planning
Commission noted that this request is much different than other church
requests made in the past, and approval of this request would not set a
precedent. For example, O'Neill reported that the Covenant Church
rezoning request was denied because it would have taken away a &2 land
Page 3 0
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
use that could not be provided for at another location; and A Glorious
Church's request to allow churches in an industrial district was denied
because it would have opened up too much industrial land for such a use.
Jim Ridgeway, member of the St. Henry's Church congregation, reported
that the church has set up a 4 -year plan for development of this property,
including development of an assisted living facility, which the church feels
is appropriate for the area since it is within walking distance of the
hospital, clinic, and school. Ridgeway noted that plenty of industrial land
would still be available to Dahlheimer's and Bondhus for future expansion.
He also noted that St. Henry's would sell the vacant land it currently owns
to return it to the tax rolls, and the present St. Henry's Church building
would be sold to a smaller congregation.
Councilmember Anderson noted that the hospital has been working toward
establishing an assisted living facility in Monticello and was concerned that
efforts would be duplicated if St. Henry's Church is also planning for
assisted living housing in Monticello. Ridgeway replied that he has
discussed the project with 011ie Krahl, Monticello Nursing Home Director,
and has left a message for Barb Schwientek, Hospital Administrator, and he
reassured Anderson that the church will work in conjunction with the
hospital on this matter.
Mayor Fyle noted that his main objection to the rezoning request is the
close proximity of this land to the freeway and railroad, which is ideal for
industrial uses. Jim Ridgeway noted that the Melons and Merrill Busch,
owner of the Rand Mansion, have indicated that they prefer the church use,
not industrial uses, adjacent to their property.
ITEM Ab: After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Warren Smith to adopt an ordinance amendment establishing
the PS (publidsemi-public) zoning district.
At this point in the motion, City Attorney Paul Weingarden noted that the
ordinance amendment as written would repeal the present section allowing
institutional uses in the R-1 zone as a conditional use, which would result
in all institutional uses presently located in an R-1 zone to become non-
conforming uses. Weingarden advised Council to delete that portion of the
proposed ordinance amendment.
The motion to adopt the ordinance amendment was then amended by Clint
Herbst to adopt the ordinance amendment establishing the PS (publidsemi-
public) zoning district, with the portion repealing institutional uses in the
R-1 zone as a conditional use being deleted from the proposed amendment.
Page 4
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
The amended motion was seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion is based on
the finding that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 259.
ITEM #6: After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Clint Herbst to approve amending the land use guide plan
identified in the comprehensive plan by allowing public and semi-public
uses at the western 30 acres of the Gladys Hoglund property. Motion is
based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the geography
and character of the area, there is a demonstrated need for the use
proposed, and sufficient industrial land remains in the city subsequent to
the amendment (205 acres). Councilmember Smith noted that he feels the
PS zone is an appropriate use but does not favor losing any additional
industrial land. Voting in favor of the motion: Shirley Anderson, Warren
Smith, Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Btad Fyle. It was Fyle's
view that the land should remain as industrial due to the close proximity of
the freeway. Motion passed.
ITEM #7: After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and
seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt an ordinance amendment rezoning
the western 30 acres of the Glady Hoglund property from I-1 (light
industrial) to PS (public(semi-public uses). Voting in favor. Shirley
Anderson, Warren Smith, Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Motion is based on
the finding that the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Opposed: Brad Fyle. It was Fyle's view that the land should remain zoned
as industrial due to its location near the freeway. Motion passed.
At this point in the meeting, City Attorney Weingarden reported his
findings regarding Councilmember Blonigen's desire to change his vote on
item #6 of the meeting held September 26, 1994, relating to the request to
rezone land from a combination of R-1 and Agricultural to a combination of
R-1, R-2, B-3, and PZM by developer's of the proposed River Mill
subdivision. In reviewing the state statutes, Weingarden noted that a
member of the Council may make a motion to reconsider an item. A
majority vote of 3:2 is needed for the motion to pass; however, if the motion
is defeated, the vote is final and another motion to reconsider the subject
may not be made. He noted that if a motion to reconsider the item is made
and passes by a majority, in this case he suggested that all parties
concerned be renotified that the subject will again be discussed.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by
Clint Herbst to reconsider item #6 of the meeting held September 26, 1994,
relating to the request to rezone land from a combination of R-1 and
Agricultural to a combination of R-1, R-2, B-3, and PZM by developers of the
Page 5 9
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
proposed River Mill subdivision. Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Clint
Herbst. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle. Motion
failed. Original rezoning vote of September 26 prevails.
A motion was then made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren
Smith to approve items 6-9 of the minutes of the regular meeting held
September 26, 1994, as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of amendments to the official zoning man and consideration
of establishment of zoning district designations and boundaries in
conjunction with annexation reauest. Proposal is a change in zoning district
designations from AO (aericultyral) to R-1. R-2. and R-3 zoning district
desienations, Anplicant. E & K Development.
C1opsidtration of snnroval of "Klein Farms" nrehminary plat.IADD icant.
E & K Develooment.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that in conjunction with
development of the Klein Farms preliminary plat and associated annexation
request, E & K Development is requesting amendments to the zoning map
from agricultural to a combination of R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning. He noted
the zoning amendments requested match land use designations approved in
May 1994 during the review and update of the comprehensive plan
completed in conjunction with the associated rezoning of the land to the
west previously owned by Kent Kjellberg. O'Neill also noted that the City
has received a letter from Monticello Township noting their approval of
annexation of the 160 acres owned by Dave Klein.
O'Neill went on to report that the Planning Commission has reviewed an
associated ordinance amendment requiring establishment of a buffer yard
between industrial and residential zoning districts but tabled action on the
amendment pending further review. He stated it is hoped that the
Planning Commission will complete their review of the ordinance
amendment at the November meeting and forward it to Council accordingly.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill then reviewed the proposed preliminary
plat encompassing 80 acres located north of the future School Boulevard
and between Fallon Avenue and County Road 117. The developer is
proposing 107 single family dwellings in tho R-1 area; 48 unite in the R-2
area designated as Oudot A; 80 units in the R-2 area designated as
Outlot B; and 44 units in the R-3 area designed as Outlot C.
O'Neill went on to explain that according to the proposed buffer yard
ordinance, Emmerich will be required to build a buffer yard along the
northern boundary of Outlots A and B to mitigate conflicts between
Page 6
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
residential and industrial uses. To the east of the site is Little Mountain
Elementary School, and it is likely that a crosswalk will be located at the
point where the IOein Farms' access drive meets Fallon Avenue. To the
south of the property is School Boulevard, which will be constructed
simultaneous to the first phase of the proposed development. And to the
west is County Road 117 and a business campus zone.
The Assistant Administrator reported that approval of the plat would be
contingent on utility plan approval by the City Engineer, and it has also
been determined that an environmental assessment worksheet will need tc
be prepared and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board for review
and comment. This requirement will delay approval of the final plat at
least 45 daya. It was also noted that redevelopment of Fallon Avenue
should be considered to coincide with development of phase I, and it is
anticipated that the cost to upgrade this roadway will be shared by the
adjoining property owners. O'Neill continued by saying that the developer
has indicated that he is open to financing the project using either private
funds, as was done with the Oak Ridge development, or as a City project.
Park development for the proposed plat was also reviewed, and Assistant
Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the Parks Commission has
requested the park dedication be made as one 16 -acre parcel located outside
of power line easements. The developer has also indicated a willingness to
install a pathway from the residential area to Little Mountain Elementary
School but requested that this land area be deducted from the park
dedication amount.
ONeill informed Council that the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing at their meeting on October 4 and subsequently recommended
approval of the plat contingent on 1) approval of the utility plans by the
City Engineer, 2) the developer making modifications to the plat as
required, 3) the developer entering a development agreement guaranteeing
development of the park area south of School Boulevard, 4) negative
declaration of environmental impact resulting from the EAW process,
bl approval of final plat from the County and affected oil and power
companies, and 6) finalization of description of project phasing and
associated financing. It has also been suggested that all engineering plans
be subject to the City Engineer's approval.
Councilmember Herbst noted that he is not in favor of taking more
industrial land for residential uses. It was his view that the property
should remain agricultural until the industrial park needs to expand. He
also noted that the ratio of R-2 and R-3 versus R-1 and industrial property
should be studied. Councilmember Blonigen noted that he does not agree
Page 7 0
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
with the R-2 zoning, as he is opposed to the density and the fact that each
side of the unit can be sold separately. He was also concerned about
maintenance of common areas in an R-2 development.
City Attorney Paul Weingarden explained to Councilmembers Herbst and
Blonigen that because the City Council amended the comprehensive plan in
May of 1994 to show R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts in this area, legally
supportable reasons must be given to vote against a rezoning request that is
consistent with the approved plan. He also noted that developers are
allowed to build according to the regulations as listed in the ordinance for
R-2 zoning until such time that those regulations are amended.
ITEM A8: After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to deny the rezoning request based on the finding
that it is premature for development to take place in this area and the
industrial park is too close to a residential area.
Mayor Fyle stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
approved plan, which was designed to fit the general residential nature of
the area, which includes the Cardinal Hills development and Little
Mountain Elementary School.
Developer Tony Emmerich stated that the prior Evergreens property was
rezoned from R-1 to a combination of industrial and business zones in order
to meet the City's needs. He noted that perhaps a reasonable compromise
could be negotiated; or if the Council feels more time is necessary to discuss
this issue, he would prefer the matter be tabled rather than litigate it.
At his point, the City Attorney asked Emmerich if it was his intention to
pursue litigation if the rezoning request is denied. Emmerich answered
that he would have no choice but to litigate the issue if his request is
denied.
Weingarden then stated that due to the possibility of litigation on this
matter, he is requesting that Council either close the meeting to discuss the
potential litigation or continue the matter so that he and City staff can
further research the rezoning request and uses proposed for the area.
Emmerich noted that he would have no objection to the Council continuing
the matter to the next Council meeting.
Weingarden continued by noting that a motion and second havo been made,
and Council should either vote on the issue or the motion and second should
be withdrawn.
Page 8 9
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
After discussion, a vote was taken on the motion to deny the rezoning
request as follows: Voting in favor. Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Opposed:
Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Motion failed.
A motion was then made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren
Smith to continue the rezoning request to the neat regular meeting of the
City Council scheduled for Monday, October 24, 1994, at 7 p.m. Voting in
favor of the motion: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Opposed:
Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Motion passed.
The City Attorney suggested that if the Council would like the ordinance
reviewed in regard to the R-2 zoning regulations, a motion could be made
directing the. Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to review those
regulations.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by
Clint Herbst to direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing for
the purpose of reviewing the current R-2 district regulations. Voting in
favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Shirley
Anderson, Brad Fyle, Warren Smith. Motion failed.
A motion was then made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren
Smith to continue all matters pertaining to the rezoning request by E & K
Development, which would include item N9, consideration of the preliminary
plat of the Klein Farms property, to the Council meeting scheduled for
Monday, October 24, 1994, at 7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
It was the consensus of Council to set a special closed meeting of the City
Council for Thursday, October 20, 1994, 4:30 p.m., for the purpose of
discussing potential litigation regarding the rezoning request by E & K
Development.
10. Consjde;atioq of e?Ltending_transportation service contract with Hoelund
Coach Lines for 1996.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the fees proposed for the 1996
transportation service contract with Hoglund Coach Lines for the Heartland
Express Bus and noted that Gordy Hoglund of Hoglund Coach Lines has
agreed to the mileage fee remaining at $.18 per mile and a 3% increase in
the current $22/hour fee for service to an amount of $22.66 for 1996.
Page 9 9
Council Minutes - 10/10/94
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Dan Blonigen to approve the proposed 1995 transportation service contract
with Hoglund Coach Linea at a mileage cost of $.18 per mile and an
increase of 3% to the current $22/hour fee for service, which would amount
to $22.66. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
C+foe Manager
Pago 10 /�
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
Publlc hearing on adoption of orouose# assessment roll for
delinauent charges and certification of assessment roll to Countv
Auditor. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll for those
accounts which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the
assessment roll to the County Auditor for collection on neat year's real
estate taxes. As you may recall, the City has previously certified delinquent
accounts annually in the fall of each year, but the Council recently approved
an ordinance amendment allowing the City to prepare a list of all
delinquent utility billing accounts on a quarterly basis and certify them four
times a year.
The delinquent utility accounts and charges that are included with the
agenda are accounts that are at least 60 days past due and include all new
delinquents from the last time we certified them. In addition to the
delinquent charge, the Council also previously approved the establishment
of an administrative fee of $25 per account that is added to each delinquent
assessment. The amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list
include the additional $25 administration fee for the preparation of the
assessment roll.
Delinquent miscellaneous accounts receivable which are more than 60 days
past due were also notified of a public hearing for certification. These
accounts aro shown on the delinquent accounts receivable list.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment
roll for certification in 1995 at an interest rate of 8% as allowed by state
statute. As in the past., if any accounts aro paid within 30 days after the
adoption of the assessment roll, they will be removed from the certification
list given to the County Auditor.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the assessment roll for the delinquent charges as presented.
2. Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the Council adopt the assessment rolls
as presented. All of the accounts are at least 60 days past due and have
been given proper notice of this assessment hearing and ample opportunity
to pay the accounts in full. All utility accounts were notified that there
would be an additional $25 administration fee attached to each outstanding
balance if the account was not paid by the time the certification list was
prepared.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Complete listings of delinquent
accounts being certified.
10/21/94
1994 DILINWINT ACCWrf6 51ZCR1VABLR
P.g.
I
SPECIAL A666661EIPT CEMPICATIORS
(10/2./9.)
F110PRIR7 TO MS
AMOUIF1
NAME
kUDiTIM
1/M/BIG BLOCK
------------------------------
155-014-001100
151.27
---------------------------------------
State of No (tort.lt)
...............
BWI..d
-------
10
-----
1
155-015-016050
26.11
Paul 6 Dick 501.C1a1r (Mark Oaahart)
Lahr Mont
5
16
155-015-016010
27.96
Fran 6 Run Rslkking
Laver Hunt
1,6
16
155-026-001060
26.21
Stamm vandi-t (Mark A Lm M -land)
AOOara .11hal.
6
1
155-011-001020
16.61
Rlchord Hamann
Ralhml Rat
2
1
155-041-002010
67.47
Rickard Bolk.r
Balker Hilleld.
1
2
155-041-002030
67.47
Richard Holk.r
Bolkar Hlllald.
2
2
155-041-002010
67.41
Richard eolk.r
Bolkar Hillside
1
2
155-046-001010
177.01
Ultra Hoax
Radar Oak got
1
1
155-046-002010
211.55
Ultrl Hose
Moan- Oak lot
1
2
155-044-002040
311.54
Ultra Haar.
j M.ador Oak a.t
4
3
155-044-001010
399.72
Ultra BOm.
Meadow Oak Rat
1
1
155-046-001040
299.71
Ultra H-
Meador Oak Rat
4
3
155.044-001060
311.15
Ultra Hoeti
Meadow Oak Not
6
1
155-044-004010
54.06
Ultra Uammoo
M.ador Oak let
1
4
155-044-004020
54.06
Ultra Bacoe
Hoodw Oak Hot
2
4
155-044-004030
54.05
Ultra Boar
Hood- Oak Rat
1
4
155.044-004050
57.44
Ultra Bono
Meador Oak Not
5
4
155-044-004060
57.64
Ultra Hasa
1 Moen- Oak got
6
4
155-044-004070
57.44
Ultra Ht>aa
MY/w Oak Rat
1
4
155-044-004060
57.44
Ultra Hasa
M-4ar Oak Rat
1
4
155-057-001040
79.66
Ultra 8-
Meador Oak lead
4
1
155-057-002050
11.43
Micheal ►slur
Meador Oak. 3rd
1
7
155-059.001050
71.61
Ultra Boar.
Maadw Oak 4th
1
1
155-059-002100
94.71
Ultra Hma.
Maadw Oak 4th
10
2
155-059-001010
210.55
Ultra Hma.
Meador Oak 4th
)
3
155.059-004010
40.07
Ultra Homes
4badw Oak 4th
1
4
155.061-001060
711.11
1an7ea Meueann Cmatructlm
O.eaear9 "at
1
3
155-064-001050
61.65
HCH C-tructlm
Meadwa 2nd
5
155-064-001060
61.65
OCH Cmotructlm
Msadora 2nd
6
l
155-064-001070
66.64
UCH cmatructlm
Meadwo 2nd
1
1
156.064-001060
42.92
HCH Cmatrantlm
Maadw. 2n6
1
1
155.069-001070
67.10
Mark 6 Lour. Vaedarraal
c.r41oa1 Hill.
7
1
155-070-002050
754.65
Pr"Uga Suile.ro/C • 0
Rrl.r Oaks Rat
1
2
155-500-011400
1.151.64
Ot.t. 0t No (torfait)
U.Pl.tta0
1
GRAND TOTAL, 1
5.054.64
0
10/71/94 QTR : 4 7, 1994 MMIPQURf VTILITIaI page 1
ap6CIAL AbbtsmoorT clotTIricatolb
110/74/94)
FMOpIN" ID ail
----------------------------------
AMOURY
aA1Q
----------------------------------------
ADDITIOs
--------------------
Lor/39C
------------
ILOCR ML ACCOM 1
----- --------------
155-015-006010
16.09
+•y Ihl.rt.
Lover Mont
1
a
001-0011.00-00
155-010-061040
96.05
Pic6.rd RIE.
Original
4
61
001-0045-00-00
155 -CIO -056010
77.74
Wamy Iellesen
Original
1
56
001-0057-00-00
155-010-067140
67.75
Chantelle Mitchell
Original
14
a
001-0117-00-00
155-015-005150
175.75
Ronald begin
Laver
15
5
001-0176-00-00
155-015-075011
65.61
Lovell l.ndrlckmon
L -r Mont
1
75
001-0145-00.00
155-500-174100
55.97
City or Monticello (Matcla 6undin)
Unplatted
17
007-0007.00.00
155-015-016110
50.16
Daniel 0oem.n (Mark Anderem)
Lover Mont
11
16
007-0016-00-07
155.015-005010
1,570.99
Wayne lachler/1-Clean Laundry
Loesr
1,7
5
007-0017-00-00
155-010-067060
91.66
Dellel•a Inc. (K -in relr)
Original
6,7,1,9
a
001-0044.00.00
ISS -010-067060
71.05
belief's InC/r4ir'e (R -in ►air)
original
617,619
s
007-0044-00.01
155.010-067010
41.69
Fair'. Carden center/belle l• 11 ►.1r)
Original
11711,4,5
0
007-0046-00-01
155-010-057071
61.06
Miry Fluth (Hidden Treasures)
Original
7
57
007-0050.00-00
155 -CIO -047070
111.11
Berl Deearale
Original
1,7,1,4
47
007-0010-00-00
155-070-005111
720.77
6ohd.n Dirytry..yn
111- Terrace
11
5
007.0091.00.00
155-010-040110
175.40
Wayne 9echler
Original
11,17,11
40
007-0109-00-00
155-010-015150
16.47
Fred Riune/Dlncle Dell
Original
is
15
007-0117-00-00
155-010-015100
67.96
Marna Flicker (What [not-Dldden T-ur)
Original
10
15
007.0119-00.00
155-010-015070
705.14
Clarence MaC.rty
Original
7
15
007-0141-00.01
155-010-014150
71.14
Alld"r.ndt Inventor.
Original
15
14
007-0145-00-00
155-010-014060
651,11
Gary lamer
original
6,7
14
007-0150-00.00
155-060-001010
776.70
Ton sitter
Mplat of A,I,C,D
1
1
001-0016.00.00
155-060-001010
779.10
James Agwto
papist of A.s,C,D
1
1
001-0017.00.00
155.010-016010
96.50
Irian "lead
Original
117
16
001-0017.00.01
155-010-017010
741.55
Cl.- MOC.rty
Orlglnal
7
17
001-0016-00-00
445-010-010050
176.44
D.vid a Debra Meri.een
O.191 nal
5
11
001-0037-00-00
155-010-010090
177.16
Robert a Tvonna Cox
Original
9
10
003-0091-00.00
155-010-010000
161.96
Rwsall Olson It-. Octalta)
original
4
70
001-0081.00.00
155-010-070100
166.15
Gera 10 0onetsby
Original
to
a
003.000.00.00
155-019-008070
157.61
Wayne Goa
A.C. Rippe
7.9
a
0040010.00.00
ON
10/31/94
OTB 1 A 7. 1994 DE.IPOU6NT UTILITI6D
pap. 2
6PCCIAL ASSESSMENT CQr1PICATIONS
(10/24/94)
PROPOrr7 IS NR
AMOUNT
NAME
ADDITION
IAT/OLC
OI.00K VTIL ACCOUNT 1
----------------------------------
155-015-011011
161.29
----------------------------------------
Robert P.d-cn
--------------------
LaSwr Mont
------------
1
-----
16
--------------
004 -0091 -00 -DO
155-010-011040
65.16
N1111u Allen
Original
4
11
005-0025-00-00
155-010-009050
70.04
Anna 71...11
Original
5
9
005-0049-00-00
155-010-010070
141.69
Arlan Pocklington (Katy 61=0)
Original
1
O
005-0066-00-01
155-500-111203
41.49
Kant -6k1 Ltd Part.ar.nlp/D.vid Hornig
Unplatt.d
ll
005-0065-00-00
155-500-111203
43.40
Kant -Oki Ltd Partnarlhip/David Hornig
Unpl.tt.d
11
005-0069.00-00
155-500-11)201
44.60
Nont-Oki Ltd P.rt,orahip/David Hornig
Unplatted
11
005-0070.00-00
155-500-111201
10.12
Moat -Oki Ltd PortO.r.hlp/David Hornig
Unplattod
II
005-0071-00-00
155-500-111201
16.12
Mont -Oki Ltd Partmt.hlp/David Hornig
Unplatted
11
005-0074-00-00
155-010-005060
456.24
Nlnaing." Ina/D.Iry Queen
Original
6.7.6
5
005-0060-00-00
155-016.001010
711.36
Monticello Nall/Bury Pluth
Monticello Nall
I
1
005-0090-00.00
435-500-034305
119.20
Jane 6 Ly -t Ils-it
Unplatted
3
006-0007-00-00
155-020-007061
46.15
TTaoa. Parker (Audrey Warns]
RI..r Terrace
6
2
006-0060.00.01
435-500-034200
53.62
Don Hall.. (lit Eater)
Unplatted
3
006-0119-00-00
ISS -SM -014700
160.15
Don H.lkw (Noreen Olean)
Unpl.tted
1
006-0120.00-01
155-500-011200
115.66
Do. U.ik..(C Bonneville)
Unplett.d
1
006-0172.00.00
155-50D-014200
01.35
Don Hike. (D 0evertaon 6 T Lar. -I
Unpl.tt.d
1
006-0124-00-01
155.500-011200
169.71
Don Polk.. (Orion McIntosh)
Unpl.tted
1
006.0126.00-01
155-500-011100
45.10
Gary Ach.rber (Plchard Allen.)
Unplattad
1
006.0117.00.00
155-500-011100
45.00
Gary Oeherbsi (Dorothy Kirocht)
Unplatted
l
006-0149-00-01
155-500-011300
67.40
Gary Ocherber IJaal• Hoglund)
Unplatted
1
006-0149-00-00
155.500-011100
04.00
Clary Ocnarb.r (Ea Stencil)
Unpl.tt.d
1
006.0166-00-00
155.500-011100
16.70
Gery ClGiarber (Kirk Gdoel
Unpl.ttad
3
006.0179-00-00
155-500-011100
15.52
Gary Ocherber (Loan Clark)
Unplatt.d
3
006.0111.00.00
155-500-031300
15.60
(1.hy acherb.r (P Pacers 1 C vo11)
Unplatted
1
006-0112-00.01
155-500.011100
66.60
Gary Och-cal (JGM McClanahan)
Unpl.tt.d
1
006-0207-00.00
155-500-011100
15.40
Gary Oeh.rber (Darryl Drya.111
UnplatC.d
1
006-0106-00-00
155-021-001210
161.69
Paul D.Mara
pit.. Mahar
21
2
006-0274-00.00
155.011-002050
190.12
Gerald Plat.
sit.. Muer
5
2
006-0261-00-00
155-021-002030
$7.90
Mark ►.rgu.on
Nit.. Muer
i
7
006.0265-00.00
155.021.001040
67.95
Gerald Poly (Earl Munn)
■5t.. N.nor
4
1
006-0291-00-01
O
10/21/96
Qrll 1 6 2, 1996 DI0.261QVtrr VIILITI96
Page J
aP1CIAL A"98SKINr C114IrICATI088
(10/26/91)
P00P0fyT ID <!
MDVR
MAKS
ADDITION
LOT/91C
914DCt VrIL 11CCOUIrr 6
----------------------------------
155-026-001060
266.92
----------------------------------------
John Dunning
--------------------
8111c1"t 2nd
------------
e
----- ---"---------
1 006-0160-00-00
155-500-162601
66.65
L 6 V "-Let-
Unplatt"
16
007.0109-01-00
155-066-001110
111.56
JI=y Nelaerlle
Par V"t
13
1 006-0016-00-00
155-066-001160
229.62
Richard L Grant.
Par V"t
16
1 006-0021-00-00
155-026-002010
Ile.$$
Ivan Walter
Amor. Wilhelm
1
2 006-0049-00.00
155.026.001070
55.79
Layton slLs•rea.
And.- Vlln.l.
7
1 006-0102.00.02
155-026.001100
115.61
Thos. O1rou.
Ander. Wiltal.
10
1 OOe-0105-00-00
155-026.001110
69.15
stat. atrmt Bene IJ.ff Ocelot)
Amar. Vllb.l.
I1
1 008-0106-00-02
155-011-001060
165.76
Jae" Mcl. .
Ylboul sat
6
1 009-0109-00-00
155.015-006060
71.76
Jo..ph say
Th. Neadw.
a
6 001-0155-00-00
155.035-006060
157.46
Tloa Mohlln
T6. Ma"w.
a
6 008.0150-00-00
155-015-006050
177.66
1. Gordan 6 C. Dao.on
Th. Ma"ow
5
6 006-075a-o0-oo
155.015.006010
151.06
DL... Lundgulet
The 16"dw.
1
6 008-0160-00-00
155-015.001060
116.96
Lim. 6 Barer blum
Tho MaaG..O
a
1 000-0189-00-00
155-075-001050
16.86
Ryan peter. (Lour 1. Allen)
Th. I6.adw.
5
1 000-0196.00.01
155-015.001070
71.78
Jas. O.e6troo (Lloyd Wrlght)
5L. M.ada,.
7
1 O0a-0349-o0-02
155-015.001100
121.76
Lloyd l rands (04noy Ba")
rh* K644MO
10
1 008-0606-00.01
155-015-001100
152.02
Lloyd Noranda (Donald Wood)
Th. Me.daV.
10
1 000-0605-00-00
155.015.001110
116.99
Cindy "lum
Th. ".ad-.
I1
1 008.0611-00-00
155.015.001161
99.75
Patrice 6 June Wand (Larry Metcalf)
The M"d-.
16
1 009-0611-00-00
155-011.001070
256.09
Jacea Collett.
9.Iboul N.tat"
7
1 000.0616.00-00
155-011-006010
101.11
t.nneth Nce.b.r0
Balbaul Natal"
1
6 008-0626-00-00
155-011.006060
119.58
Tlmthy rine
Balboul N.tat"
6
6 008-0629-00-00
155-015.006010
191.51
Daniel Crocear
Th. M..Ow.
I
6 008-0661-00-00
155-010.001100
170.22
tent Mitchell
tamp. sat
10
1 009-0007-00-00
155-011.001110
252.19
Bill a Bev Grigsby
Country Clue Mawr
11
1 009-0162.00.00
155-011-001100
71.10
ot.pn.n 01.0
Country Club Mamr
10
1 009-0161-00-00
155.011-001070
109.71
Mlebaal Wllllas
Country Club Manor
7
1 009 -GIN -00.00
155-011.001030
217.71
T" Daniels
Country Club Manor
1
1 009.0196.00-00
155-031-002160
220.99
Oasvlw. A."— (Bou Moa.)
Country Club Mawr
16
2 009.0196-00.00
155-016-001190
218.76
Darryl Call"
B.glum
19
1 010-0066-00-00
Q
10/21/94
QM I f 2, 1994 DO,IPVM UTILITIES
Pap. 1
SPECIAL ASSBD&®rr C6/rrIPICATIORe
(10/26/96
PIIOPEAr7 70 OR
MOVIT
■AIR
ADDITION
----'-------..------
IAT/6LC
------------
BIACR
-----
ML ACCWIT 1
--------------
----------------------------------
155.016.000050
157.17
----------------------------------------
Lionel Calll.s
IYnhatt.G Lot.
5
010-0066-00-00
155-017-0070]0
69.67
Jame . 0oodrun John...
raallhatten Lot. let
3
2
010-0146-00-00
155-065.002010
131.66
Michael name,
Meadw OakS 2nd
1
2
011-0106.00-00
155-065-002060
93.55
Ryle J.- (MY k I..nQ)
M6adw Oak. 200
6
-
011.0311.00-01
155-065.00{060
16.66
Jack t Rare Barren
616aow Oak. 7no
6
l
011-0551.00-00
155-059-002060
297.16
Dentan ylllandar
]Wow Oaks 6th
6
2
011-0666-00-00
155-500-154401
66.60
R1.I11her91e InC (On...- Sayre)
Unplatted
15
017-0003-00-00
155.500-156601
35.10
R1.11Wrp'. Inc IT Lane . 6 Berlin)
UAplatt.d
15
012-0001-00-01
155.500.154401
16.70
RJe11Wrp'. Inc (Lae Lar.on)
Unpl.tt.d
15
017.0007.00-00
155-500-154403
15.60
9Je11Wr9'a Inc (Pao AacOrina)
Unplatted
15
017-0009-00-00
159-500-15.601
57.00
R].11 Wrp'. Inc (John Christ)
Unplatted
IS
017-0013-00-00
155-500.156401
96.60
R]e11Wr9'. Inc (Arthur Doren)
Unplatted
15
017-0016.00-00
155-500-256601
15.60
RJe11Wr9'6 ane (Rathy Awan)
Unplatted
15
017-0017.00-00
155-500-156601
66.60
R]ell W rp's I- (Brian 6CMrWr)
Unplatted
I5
017-0020-00-00
155-500-156601
77.90
9Je11Wrp'e Inc (A Den l uapherp.rl
Unpl.ited
)5
017.0051.00-00
155-500.156603
66.60
NJ.11nar9'6 Inc (at- Vl l l ia.$)
Unplatted
is
017-0066-00-00
155-500-156601
J5.60
R].11 Wrps' I- ]MIR. Boon)
Unplatted
is
017-0077-00-00
155.500-156601
66.60
RJ.11Wrp'e 1. (Call Nahl.11
Unplatted
I5
012-0079.00-00
155-500.156601
77.60
RJ.lIWtp'. lm (Alan Trepani.rl
Unplatted
IS
017-0099-00-00
155-500-156603
66.60
RJe11Wrp'. (levan Cor.e111.1)
Unplotted
15
012-0100-00-00
155.500-156601
35.00
AJell Wrp'. (R. Olson 6 P. RlcWrdal
Unpl.tte0
is
017-0106.00-01
155.500-156601
15.60
RJe11Wrp'o Inc (Che rru ofann.)
Unplatted
15
017.0111 -n0 -DO
155.500.156603
76.20
R].Ilh.r9'o Inn JOE- Jackman)
Unplatted
15
017-0170.00.00
155-069.003060
166.76
Christopher Jona.
Cardinal Bill. 1
6
3
013-0006-00-01
155-069.001060
46.70
Terri 6]er0o IJ6mnlfor B=klnOhael
Cardinal Bills 1
•
1
013-0006-00-01
155-069.001070
69.75
Mark and Lori Ve n0ervaal
Cardinal Bill. 1
7
1
011-0007.00-00
155.069.007050
106.93
Leander echrintok, Jr
Cardinal pall. I
5
2
011.0116.00.00
155.069.007010
77.97
Pasals Docks
Cer411W1 Bill. 1
1
2
011-0116.00-00
255.069.007020
140.55
Laura. Roep
Cardinal Bill• 1
7
2
013.0119-00-00
155.069.001050
111.59
all.. 1 Lor W Bw.s
Cardlnal Biu. 1
5
1
013-0156-00-00
151.011-001060
$6.70
rrawls N:cksy (Dori. Wiling)
Volker• 811181d.
6
1
905.0365-01-00
10/31/94 QTR 1 4 3, 1994 DQ.IROUAT UTILITIIR ►4q. S
WKLAL ASSNAM RT COITI►ICATIWI
(10/24/94)
PRWOITT ID n
-------------- --------------------
MOOR[
155-041.001060
55.00
SSS -041-001040
35.40
------------------------
ORARD TOME, 1
16,637.43
RA1O ADDITIW L0T/RIC RIO= UTIL ACWUIrr 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------
F—I. 810kR► (R4xT P9r j eolkmr•4 e1I1.1dR 6 1 905-0165-04-01
Ja ph R10.040k1nk (RI" Rurl6ur"rl eolk.r'• 8111.1do 4 1 905-0167-04-00
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
8.gnsideration of Wright County l3herlH's Report. (R.W.)
Since it has been a while since County Sheriff Don Hozempa has appeared
before the Council, Mr. Hozempa has agreed to update the Council on law
enforcement issues that aright be of interest to the Council. It is expected
that Mr. Hozempa will provide information on traffic control issues along
Broadway, along with summarizing the overall police activities in Monticello
as compared to previous years.
Although there is no specific action requested by the Council, Pm sure
Mr. Hozempa would welcome any comments or questions you have
regarding the law enforcement contract or areas of concern the Council has
received public comment on.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
7. Consideration of variance request allowing gonstrpctiop of gorage
1p��(sai rage. Anpllcant. Jeff Michaelis/Rivereide Oil. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For the sake of efficiency, I have attached the information submitted to the
Planning Commission on this matter. Also included is a memo from John
Simola outlining his concerns regarding the construction of the temporary
structure proposed.
As noted earlier, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
variance to the setback requirement due to the shape of the lot. It is
virtually impossible to build a structure on the site without a variance. In
addition, the Planning Commission did not view development of a
"temporary" pole shed as an intensification of the use of the property;
therefore, they did not feel that it is necessary to require that Michaelis
bring all aspects of the site up to code. If Council interprets construction of
the storage shed as an intensification of the use, then Michaelis should be
required to bring all aspects of the site up to code.
B. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter and variance request from Riverside Oil; Copy of 10/41%
Planning Commission agenda item; Copy of 10/12/94 letter to Jeff Michaelis;
Copy of 10/7/94 memo to Jeff ONeill.
OCT. -24' 941M0N1 IS 29 OLSOVUSSET P. A. _ TEL 612 925 5879
_ — P. 004 —
OMN, USSET, AGAN & WEINGARDEN
ArrORMBY[ AT uP
suns no
PAUL A. •TDIUNIUM1•
ddW FRANCE AVM1116 adlr%
L80AL ASMANn
CHARLES T. ROAM
bmem PU , NX Slei
►BOOT 1. ALAN
DAVID J. U39"
Sh RI OR J. AIAPH
THOM" L Cff"
TELZn1G Q anlU3-M6+
DURA L. BAKIM
DEMOS B. DALm1
FAX (012) Mm"
►ATBT A. YKNIM AMD
xW IeaTD1
%OMI ow ".F.7 %.Wk.
Role® TROMU
ovaramm 7975
October 24, 1994
TR86OBSW m4e10
Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
250 Last Broadway
Monticello, M2i 55162
Re: Riverside oil Variance Request
Dear Jeff:
I am in receipt of information concerning the request of
Riverside Oil for variance in this matter. As I view the
situation, Mr. Michaelis is operating a business on this property
which includes an industrial warehouse building. He now requests
a variance to construct a "temporary" storage structure / garage.
It is unclear to me what in "temporary" about this
structure. It strikes me that it is nothing more than a
permanent addition to the parcel which will remain into the
undefined future. in general, variances run with the land, not
the person. A purchaser of his property would be entitled to the
variance as approved. If this was truly to be a "temporary" use,
you should, at the very least, have an and date by which the
structure would be removed. i doubt that this is what the
applicant intends.
My further concern is that you are reading the criteria for
a variance improperly. Under Minn. Stat. $462.157, Subd. 6, the
standard for variances to specifically defined. Your City
ordinances essentially adopt this approach.
Under the terms of the statue, variances are permitted where
strict enforcament would cause because of
circumstances unique to the ind vidual property under
consideration. Such variances should only be granted when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit
intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" means th__ a gronarty in
a1iG!plat to a reasonable use if uee4„ypdpt
Con I,?.
eliowad bw the oltioial controls, the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner and a variance, if grentod, will not
OCT. -24' 94 (MON) 15: 29 OLSON/USSET P. A. _ — TEL:612 925 5819_ _ _ P. 005 — -
October 24, 1994
Page 2
altar the essential caaractar of the locality. B99n011;p
....++old +.dens alnna Rhftnld not cm�ffiHIt�e an +.+.tea ..ashi�i;
for Shp orooe_*ly *isle +na.. tL+e ter ok of h•
ardi-nAn -. -
Since there is an existing business operating on the
property, I cannot envision how the applicant can claim an undue
hardship. I fail to see bow this request is any different than
that of the homeowner who desires to build a three car garage but
requires a variance in order to do so. Be may be inconvenienced,
but be is certainly not subject to undue hardship.
My final concern in this regard is that there is a veiled
hint in the staff report that the applicant presently operates a
non -conforming use on the parcel. irrespective of the variance
issue, it is my opinion that if this is the case, construction of
this •temporary■ structure would constitute an impermissible
expansion of a non -conforming use which would require conformance
with the coning code. 1f this is indeed the situation, you
should darer a decision until all ramifications of the
application have been investigated.
7Ve ly s,
al A. M a
pAMtlld v
\ �� JEFF MICHAELIS
�40
ASIDE OIL
P. o.eo. soe
Monticello. MN 55382
95-370
W—rs%�-=jm.
September 16, 1994
City of Monticello
Jeff O'Neill
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Minn. 55362
Dear Jeff:
I am requesting a variance from the City of Monticello to add a
cold storage truck stall onto my existing warehouse. This
addition would not. be any expansion to my current business. It
would only be to remove my fuel truck out of a residential
neighborhood and give me a secure place for weather and vandalism.
I realize that my stay at this location is temporary, so I am
proposing a structure to get me by until a long term solution
is determined.
My existing warehouse is 30' X 161, and I am proposing to add
an addition of 26'X 12' with the only noticeable area being
directly in front of the building.
I hope you look at my request with understanding and realize this
is only a temporary situation.
Thank You.
Sincerely, /
Jet[ Michaelis
Rivereido 0i1
V
CITY OF MONTICELLLO
VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICATION
FEES $50 for setback or $125 for others ♦ necessary consulting expenses•
• X03182 Receesary Consulting fees Include the coat to have the City Planner analyse
variance, rezoning, and conditional use permit requests at the rate of =75/hr.
Generally, the level of City Planner involvement corresponds with complexity of
request and/or the potential impact of the request on the City. The need for City
Planner assistance in determined solely by City staff.
/A
APPLICANT'S NAHEDDRESS. 'TC4C4 /1)M n4e /sS — R�'vrr$s'( e- cO,'I
PHONE: HOME s 2 9s' - 3 7 C) S WORKS So -..r
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONs LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION
OTHER
DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST, A/lbw Ce �r�/i..��'e,.. ea/ rle—
e --f S&0 - Ia.cL a,f e. / U
What are the unique circumstances that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing
the property in a manner customary and legally permissible?
DATE, 9-/9-qY SIGHEDs
•••••••••••••••••••••••u•••••••••••••'/••••• • f/ ..........................
[J Fee paids Receipt Numbers 176# T Currently fonedt
Planning Case Numbers Date Application Receiveds
Date of Planning Commission Public Hearings Times
PLANNING COMMISSION ►INDING
Has a hardship been demonstrated? [J Yes (J no
Will approval of the variance requests
A. impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property? (J Yea [J Ito
8. creat:,,unreasonable congestion increase in the public street? () Yes () No
C. increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety? () Yee [J No
D. unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood? (J Yea [J No
E. be contrary to the intent of the ordinance? [J Yes [J No
Summary of Planning Commission Findings
Was there an appeal? () Yea (J No If so, attach a copy of the appeal.
Date of Council considerations Times
Decision of Councils
(J a" attached
Com ante s
(J sae attached
Publication Dates Nailing Dates Video? (J Yon $s (J no
VARRbQ.FRNs 7/1/91 0
0_1
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
Public Hearing-Considergtion of a variance to the vard setback
reauirements which would allow construction of a temnorarv,
structure in an I.1 zone. Anolicant. Jeff Michaelis. Riverside Oil.
(J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jeff Michaelis is requesting permission to build a temporary structure
which would allow him to enclose his fuel transport truck. In order to
obtain a building permit, he needs a variance to the front yard setback
requirement. Michaelis has noted that his vehicle has suffered damage
when parked outside at this location due to vandalism In addition, being
able to park the vehicle on site next to the fuel depot is the appropriate
location for this vehicle. In the past, you may remember that Micbaelis has
parked his vehicle at his residence, which is not allowed by ordinance.
Michaelis also proposes to build a screening fence to screen materials
currently stored on site. If the area Michaelis is now screening has always
been used for storage even prior to inception of the zoning ordinance, then a
screening fence can be installed without further permission by the City
Council. If, however, the area proposed for outdoor storage represents a
new use or an expansion of the existing use, then a conditional use permit
allowing outside storage would be necessary. In order to obtain a
conditional use permit allowing outside storage, a principal use must be
established. Unfortunately, a fuel depot is not considered to be a principal
use; therefore, unless the zoning ordinance is amended, Michaelis will be
unable to store material on site.
In terms of the temporary structure that Michaelis proposes, it may make
sense to allow Michaelis to build the structure if it is agreed that the
structure will be used temporarily and that there is no guarantee that the
site will be used in the long-term as a fuel depot. Planning Commission
may take the view that a variance is acceptable in this situation due to the
fact that it is temporary and, perhaps, because reasonable use of the
property does include allowing construction of a storage building, which
cannot be achieved without a variance due to the dimensions of the
property. On the other hand, Planning Commission could take the view
that if it is the long-term goal to eliminate the fuel depot use on site, then
no actions should be taken to encourage investments in the site, thereby
making the site a more desirable place for Michaelis to be located. Even
though the storage building proposed will be relatively inexpensive, the
funds used to build the temporary structure could be better spent on
helping fund relocation efforts.
192
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4194
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to grant a variance to the yard setback requirement which
would allow construction of a temporary structure in an I-1 zone.
Motion is based on the finding that a garage is necessary in order for
Michaelis to have reasonable use of the property. Due to the
dimension of the lot, it is impossible to build a storage building at the
location without a variance. Furthermore, the structure is temporary
in nature and will be removed at such time that the fuel depot
operation is relocated.
Under this alternative, placement of the storage building on site
would pot be considered an expansion or intensification of the use;
therefore, there would be no upgrades made to the site such as
development of paved areas, curb and gutter, landscaping, etc. If it is
determined that it is likely that the ftiel depot will remain on site for
years to come, then perhaps the Planning Commission should grant
the variance contingent on Michaelis complying with all other aspects
of the zoning ordinance, including providing landscaping, a paved
service area, curb and gutter, etc. In addition, a separate zoning
ordinance amendment should be drafted which would enable outside
storage as proposed by Michaelis.(U-14.6% i / i s cle4ow+i.ed lrwt ft arm
h�0alwv i bat^ osVd ie4 e,.+s►dr 146f& f- AA. a'#,$ a /6041 ne.ta+i.
Motion to dny the variance to the yard setback �quiremeat. u«�
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding
that reasonable use of the property can be achieved without the
variance. In addition, there are numerous zoning ordinance
violations and problems with soils that would need to be corrected
before or in conjunction with development of the storage building.
Furthermore, this alternative would seem to make sense if it is the
goal of the Planning Commission to ultimately relocate the fuel depot
to another location. Also, if Planning Commission deems the
development of a storage building as an expansion of a current non-
conforming use, then at a minimum, even with the variance, all other
aspects of the site would need to be brought up to code.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is withheld pending review of associated Sunny Fresh
planning study.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan prepared by Jeff Michaelis.
0
e4
J
/If
r
Y sQ t. 4.,
K
I �
0-14
A
250 Eur Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245 October 12, 1994
Phone (612) 2952711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 2954404
Mr. Jeff Michaelis
PO Bo:608
Montle eUo, MN 6658
Dear Jet
This is to inform you that I received a memo from John P—ole. dated October 7,
1994, which outlined his concerns regarding the variance granted to you by the
Planning Commission hr development of the storage building that you proposed.
Due to the fact that the variance request has been aPDaled, it will be necessary for
the City Council to formally consider the matter at their regular meeting scheduled
for October 24, 1994.
For your information, I have attached the memo from John Simola outlining his
concerns regarding the variance. If you should have any questions please give me a
call.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
"-*O'%lYIYUd
Jeff ONaill
Assistant Administrator
JO/jb
Enclosure
cc: Rick Wolfitellar, City Administrator
John Simola, Public Worse Director
Gary Anderson, Building Official
6
150 Eau Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711 d B O
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
T0, Jeff O'Neil
PROrl. John Simols
DATEe October 7. 1994
BLr Variance/Temporary Building I Bulk Station on BNR Property
It is my opinion that the city staff stwuld ask the council to reconsider the variance
granted to Jeff Michaelis by the Planning Commission. I believe staff should ask for
reconsideration for the following ressons,
1. The granting of this variance could set a precedence that may be difficult to deal
with in the future.
2. It seems unlikely that it would be legal to have such a building removed from the
BNA property in the future.
3. Variances involving building constructions shouldonly be granted toproperty owners
(not renters or lessors).
4. The BNR bulk site soils nay be contesim[ed with petroleum products and. if so.
could represent a threat to our main municipal water supply approximately 11 - 1400
feet to the northeast. also, this could endanger the public safety.
5. If the property to contaminated, the placement of the building on this property
could unreasonably delay clean-up and result in higher relocation costs for the
owner if relocation in deemed necessary.
6. City staff has been working with BNB Sad the bulk plant operstoro fur elmoat two
years in an attempt to have a soil investigation performed to determine the extent
of contamination (if any). I feel this should be performed prior to any further
building un theae lots or the Sunny Presh property immediately to the north.
J8/bg
6
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
8. Ponsl¢erat_q!Aof zoning ordinanog amendments nerteinino to the
dein Fprme development or000sal Aunlicant. Togy
Emmerich/David Klein. AND
9. Consider jition of sloumvpl of oreliminary olgt—Klein Farms
subdivision. ADnlicant. Tonv Emmerich/David ®ein. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUtM.
Emmerich Rezoning
As you know, this item was continued from the previous meeting and
discussed at the recent special meeting due to the potential of litigation.
Information on possible amendments to Emmerich's rezoning application is
not available at this time. I hope to have an update at the meeting.
For your convenience, staff has copied the information from the previous
agenda item. (Section #8)
Klein Farms 1?reliminary 13A
As you recall, this item was continued at the previous meeting pending
resolution of the related zoning issue.
Following is a copy of the agenda information provided on this topic at the
previous meeting. Alternative actions remain the same. (Section #9)
.L ,r
r� i�
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
Consideration of amendments to the official zoniny maD and
considerption of establishment of zoning district designations and
boundaries in conignction with annexation reguest. Pirouosed is p
Shane iq zoning dpi Mct designations fiom AO (agricultasal) to R-1.
R.Z. and R3 zoning district designations. ADDllcanL E & K
Deveiooment. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with development of the Klein Farms preliminary plat and
associated annexation request, E & K Development is requesting
amendments to the official zoning map as noted on the attached copy of the
preliminary plat. The zoning map amendments requested are identical to
the land use designations approved during the review and update of the
comprehensive plan completed in conjunction with the associated rezoning
of the land to the west previously owned by Kent ltjellberg (see attached
Council meeting minutes from 6/9/94).
As you know, when property is annexed to the city, it is annexed under the
agricultural uses unless specific action is taken to bring the property into
the city under a different zoning designation. The petition for annexation
submitted by the applicant is contingent on the approval of the preliminary
plat and associated zoning district boundaries.
Please note that in conjunction with the rezoning request, City Council will
soon be reviewing a zoning ordinance amendment requiring establishment
of a buffer yard between industrial and residential zoning districts. A copy
of the first draft of the buffer yard ordinance specifically tailored to buffer
industrial and residential uses is provided as a Council update for your
review. The Planning Commission tabled action on the buffer yard
ordinance pending ticrther review. It is hoped that the Planning
Commission review will be completed at the November meeting of the
Planning Commission and then forwarded to the City Council accordingly.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the rezoning request in coWunction with the
preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property.
Under this alternative, the motion could be based on finding that the
rezoning as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
is consistent with the geography and character of the area given the
0
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
presence of the Little Mountain School and the impending
establishment of a buffer yard requirement. The finding could also
refer to the demonstrated need for the land use involved.
Motion to deny the rezoning request in conjunction with the
preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property.
This alternative should be considered if the City Council believes that
the zoning map amendment as presented is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan, or denial could be based on a finding relating to
geography and character of the area, demonstrated need for the
amendment, or the likelihood of depreciation of adjoining land values.
Under this alternative, a companion motion to call for a public
hearing to amend the comprehensive plan designating other land uses
at the Klein property would be appropriate.
C. STAF
It is the view of City staff that the zoning district alignment was reviewed
at great length only a few months ago. It was determined at that time by
the City Council that the zoning district designations as requested by the
developer were appropriate for the area. Little has occurred in the past few
months that'would appear to justify a change in the City's position with
regard to proper land use in this area. Therefore, City staff recommends
approval of the rezoning request as proposed.
See preliminary plat which outlines proposed zoning district designations;
Copy of comprehensive plan excerpt; Copy of W/94 Council minutes.
OCT -23-94 TUE 02042 RM�-
�- TONY EMMERICH H --
, HOMES
October 24, 1994
Honorable Mayor
City Council
It appears that the amended comp. plan and our plan or
development can still work under a R -PUD zoning for Klein Perms.
If the P.U.D. zoning will satisfy the concerns or the opposition
on the Council, we are willing to amend our application
4acrdingly.
erely
6mmorichK Development
"SO c.... a.&b a+..&. Dube gal. Com Ram. MN 55433
NOTES: on . -k of MaP KLEIN FARMS I
(PROPOSED ZONING KAP)
OUTLOT A
R- CUTT
sl�
T— 2
OUTLO C,
im
. I: ��:. - ��--__.�_�_._-_
P A_ yip l r�-. _ � -�.�. �;
MIN FARMS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
QR2 SINGLE & 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTtf.
PLANIMII; GUIUILSSIUil HIiGU;UlEiil!;;I Lull - Laud use decisivus and pLau ul a�Li1...
I. Green Area - Emmerich rezoning request (Recommendation - Adopt)
2. Yellow Area - Klein Comprehensive Plan (Recommendation - Adopt)
7. Blue Area - Hoglund/Lundsten rezone (Recommendation - Table for further study)
'LAN OF ACTION:
a. Complete comprehensive plan update - Identify future industrial areae.
b. Update zoning district regulations - Maintain diversity of industrial land.
c. Develop plan for extending utilities to Hoglund site.
d. Update district regulations governing development in Regional Commercial District.
e. Require intense berming by ordinace to separate industrial from residential uses.
f. Transportation system design/subdivision design to separate conflicting uses.
g. Improve linkages between commercial areas.
I. Improve traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing.
2. Re -align Cedar Street to improve land utilization.
7. Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass
I._;- Ap 9
1r�;g
l�jllM'\
E IST NG• IND 1 STIll Al
Iataduseri i ���
SO2 Multiple amily
`�Buelneas x"502 Two Family
Single family homes "
tittle Mnfn
Schoo).
r
School Boulevard
A Single family home.
Perfortance y.
Ione Cr
Multi fam a f j
Council Minutes - ti
*� 10. Consideration of Emmerich/lGein rezonine%omnrehensive plan amendment
request.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the steps leading to Council
consideration of this matter. He noted that the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on March 3, which was continued to April b and
to May 3. This provided a good opportunity for information and issues to be
reviewed and addressed. In addition to the three Planning Commission
meetings, there was a joint meeting held on March 30, at which time
information regarding the request was provided to various commissions and
local organizations.
In his presentation, O'Neill noted that the plan calls for placing residential
uses next to I-2 uses, which appear to create a confect in land uses. O'Neill
noted that the Planning Commission researched this issue with other cities
and determined that a practical level of isolation can be achieved between
these two uses through installation of berms and landscaping and by
separating residential and industrial road systems. He also reported that
the Planning Commission looked carefully at the need to preserve additional
industrial land for future development. The Planning Commission
examined the option of developing at least 60 acres of the Klein property for
industrial development, with the balance being developed for multi -family
and single family uses. As a result of their review, it was their finding that,
given the present absorption rate of industrial land, the present supply (236
acres) is adequate to address our short- and medium-term needs, and that
time is available that will allow the City to explore industrial development
in areas currently located in the township or located on the NSP property in
the city.
O'Neill went on to review a finance plan associated with installation of
utilities to the i(lein site and described costa associated with preserving the
northern half of the Klein site for industrial uses. In order to develop the
southern half of the Klein property for residential use, utilities will need to
be extended through the northern half of the property, and Fallon Avenue
and School Boulevard will need to be installed. According to the City
Engineer, the cost for improvements associated with extending utilities and
roads through the industrial area are over $400,000. O'Neill went on to
outline the Planning Commission's recommendation, which was to approve
both the Emmerich rezoning and the Klein comprehensive plan
amendments. Reasons for support of the proposal are as follows.
Industrial Land Inventory. Currently there am 236 acres of
industrial land in the city. In addition, the City owns 60 acres of
primo industrial land currently located in the township. The rate of
absorption of available industrial land provides sufficient time for the
City to develop industrial sites at a more isolated location.
Page 6
S
Council Minutes - 6/9/94
2. Proper transition and a practical level of isolation from I-2 and A-3
uses can be achieved through installation of berming and landscaping
and through separation of roadway systems.
3. The City needs to provide land to serve needs of regional commercial
enterprises. The plan proposed will provide the land necessary and
will encourage development of School Boulevard, which will support
development of a regional business district at the location as
proposed.
4. Utility/Road System Financing. The plan as proposed will encourage
developer -financing of School Boulevard, Fallon Avenue, water main,
and trunk sanitary sewer systems.
6. The Emmerich site is currently zoned for single family uses, which is
inappropriate given the location on Highway 25 and the presence of
pipeline and power line easements. The highest and best use for this
land area is for commercial purposes as proposed.
6. The Township generally supports the plan as presented.
7. The developer supports the modifications made to the plan by the
Planning Commission.
O'Neill went. on to note reasons for possible denial of the request.
Industrial land in the city is finite. Despite the fact that a good
supply of industrial land is available to handle our short-term needs,
we still may want to hold onto this area for long-term considerations.
There are no guarantees that the City will be able to work with the
Township in development of the industrial area for the fixture.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has expressed an interest
in establishing a finance plan to support the preservation of
industrial land. This is an option that has not been fully explored.
Council may wish to table the matter to provide time for the
developer and the HRA to come to terms on a possible method for
preserving the industrial land on the lilein site.
Finally. O'Neill went on to outline important steps that the Planning
Commission recommends in an effort to address the city-wide land use
issues that have been raised during the process of reviewing the request.
The list of follow-up activities include:
Page 7 O
Council Minutes - 519/94
a. Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify future
industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this
matter.
b. Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of
industrial land types for various industrial/office uses.
C. Develop plans forLpendi ng utilities to existing industrial lands,
including the Gladys Hoglund site.
d. Update B-4 district regulations governing development in
regional commercial district.
e. Require intense berming by ordinance to separate industrial
from residential uses.
f. Complete transportation system designs and subdivision
designs in a manner separating conflicting uses.
g. Improve linkages between commercial areas:
Work with the State Highway Department to improve
traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing.
Realign Cedar Street to improve land utilization.
Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass.
Clint Herbst mentioned his concern regarding the planning process used. I
was his view that too many long-term issues regarding future development
of industrial areas remain unanswered and that the City would be wise to
table the matter pending completion of an update to the comprehensive
plan. Brad Fyle indicated that he supports the work done by the Planning
Commission. In his view, R-1 development at the Iijellberg site is a bad
idea; development of regional commercial at this location is more practical
as proposed in the plan. He also noted that Planning Commission did a
thorough job of researching methods of separating industrial from
residential uses through buffering systems.
Patty Olsen explained that she intends on voting on this matter due to the
fact that she has no conflict of interest. She informed Council that her
involvement in the property ended when she was paid for her work as real
estate agent when the land closed two months ago. If the vote would have
come up before the closing, she would not have been able to vote at that
time. She also mentioned that she is a salaried employee of a company
other than Emmerich's company and in no way directly benefits Brom any
decision to approve the request.
Page 8
Council Minutes - 6/8/94
Shirley Anderson indicated that the Planning Commission made a strong
attempt to satisfy the concerns of all those that provided input, and it was
her view that the plan as proposed is the best alternative available. She
also noted that the City Attorney has reviewed Olsen's participation in the
matter and, given the facts as presented, has determined that Olsen is
eligible to vote.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to accept
the rezoning request as submitted based on the finding that the rezoning is
consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the -character and
geography of the area, will not result in depreciation of adjoining land
values, and there is a demonstrated need for the types of land uses
proposed as opposed to the existing zoning which is currently R^1. Voting
in favor: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith.
Opposed: Clint Herbst. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 249.
At this point in the meeting, a 6 -minute recess was taken.
When the meeting reconvened, discussion ensued regarding the Klein
property. 011ie Koropchak noted that during the past week she received a
number of contacts from various industrial users interested in Monticello.
She also reminded the Council that the HRA is interested in working with
the City and the developer toward development of a finance plan that would
u�
support preservation of the Klein property for industrial use. She also ,
noted that the Chamber of Commerce met on Friday to discuss the matter,
j tY
and the Chamber recommended that the item be tabled to allow time for
development of a plan to allow use of TIF to preserve the Klein property for
�•p''�
industrial uses.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Patty Olsen to amend the comprehensive plan as recommended by the
Planning Commission by specifically identifying land uses as requested by
Klein with the exception that the R-3 uses proposed to the north and west
sides of the property be reduced to a 60/50 split between R-3 and R-2 uses.
Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle.
Opposed: Clint Herbst.
Council then reviewed the important planning tasks listed by the Planning
Commission that need to be completed in the near future to address
concerns voiced by various organizations that have provided input on this
matter.
Alter discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Patty Olsen to authorize City staff to address the items as follows.
Page 9 v
Council Minutes - 6/9194
a.
Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify future
industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this
matter.
b.
Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of
industrial land types for various industruNoff'ice uses.
C.
Develop plans for pending utilities to existing industrial lands,
including the Gladys Hoglund site.
d.
Update B-4 district regulations governing development in
regional commercial district.
e.
Require intense berming by ordinance to separate industrial
from residential uses.
f.
Complete transportation system designs and subdivision
designs in a meaner separating conflicting uses.
g.
Improve linkages between commercial areas:
1) Work with the State Highway Department to improve
traffic flow on Hwy 26 via improved signal timing.
2) Realign Cedar Street to improve land utilization.
'3) Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass.
4) Pursue upgrading Highwy 25 to a 4 -lane highway.
Motion carried unanimously.
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
CoMideratign of approval of "Klein Farms" oreliminary plat.
Aniolicant. E & K Development. (10.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan at their September
meeting and conducted a public hearing on the plat at their meeting on
October 4. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the plat per
alternative M1. Following is a brief review of the plat along with
identification of issues that the Council should be aware of.
The Klein Farms preliminary plat encompasses 80 acres and is located
north of the future School Boulevard and between Fallon Avenue and
Edmundson Avenue (County Road 117). The plat calls for development of
107 single family dwellings in the area designated for R•1 uses. The
residential development will occur in two or three phases, with the first
phase consisting of about 40 lots.
Outlot A (7.8 acres) is designated for R-2 uses. It is proposed that 48 units
be developed at this location creating a density of 6.2 unita/acre. Outlot B
(10.3 acres) is also designated for the R-2 zoning district and will contain 80
units creating a density of 7.8 units/acre. Outlot C (8.2 acres) is proposed to
be designated under R-3 uses, which will net 44 units or 6 units/acre.
Lying to themorth of the property is the Oakwood Industrial Park.
According to the proposed buffer yard ordinance, it will be required that a
buffer yard be built along the northern boundary of Outlots B and A to
mitigate conflicts between residential and industrial uses. The construction
of the buffer yard in this case is the responsibility of the Klein/Emmerich
development. Emmerich has indicated that the buffer yard will be
constructed simultaneous to development of the single family residential
area and will not wait until development of the two R-2 outiots adjoining
the industrial area.
To the east of the site is Little Mountain School. An effort will be made to
make sure that a crosswalk to the school property is situated at a logical
location. It is likely that the crosswalk will be located at the point where
the Klein Farma' access drive meets Fallon Avenue.
To the south of the property is School Boulevard, which will be constructed
simultaneous to development of the first phase of development of the Klein
Farms property. According to Emmerich, the LU length of School
Boulevard from Highway 26 to Fallon Avenue will be constructed next year.
Construction of this roadway will greatly relieve traffic congestion at the
Intersection of Oakwood Drive and Highway 26 and divert residential/achool
traffic away from Oakwood Park industrial areas. According to the
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
information provided, School Boulevard is constructed to state aid standards
for a 36-40 mph road. It includes development of an 84 off-road
bituminous pathway, which is consistent with the pathway plan for the city.
To the west of the site is Edmundson Avenue and a business campus zone.
The roadway separation between R-3 and BC uses helps to mitigate
negative impacts between the two. It appears, therefore, that a logical
transition in land use is accomplished at this location.
The development of the property is somewhat hampered by the presence of
a Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline extending through the property
from north to south. The alignment of the lots and roadways are somewhat
dictated by the presence of this pipeline. There are a few double -fronting
lots on the plan along School Boulevard that are relatively short (146 ft).
The developer has made an effort to mitigate this problem by proposing a
44 berm along the School Boulevard right-of-way to mitigate the impact of
School Boulevard on such lots. There are also double -fronting lots along
Fallon Avenue that have a depth of 166 it, which is about 26 ft deeper than
the double -fronting Iota at the Cardinal Hills subdivision.
L y Y
The utility plan is currently under review by the City Engineer. According
to the City Engineer, development of the property appears feasible. It is not
likely that further analysis of the utility plan and adjustments made will
result in substantive changes to the plat. Therefore, it appears appropriate
to review the preliminary plat prior to approval of the utility plans as
presented.
It has also been determined that an environmental assessment worksheet
will need to be prepared and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board
for review and comment. This requirement will delay approval of the final
plat at least 46 days.
44; "16Ji"Ir
According to the developer, he is open to financing the project using private
funds as done with the Oak Ridge project, or he is willing to develop the
site as a City project. He has also noted that he is willing to follow the
precedent for ihnding School Boulevard set by the School District and Value
Plus Homes, which calls Ar the developer finding approximately 80% and
the City funding 20% attributable to oversizing the road to serve city-wide
needs.
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
PARK DEVELOPMENT
The developer is required to provide 8 acres of park land with this 80 -acre
plat. In addition, another 8 acres will need to be provided with
development of the area south of School Boulevard. The Parks Commission
has met on two separate occasions regarding the IGein Farms preliminary
plat. It is the view of the Planning Commission that the entire 160 -acre
site, including the north 80 acres and south 80 acres can be best served by
developing a single relatively large centralized athletic complex to be located
at a position adjacent to and south of School Boulevard. The precise
location for the park has not been established at this time; however, the
developer has agreed to provide 16 acres of park land at a location outside
of power line easement areas. It is the view of the Parks Commission that
short-term development of park area on the 80 acres north of School
Boulevard is not necessary at this time due to the fact that Little Mountain
School is available to provide for necessary open space for the short-term.
In addition, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires private park facilities
for multi -family developments that could occur in Outlot C. Outlots B and
A are medium density developments, and it is not likely that such
developments would provide private park areas.
FALLON AVENUE
Redevelopment of Fallon Avenue should be considered to coincide with the
development of phase I. It is anticipated that the cost to upgrade this
roadway will be shared by the adjoining property owners. As with School
Boulevard, it is likely that the City will need to consider financing
oversizing expenses.
� e WILA Y
As mentioned earlier, the School Boulevard pathway will provide the major
east/west pathway corridor for residents living in the subdivision. Pointe of
destination include the school campus to the east and the future commercial
area to the west. The internal road system will be built with a 36 -ft wide
road surface, which will enable safe movement of pedestrians from within
the subdivision to the pathway alongside the heavily -traveled School
Boulevard. In addition, it is suggested that a pathway be constructed at a
location connecting Blocks 4 and 3. Such a pathway would connect the west
half of the dovelopment area to the internal road system linking the west
side of the subdivision to Little Mountain School. Such a pathway would
allow people living in the western half of the plat to walk to Little Mountain
School without having to walk all the way down to School Boulevard and
back up Fallon Avenue. It should be noted that there may be a problem
with establishing this pathway due to limitations in grading and crossing(�
the Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline. _ 1
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend granting approval of the preliminary plat of the
Klein Farms subdivision. Motion is contingent on 1) approval of the
utility plans by the City Engineer, 2) developer making modifications
to the plat as suggested during the course of the meeting;
3) developer entering a development agreement guaranteeing
development of the park area south of School Boulevard; 4) negative
declaration of environmental impact resulting from the EAW process;
5) approval of final plat from the County and affected oil and power
companies; and 6) finalization of description of project phasing and
associated financing.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Nein Farms
subdivision.
This alternative should be selected if the developer is not willing to
make requested and reasonable changes or unwilling to satisfy
contingencies.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat in some detail and can generally
confirm that the preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. It is suggested that the City Council review the plan
in detail with the developer, make suggested changes where appropriate,
and unless major modifications are needed, it appears appropriate to
recommend approval of the preliminary plat with contingencies as noted.
Copy of Klein Farms preliminary plat.
M
12
TOTAL AREA . 00.11 ACRES
I=
107 SINGLE PAMILY LOTS
1 0vTFV
LCT I;AM SINGLE FAMILY
7 OUTLOTS - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
THENORTH HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTO Of SECTION 1e
IS CURRENTLY
OUTSIDE OF THR CITY LIMITS OF MONTICELLO.
PROPOSED ZONING '
Parcel Area leereal Pr000ee�ion(na
Outlot A 7. s10 •rM•a 7-.As1
Ra
oltI r B 10. 110 ~-1
p•!
Outlot C 0. 71��wr.0.�rn/<I
R•1
Out lot D 7.e
R-1
SLngle Faelly Ma.7 1Wrr4n •i�rM./al
R-1
School Blvd. l.7
Edeonaon Avenue 1.3
Fallon Avenue 1.S
MINIMUM R-1 REOUI REMEHTS
MINIMUM LOT AREA - 17,000 E0. FT.
MIHIMIM FRONT SETBACK - 10 FEET
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 10 FEET
Mimi mum REAR YARD BCIBACK - 70 Per?MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH AT SCI'B1" - e0 ruT
DESLRIPTIOH Of PROPERTY
The North halt at the southeast Quarter of section
1e. Tovns4ip
171, Range 79, Wright County, M11Lfeacts.
O
Kle'lit F rm S
NOTES:... ,ck of map KLELN FARMS
}
----------------
-
T
CCTICT C • , .,L ♦ n a a ✓Q /1 1 b \ .IC 2 �'iD • 0 /1; a
� IIS � -- r' f - �: •'+�� r r'� . �\ i" � � _ � ! '�c Y �.
' •; .�' •'. �T �•� a� 'i i of �•.. •� �
KLEIN '... 'I a
„ FA MS '� rti •. � U
PRELIMINARY LAT
1 PARS LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
10. Consideration of awarding bids on uurchase of new onmuer fire
truck. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In March of 1994, the Council authorized the Joint Fire Board to prepare
plans and specifications for the purchase of a new pumper and rescue fire
truck. For the past few years, the City has been budgeting $35,000
annually toward the anticipated purchase of a new truck in the year 1994
or 1996. Through 1994, the City has earmarked $70,000 for the eventual
purchase, and it is estimated the City's share of the truck will be 213 of the
cost, with Monticello Township paying for 1/3.
The plans and specifications were recently completed, and the Joint Fire
Board advertised for bids returnable Monday, October 17. The fire
department received time bids for the new truck ranging in price from
$223,621 to $266,967. In addition, an alternate was requested for a rear
suction option on the truck, and those prices added an additional $3,000 to
$4,000, depending on which bid was selected. The apparent low bidder was
from 3D Manufacturing Company of Shawano, Wisconsin (near Green Bay).
Members of the fire department are currently reviewing the bid proposals to
ensure that the bids match specifications, and it appears that the 3D
proposal will meet our specifications as outlined. The new fire truck will be
a custom-made aluminum cab and storage compartment 4 -door truck
capable of 1,600 gallons per minute pumping capacity with a 1,000 gallon
water tank. The 4 -door vehicle should have the capability of transporting 6
firemen. The Joint Department is recommending that the City and
Township accept the low bid from 3D in the amount of $226,521, which
includes the rear suction option alternate. Delivery time is expected within
270-300 days. Based on this bid price, the City's share of the purchase is
estimated to be around $160,000, which is in line with what we were
expecting. As part of the 1996 budget, we had included $80,000 in the
capital outlay fund to go along with the $70,000 we had previously
earmarked toward this eventual purchase. 1 believe the Monticello
Township has likewise been earmarking funds for this eventual purchase.
If the City Council is in agreement with accepting the low bid, the
Monticello Township Board will also be asked to approve the purchase
before we enter into the contract. If both jurisdictions agree, the truck will
then be ordered for delivery within 9.10 months.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
One option available to the Joint Fire Board is to pre -pay for the purchase
of the vehicle and receive a discount of approximately 6.16%. As part of the
bid proposal, the manufacturer would be requiring the fire department to
pay for a portion of the truck purchase when the chassis is delivered in
approximately five months. The estimated cost at that time would be
$110,000 that would be required to be paid. When factoring in the chassis
payment in five months, the equivalent return of paying for the entire
vehicle in advance is calculated at approximately 7.6%, which appears to be
a higher rate of return than what we could receive by simply investing our
funds until the truck was completed. If we would pay in advance, we would
have to require a performance bond from the manufacturer to ensure
delivery of the truck.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the low bid from 31) Manufacturing in the amount of $226,621
as recommended by the Joint Fire Board. The purchase of this
vehicle would be contingent upon receiving Monticello Township
approval for their estimated 1/3 of the cost.
2. Reject the bids.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Monticello Joint Fire Board met Wednesday evening to review the bids
received and is recommending that the low bid from 3D Manufacturing be
accepted in the amount of $226,621, which includes the rear suction option.
The low bid is fairly close to our original estimates of $220,000 to $226,000;
and since our funds will be available by 1896, the purchase is still
recommended. It is anticipated that the Monticello Township Board will
consider this award on Monday, November 7, and any decision by the
Council will be subject to their approval also.
In regard to the option of pro -paying for the vehicle to receive a discount, it
does appear that this option would provide us a better return than simply
investing our fiinde, but the timing as far as cash flow is concerned could be
a problem not only for the City but also for the Township. We may have
additional information available for the Council Monday night concerning
this option.
Bid tabulation Corm.
X
BID TABULATION
FOR
CUSTOM ALUMINUM PUMPER TRUCK
FOR MONTICELLO JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT
Bids Opened: 2 p.m., October 17, 1994
FIRESID.WK4: 10/19194
Alternate
Old—Rear
No. of
Old
Base
Suction
Days for
Company, Name
security
Bid
Option
Delivery
(General Safety Equipment
X
$234,613
$3,675
300-350
Custom Fire
I3D Manufacturing
X
$223.521
$3,000
270-300
IClarev's Safetv Equipment
X
$256,967
$4,000
300
IE -One
lTom Conway Truck & Equipment
FIRESID.WK4: 10/19194
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
11. Consideration of a r. guest to review newly edonted cigarette U _easing
ordinance for possible amendments -Monticello retailers. (R.WJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
In July, 1994, the Council adopted a fairly comprehensive tobacco ordinance
that not only requires annual licenses fi-om all retailers, but virtually
eliminated customer access to cigarettes and tobacco products without the
assistance of a store clerk. In addition, the ordinance is very restrictive on
vending machines in public places requiring machines to be operated by tokens
or an electronic switch device by a store employee. The ordinance as adopted
is to become effective January 1, 1995.
After adoption of the ordinance, the City notified all current vendors of
cigarette products within the city limits, including those with known vending
machines. Each retailer was notified of the newly -adopted ordinance and the
requirements that will take effect January 1. Since the notification, I have
received a few complaints from area retailers, primarily convenience store
operators, concerned over the ordinances prohibiting self-service access to
single packs of cigarettes, which you may typically have found on counters
near cash registers or in other convenient locations for the customer. I have
also heard comments that the retailers felt it was unfair that they were not
given an opportunity to present arguments against the ordinance or to present
their side of the issue.
Probably the most damaging section of the ordinance, as far as the retailer is
concerned, is the requirement that all cigarettes must be sold by an employee
and not available for direct access by the customer. I believe the real intent
of this section of the ordinance was to eliminate the shoplifting potential,
which is assumed to be the most common way for youngsters to get access to
cigarettes. The thought was that by eliminating displays of single packs of
cigarettes and requiring them to be behind a counter, children wouldn't be as
able to access cigarettes by shoplifting and would also be unlikely to make a
purchase. While I certainly understand the retailers' coneem over lost revenue
they aro paid by Wbacco companies for prominently displaying certain brands
of cigarettes, I do believe the intent of the ordinance was appropriate in
eliminating the temptation of shoplifting cigarettes by youngsters.
One effect the ordinance apparently has is also to require all carton sales to
occur with the assistance of a store clerk. The ordinance does not specify
single pack assistance but refers to all cigarette and tobacco products.
Although I'm sure that there are professional theft rings and occasional
juveniles that may attempt to shoplift a carton of cigarettes, there may be
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
some merit in conforming the ordinance in regard to self-service prohibition of
single pack cigarettes, but possibly an amendment could be considered allowing
carton sales on the self-service method if they are in plain view of a
responsible employee. The reason for this suggestion is that I don't think the
major problem with shoplifting occurs by youngsters in theft of cartons of
cigarettes but rather is geared toward single pack shoplifting.
After being notified of the City's new ordinance, some Monticello retailers
apparently enlisted the help of an attorney through the Minnesota Coalition
of Responsible Retailers, Mr. Tom Briant. Some of the Monticello retailers met
with Mr. Briant to discuss what action they could persue in regard to this
ordinance and, as a result, requested the right to appear before the City
Council to have us reevaluate our ordinance. Enclosed with the agenda is a
letter from Mr. Briant outlining their concerns and suggesting a few changes
to our ordinance that would in effect allow all tobacco products to again be sold
through a self-service method. As I noted earlier, there may be some merit to
a revision in the ordinance concerning carton sales, if you would agree with my
logic, but to generally amend the ordinance to allow also single service pack
displays, etc., would seem unnecessary at this time.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Council could, after hearing comments from the retailers, leave the
ordinance as originally adopted, prohibiting self-service access to
cigarettes.
2. Council could agree to amend the ordinance as requested, requiring all
retailers to certify that their employees have received training on the
laws pertaining to the sale of tobacco products and also amend the
,r ordinance to again allow self-service merchandising of tobacco products
that are in plain view of a responsible employee.
Council could modify the ordinance in such a manner that would allow
carton sales to be through self-service but all other single pack sales still
to be assisted through a store clerk.
While our newly adopted ordinance is certainly quite comprehensive in an
attempt to eliminate access of cigarettes to minors, l do not necessarily believe
that requiring retailers to certify on their annual license application that all
employees have been trained will eliminate youth from gaining access to
cigarettes. If this is one of the real intents of this ordinance, the way it is
07+
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
currently drafted should certainly accomplish this goal more so than allowing
tobacco products to be sold that happen to be reasonably close to an employees
view. When single packs are easily accessible by the public, shoplifting is
certainly going to be higher than they are if they are sold only from behind a
counter.
When the Monticello retailers were recently meeting regarding this ordinance,
former Mayor Ken Maus submitted a letter to the City Council indicating his
support for the current ordinance.
I personally believe that as time goes on, more and more communities, states,
and even nationally will enact ordinances that have strong language
concerning access to tobacco products.
D. SUPPORTING DAT,&:
Copy of request by Monticello retailers; Copy of letter from former Mayor
Maus; Copy of current cigarette ordinance.
=COa4ELIA 6UILDINC
4W WEST 65TH STREET
311SNEAPOLLS, %%N'NESOTA SWS
THOMAS A. BRIANT
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTOWNEY AT LAW
October 11, 1994
Mayor Brad Pyle
Council Member Warren Smith
Council Member Shirley Anderson
Council Member Clint Herbst
Council Member Dan Blonigen
Monticello City Hall
250 Hast Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RHs Monticello Tobacco Ordinance
TELEPHONE MU) 925-30M
FACSLNILE 16u1925.4223
Dear Mayor Pyle and Council Members Smith, Anderson, Herbst and
Blonigens
I represent the Minnesota Coalition of Responsible Retailers.
As the legal counsel for the Coalition, I have been working with
Monticello retailers on the recently adopted tobacco ordinance.
On October 4th, I met with the Monticello retailers who are
concerned about the impact of the tobacco ordinance on their
business and who want to work with you to explore possible
alternatives that would achieve the common goal of not selling
tobacco products to minors.
The retailers have scheduled time on the October 24th City
Council meeting agenda to tell you about their concerns and discuss
several ideas they have that would change the ordinance but still
be effective in preventing the sale of tobacco products to persons
under 18. The key issues for the retailers are as follows:
1. Placing all tobacco products behind the counter will have
a negative financial impact on retailers because
manufacturer advertising display revenues will be lost.
Many kinds of manufacturers (soft drink companies, juice
companies and dairies) provide advertising display
payments to retailers. The advertising display payments
from tobacco companies ars significant and losing the
payments would have a direct impact on a retailer's
profitability.
2. At least for one retailer, E -Mart, placing all tobacco
behind the store counter would require extensive
0
remodeling at significant cost since the carton racks are
currently on the store floor. However, the &-Mart racks
currently have plexiglas shields covering the product so
that only one carton can be removed from the rack at a
time.
The retailers have the same goal of not selling tobacco
products to minors as do all of you. The real issue is training
store clerks to require identification of persons that may be under
age in order to prevent sales to minors. If we assume that most
minors do not have the $18.00 to $44.00 it costs to buy a carton of
cigarettes, then minora will most likely attempt to buy one or two
packs at a time. Whether the packs are on shelves behind the store
counter or are contained in self-service display racks or shelf
unite on the store floor, the minor still needs the assistance of
a store clerk.
To buy a pack or two of cigarettes, the minor must either ask
for a store clerk's help if the packs are behind the counter or
hand the packs to the store clerk if they were obtained from a
self-service display. In both casae, the determining factor as to
whether that minor is allowed to buy the cigarettes or is prevented
from buying the cigarettes is the intervention of the store clerk.
The real question then becomes •Does the store clerk sell the
cigarettes to the minor or request identification and prevent the
sale of cigarettes to the store clerk?•
To achieve the goal of reducing the access of minors to
tobacco products, we need to work cooperatively with you and
emphasise employee training. At the October 4th meeting, I learned
that some retailers already have an in-house clerk training program
for all employees which includes instructions on how not to sell
tobacco products to minors. These in-house programa include
employee training, manuals and video tapes. In addition, the
Monticello retailers have also been provided employee training
materials (video training tapes, signs and employee acknowledgement
forms) as a means to properly train clerks and prevent the sale of
tobacco products to minors.
As an alternative to the existing ordinance, the Monticello
retailers request that you consider amending the ordinance as
followsi
1. Require retailers to certify on their annual tobacco
license application that all of their employees have bean
trained regarding the laws pertaining to the sale of
tobacco products. All retailers should be given the
opportunity to implement a training program to prevent
the sale of tobacco products to minors. The best way to
prevent sales to minors is to support store clerks by
properly training employees on how not to sell tobacco
products to minors.
4. Allow tobacco products to be sold through self-service
9
merchandising provided that the products are in the plain
view of a responsible employee.
The retailers believe that these proposed changes to the
tobacco ordinance will prevent the sale of tobacco products to
minors. These changes to the ordinance will minimise some of the
impact on retailers and be a significant step toward preventing the
sale of tobacco products to minors. The Monticello retailers want
to genuinely cooperate with you to be a part of the solution to
this problem.
Thank you for your consideration of this request by the
Monticello retailers.
Sincerely yours,
THMMS A. BRXANT' P.A.
'tea -6. A . a-:.e._...t
Thomas A. Briant
Attorney at Law
cct Minnesota Coalition of Responsible Retailers
Monticello Retailers
September 28, 1994
City of Monticello: Mayor, City Council, and Staff
RE: sale of tobacco products ordinance
I will regretfully be out of state on October 4 for a
meeting scheduled to discuss the above mentioned subject.
As Monticello's major seller of tobacco products, and a
resent local public official, I feel compelled to make
comments toward this subject.
As most of you know in December of 1992, Maus Foods took
cigarettes voluntarily from a self serve atmosphere to a
request for service atmosphere similar to that required in
the new ordinance.
This was done because; a: we felt an ordinance similar to
this was just a matter of time, since we were hearing of
other parts of the country doing it. b: theft was ever
increasing and felt the only way to control it was to
remove the product from accessibility. c: we noticed that
the people we were apprehending were a high percentage of
juveniles.
Yes, we did impact the sale of cigarettes. And yes we did
loose the display incentives offered by the cigarette
manufactures, but everything considered I feel we did the
right thing and would hope you would consider leaving the
ordinance as -is.
Sincerly;
Ren Maus
Maus Foods
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 give away 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
information 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 III/Chet 14/Pegs 1
3-14-4c 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 (50%) 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 first 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 sale any tobacco product
by means of self-service merchandising other than through a
licensed tobacco vending machine according to Section 3-14-6.
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:
{61.
(A) Violation of Section 3-1 (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 (16) years of age.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Page Z
II
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:
1. 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.
A�r (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
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chet 14/Page 3
ID
waiting area, or similar unmonitored area; the tobacco vending
machine shall be inaccessible to the public when the
establishment is closed.
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 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.
3-14-10: 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.
(0253, 7/23/94)
MONTICAM CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chpt 14/Page 4
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
12. Consideration of an offer for Durchase of Eastwood Knoll Prooertv
(Meadow Oak Outlots C & D). (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Friday, October 7, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz, dba Investors
Together, Inc., presented to me an offer to purchase the I&acre parcel of
Outlots C & D of the original Meadow Oak Estates that the City is proposing
to develop into Eastwood Knoll Residential Subdivision. I have enclosed a copy
of the purchase agreement they presented, which on the surface seems
somewhat attractive at a price of $175,000, but in reality, it turns out to be
much less.
As some of you may recall, Outlots C & D were acquired by the City through
mortgage foreclosure from Ultra Homes to cover delinquent assessments in the
original amount of $164,500. This figure does not include any penalties and
interest that have accumulated over the last six to eight years but is strictly
the City's investment in this property.
In regard to the purchase offer for $175,000, the offer contains a number of
contingencies that Investors Together, Inc. expect the City to provide or
complete before they will go through with the purchase. To summarize, the
conditions of the offer would require the City to complete the platting and
recording of the proposed Eastwood Knoll plat containing at least 31 lots with
the City incurring all past costs for platting and whatever it takes to finish the
plat. This would amount to an estimated $16,000 in City expense. In addition
to the recordable plat, they are requiring that the City complete all plans and
specifications for the streets, storm sewer and all sewer and water utilities for
the plat, which would cost approximately $30,000 or more in engineering fees.
In addition to the above, the offer also is requiring the City to obtain the four
platted lots of Meadow Oak Estates that lie between this plat and Meadow
Oak Avenue and incorporate these parcels into the plat. One of the lots is
necessary to complete the new road alignment that was approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council to eliminate traffic from all exiting
through Meadow Oak Estates Subdivision. The estimated valuo of these
existing Iota is estimated at a minimum of $16,600 each for a total cost to the
City of $66,000. Although the City does not have to pay this amount of money
to acquire the lots, we aro losing delinquent taxes and assessments of over
$26,000 per lot if we throw these four lots into the package deal. At a
minimum, these lots should each be worth at least $16,500 if they were just
offered to the public at a reduced cost.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
As you can see, when you add up all the requirements that are conditions of
this purchase offer, the City is really only getting about $64,000 for the
Eastwood Knoll plat instead of the $175,000 offer.
In light of the conditions attached to the purchase agreement, I am assuming
the City Council would want to reject the offer as inadequate as presented.
The staff is working with Denny Taylor, who is doing the plat for the City, and
with our City Engineer in finalizing the plat. Once this is accomplished in the
near future, it is anticipated the Council will be asked to authorize preparation
of plans and specifications for streets and utilities under the final plat
arrangement so that the City can continue with the project for bid letting in
early 1995.
While I preliminarily indicated to Investors Together, Inc. that I did not think
the Council would be willing to accept their offer, the developers did indicate
that they would like to see a counter proposal if their offer was not acceptable.
My suggestion, based on previous discussion of this property, would be to
recommend the following as a general target price that the Council would like
to have proposed before considering the sale of the property. The suggested
price is arrived at by the following:
1) Original city coat into acquiring Outlets C & D $ 164,500
2) If the 4 lots lying between the plat and Meadow Oak 49,500
Avenue are included in the purchase, 3 of the lots
valued at $16,500 each should be included in the
purchase price.
3) As part of the plat development, the City would absorb 0
the cost of the 1 lot adjacent to Meadow Oak Avenue
that is needed for the new road alignment.
4) In addition to the above items, the buyer should assume 15,000
all costs the City has incurred so far platting
the property and the City will finish the platting as
proposed containing at least 31 residential lots.
5) As part of the purchase, the City would allow the 0
purchaser to utilize the City Engineer for completing
the plans and specifications for all of the utility
work with the costs for engineering to be absorbed
by the developer.
TOTAL $ 229,000
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
Based on the previous information, if the City is going to consider selling the
16 -acre plat in the hopes of not only getting back its original investment in the
property but also other costs we have incurred during the platting process and
the inclusion of additional lots along Meadow Oak Avenue, you can see the sale
of the property should be somewhere around $229,000. If the Council is in
agreement with rejecting the initial offer from Investors Together, Inc., the
Council could propose a counter offer.
Assuming the offer is rejected, the City staff is anticipating having the final
plat available for Council approval in November, 1994. Upon final plat
approval, the Council would then be asked to authorize the City Engineer to
prepare plans and specifications for the streets and utilities so that we can
advertise the project for bids in early 1995 for early spring construction.
As we have done in the past, the property would continue to be available for
purchase by interested builders or developers, assuming an acceptable price
can be obtained.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The Council could accept the purchase agreement offer as presented.
Under this option, the Council would be agreeing to the acceptance of
approximately $37,500 as net proceeds for the sale of this 16 -acre parcel,
assuming the City has to meet all of the conditions outlined in the offer.
2. Council could reject the offer as inadequate and make a counter offer if
it desired.
Since we have previously rejected offers that are higher than this one,
I would also recommend that this offer be rejected as inadequate. If the
Council wishes to make a counter offer, I would recommend you review
my suggested counter offer amount and the rational for my suggestion.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is my recommendation that the offer be rejected as inadequate in light of the
numerous conditions attached to the proposal. If the City is going to attempt
to get its original investment and all costs of development that we have spent
to date returned in a sale, the sale price needs to be in the $229,000 area as
I previously noted. Since it doesn't appear that we will be getting an offer for
our asking price, I am recommending that we continuo with our plans to
develop and improve the property ourselves. This appears to be the best way
for the City to create a desirable neighborhood and recapture our investment
in the property.
3
Council Agenda - 10!24/94
With more and more interest being shown in Monticello by outside developers
from the Metro area, residential lots and land will only become more valuable
in the neat few years. Although there are some drawbacks to this property,
with it being near the freeway and adjacent to power lines, the wooded and
rolling terrain still makes this a good site for residential development. If the
City continues with this project, it appears feasible to expect that we can sell
the lots at a price that is still competitive with other developments but still
provide an area that should have larger -than -average lots suitable for a nice
upscale development.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of purchase agreement proposal; Summary of proposed offer, Proposed
counter offer summary; Estimate of developing properly as a completed
subdivision; Copy of proposed plat.
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Ib b.rn a(poea p a.r OArrieora A� d
nEALiDnS'. M� da[IYne wl' try
Mara d d ua P ossa d OY inn
1, Wb October S. 1991
2. Fogs 1 d F' Napes
0 RECEIVED OFInvestare_Together,.-InG._A_MLnnesots-Corpora[!^^_
y do d Tvo Thousand Five Rmdred a'd_No/100 ------ Dawn ($2.501D.00
e W E a —w to a b dapaaHtad open smeNanw d ttlaa NuApNmNa by Fnnb.. an a
7 bade Ula rrd b1Wro dna der ampbres. in • nm srcw M at 1.0% b.W but to he amnrd IS D.V. 0 Nations
6 AWWn%md a not araF by Ston. Sad aamne moray a pan pera b ob Wdmn d ae papwly k ma ■
9 Saes 4""-
ID Cey d _Monticello _ _ , C_4 d Vr1Nht StM d corned.,
11 Logoydmpbdm See attecMd_pro-sed site elan (Fahibit Al
u
13 i ckd sa ba+ao Ptyeny..—dry. a.rd a Sao LOM used and baba m ua PtOaM Pedbub. pats a nb. aid
M bees: Moen an, am duan. eases and a.anp, ai
—1- nm®. bin f. tale a d ttetwn d dnMc
had am: saad bob
15 tia neand h";0lanbb9 fft a wcMw trent t00 plena hdw any b/nan. Orft oaaa and Cont as JVr sad n
16 common aw ft bubar a mndnarp aapnrd. eacaonic as Nes. Mates SoWw 0WWM / REWM / NOME, buain Nl "W
17 snd dslaldAe, 4+d Da tar and Come (d the property d So". MMT Pt" *%~ tlwvm a . cook ry pW
a and WON. BUW-M: delemf s Wb9a dtTmn/ Gash cwrpadas parr Cook by Ot nappata wart!. hand tae.
T9 ereacme. ATTACHED, carpelft adnora: 9mW don, apnan and NO masala: amad dngoton: Rwphea anasns, dodo and
20 heArAlo : AND: as toBwtrtp patapW PspM►:
21 — Vaaent
22
23 as d hch p oM , Sale has dna day aD.od ID .0 1. Outw tr num d ($ 173.000.00 1
Om Mmdrad Sovsnt7-N Ivo Thousand and No/100------------------------- Dal -
25 .ecn Buys epnr b pay in ale MM w V maria. Esme mm" d 9 2.300.00
29 and 9 _ _ 67x300.00 Can m AQril—1 Se�3 Nr dab d dmq, and
27 the beats 015 It0.000.00 - -- — - or b.— In s. -W— lode Me am c ad s".dan
29 Cawwniwns FMA VA Ana mVdm Gannet d Owl naw:.
29 Tye R -r— V—.10 6 MOF bpna b a Cp0Vw" SOMMMan (0 soma b M. as madrd adimdJn 1
0D Tb PVdrr AQaaraa Ig 1®Napa b ca—lbbwl d e pw'bdp weal PAd1a:e Apse—a 0.010
31 The Nacha s Apeanws 19 I®aLmpa b an Ygadgn Addardan p em— r E. Nee eadaa sddedm )
32. A Kh d we LOW amords .tach as nen a pat d oe PuPchme Apana (Etta peps a p n on inn 2)
st DEEDNIMU TANI TRIS: Upon owlannarc. oy Bow. Ben pW dna a ------------ warty Dose
34 pard h p %p 1 anyaphayep maWta idly. ailed b
de (A) (Aadanp and 7m0 taw ard.wncee. mad Madan r WjW—. (B) Raadlpe dlae n b use a eW.-rwt d se pope W ww
Se Mattes fa*Ue pwaarb, (Q RmwvaUcn d any re.wa nptta p M SW* d Moneela Ml Maly aid Sm Cop eealrntF ween Co nA
37 anaMn ,an amn2 aVwq n , (E) Rata at as was as Aha (LOnts wwftd. no wpad b tarana.al
39 (F) OUar. (MO be Iron wurp
Q B ECTAL ASKS&MENTS sW te pad a theme y'
41 BUYER AND 9ELLER {HALL PRORM AS OF Tom Cla 09 i70is10ycucw /MALL RSV ONWR 09 ell eiOrwb
42 d CW W aoa c g C WJW In, papnara ata 0e ad OMM b M aid pap* b OM yen d Claalp
N BUYER !MALL amm /@ELLER 9MALL R1ybn dee d ttoaeV s) dtw aperl aaaTwe t.Nad a el h date Of C►w^D
Y BUY[R wtmL AISMAE s srLLER i(11Ai l PammE FOR Raymm W open! m—e pad($ a d 9a dda d M span - b
45 Wl—m b 90 ba been added try the CRY C-1 w dor asap &ave a (6aaa'5 pwesm b p'llniel dW he q mmart 1m
40 eons. d m 2 amfa m -led sn-wa .10. soma". a 1= a aOsad M Blya'a lade I
A7 BUYER "U LL AMRG! A�BM L ttiT,e dM of dump soy orad iN MM ttaa 0. anon Ilea err l a ($paps
b a mora arb MMW of ahCh b raDasd as a rad! d ar C41pp d ora ata One, dW pry me some tome On and patdds n *
e9 Yet Hdtrep d-9 and weaaa and any ap W q-LaJ athn:9lare Palade amaalw aro as ftm. M pW-M d ChM a nd
FD a*W paedaa
sl ti d 9r da of qt sparse. Gabe nap— M Bed MAS ENA! RO7J -fted a rdo d troop b s nes tAAAO nVwwrra
62 pga0 am any pawrarnwae smaaalrlp beoay. 9a Code of etch pgat mo to aaae.d s0M r—dw a • relax d pndap
53 tp.d l s hand NOWat. da d sok gang and m a D1bs 9r des d tdpn0. Dupe 00 manna paynarl d
et ALL MOUE Ot1ER: —O-- d any num cpm aaaaansb and Ssfr arra porta a parson on
m dr d dory a FIOME!/ 11TWR: d nY 01M [pato ssonea 9 etch spscd �\
Se cswaa P app..noso b Co d aaMaaam a gaga ty O. W.J. O W — ad 9 — ba
57 1lsehns Aw- - Otos to nA ane we a OMs'. atmon, Pori qaa b t101 urcraon d tlathm AOataa ad me areR
m nosy pall Mwmdr dW Da MkWC ad b Bryn LOOM on a boa d e Pbla epee b asp m a baba to dale d dap. to
So
aaaat ply a p,"a N O pay am d aM a®
ray. ern rynn tory oorrtU 0110 BuysRq Qs
W .1 eal
PURCHASE AGRI33A rt
Ib Addwae Oak Wood Knoll 6 VIR 0a It.
IDS Pop 3 OM _/,.1t/.�Y
I
os.t ESUTE
aP &pal a ark pny FRETTED FADN00 OFOP IxABD ./t3f ALL. HOPE nal netoee as due petABe n M P MSL .
t04 Err aaa TO Do Of ISA4RHlJ.�irDa, All, NonIE lad esla e,e du.td PrlaaH k, ft Year roiS-. a dm
am caskv dee bdrpa,�ft mead eYft tmm pds. r pialyd. b e*.Wd o r. — dartq dr Saer tI tae du and
Ie palaab n 0. Yee B dj< ad be nkL^ftWM ft-Oeed d M-.WM d pal cr nmlvnMfMd Wisaft as is Bided.
III Ser qaO a par &rya a ck*V S ~ -0- bad r riclnMmaeed
113. PMM If as wee Ras teaaa Bn4a gear In Pay Dry .wtrtaarnp o1Wce of M nweMW W Raw VW 0aa0.a due war MAU.
1n No Iaplaal . Yeo nada owOlni fa attar of emeaaad owl .stat am
1N POSSESSION: Seal dao do— ptmerebn of to PMNIy not taw M Date of cloalna dart doalrnp
In AN I aaad, TvtnroAlm a socWm Am idea kaf.A SPA Iadun Re and al ditpea ar cry Meet CRY nmew "cutft and IWad
to ges are be p1we10 bommee n Yen peon at d ds d I - SOW apwn m wove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY
117, NOT INCLUDED HEREIN Rom tan PWely by Pew dobe
110 El1YNONMEWM CONCERNS: D as beta d Lb Bryn ba.60p1 fmn w w teatwa s atdsa a aneapwed MxW wft acM
t6 h&.h I.M. Ron.
tID
0 SPECIAL WARRANTIES:
123. SELLS Ne1RRANTS THAT THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED To- Nm SIWENOTEsloo CtY W1TERorn*w
CJ 54LMETt M AWMM TO PAMM WMER ORALITY TEST MM" APOIOR SEPTIC BMW CERTOROTON IF MUMM BY
tta OWEIMYIO AUTIIOWTY ANmOII LENmEn. SELLER WARRRAHTB Tela ALL APPLLANCEB NEMM AIR CONORIDTm10. LA1R4tI(N
RII AND PLI MSM SVBIEMS I= AND LOCATED ON SAD PROPERTY WILL BE N MR)" ORDER ON THE DOE CP CASINO,
134 EXCEPT AS NOTED ON A'DICIED ADOENDLAA WM NAS TNI MfT TO D4PELT PROPERTY PRIOR TO CLOSING,
137. ODER
in
ACKNONLEDOES THAT NO OftAl BEEN MADE POSSIBLE PROBLEM
IM w BASE CAUSED LGE BIatAUP aF THE 48UrFA REt1E8 D
MSOLELY N TKff RE
[4 SELLER HADA /HAS NOT OR Cf0./ ED By
1CP
RECEIVED ROPE . w RE
134 SUM HAS WELL
OS ASTRAL[ !._ SaaaMl
n/ TACT HAT 1 HAM REfZ1VED AND EMD THE OWWWOTY TO I<QYBW TIIE
134 RfNO[)RIAIIIfI . REAMS Mi10H ADI�IEIIT.
tTf BELLERIS)
Dean Hollluod and Kenneth 4chrartt stateteat the) or_a_l teanud nd •otau •gent• in_LM
H, 8tita of Mlrthoata, and that they are the a of Inrotora Together, Inc. a Hinneaata
COrporat eon.
Dun Hoglund and Kwmeth Schrarta Century 31 Ural Rep. 4uyera
tU - - - —'n...c� - - -- - Rvatee
Hr TIRE HOICK DOES NOT WWV VIM EWM BT_ATUTBRV AODCV COCILMM _ IE_Nft._ _
113 1. N wean d fa On41AA amp Wo and ^Joe" 1 age a Paden fa Poo" w M lab aro w War
HIS w k7eg bdm In Wee- Red PWatr Ram far waraa. Una Reed 0-0— ea be awn
H7 ,aftre &Nance nfaraae n W"
lef .R`r.tL.,.., _
_—_.-_ __ --_ - . 4.1c 7G.i__ __ —
ISO
-Gr
— _ _ - __ — Y:rti
1{S._'
%6.06w
na rer .0uroect [tae
to
TM a a 1E0ALLY 111010 CONTMACT LKTWM SMTDa me onwa
IEA rel a 3 baa
I NOW mm 1 SELL 011 w AMM CONrtk1 an APPOopam OIKMNDUL
ADDENDUM TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
tarty
IMM two appror.a by the iftnew u AMMON d
FF 1110d9! kbew A* asaocYlb, or PE LL/0d9e
stases dry eatery d d ua m nwrse d ttar
*r a
1. Dara y
2. Page of L popes
1 Adderdwn toPurNwa Apsernna Defween pVbn ds a,i October S f994 IDIM purehar
4. and sale olthe properly PProposed East Wood Knoll Addition
5, This purchase agreownt to contingent upon the following terms and conditions:
g Section /1: Seller shell provldo buyers with a recordable plat, Containing no lea■
than 51 raaid.ntlal lots.
�. Section /2: Sal ler shall provide toyer with plans sad opeci[ications for; city water,
Clt) /ewer, .tdr1 aewar, curb. Butter. at It' add .tree[ figs[/.
g, Section 03: Buyer: shall haw upon receipt of the Stems listed id Sactlons #1 and /2
of this agreement, lD days to reeler ens approve uta teems assess .n
9 Sectio' I1 and 12 of this agreemed[.
Section 94: I) the buyer. do not approve the hews ..... a .d dace... ea a a this
M agreement, all pertfe• to thle agreement shell sign a cancellationaof
pureness ...— est, oda u. aerau: 'nay pa as darau6U., :11:1 . ad
ry to the buyer*.
Section s3: Upon approval or tn. — urea in :ecuon. • eg ...,
12 buyers .hall pay to the sellers 110,000.00 a dlpartl:l p:peent of the
dornpsysent. It buyera ao dot cense on wa ae Property
ua nr .,,... epyav
11 sellar: shall reals ufd II0,000.00 a 4'"ges.
Settled *6t Thu agreement :lull cover all of the proposed oast woos Anoaa past,
q, containing approahmuly 16 •e res plotted into 71 res ided[laI lou.
AND Lot. 1, 2, 7 dna a. rases. s. nedaow wa wcaaaw, .,say
ti Wright County, Ninnesata.
Section I7: TN buyers sad the C1[y Adm[o.o[re[or or rm...cw.... ,.
IE seater •rehltactural control co�l[[eo to ■pprovo ell futura'bullding and
d.velopaent on tha property descnoaa to d eon . wg, e..v„a.
17Sald caemlttoe still approvo any building plans and apecifteatlone 1n
¢rofdame with any recorded duo-alvt*lon cow -nand..
U&
19
20 Contract for Deed Torso
$110,000.00 by a Contract for Deed to be paid a follows:
?t. 1__.. r WYeaoaa-ta-ahs-asduoa-D"16a000.00-laeiwing-Islalose-as-lM-Caere!-aowen-9arceat
(7I) per armttm, compuud on the unpaid balanced. Paywnta shall be credited first to the
22. aaaswd-LwtarMt-odd-ode-►Naas-eppl{w-te-eM-►Nsefpet.—P+rse-M)-int-a.11 be due and
payable on the 15th day of Aprll, 1996, and a like payment on t" 15th day of April doth
23 )wr-tderu[ter,-adsLld-dey-el-Aptlly-7998.-ss-whlad-llsw-lM-anNn-earinMg
balance together rl th the aeeruad ldtereot shall be due add payable.
20
25
26
27 Upon recalpt of 165,000.00 downpeywrit, dollars shall r laaao by Varranty Dead to the
buyoro "pdnoi Tor ih7 aeveloperaT, n outl'Iln BdilbTI�oTfFiin eareaaent,itteciiod
29 he roto. Itpon receipt of 155,000.00 additional payesnt, seltaro shell reladae to bLsr:
by Yorran[j 5td. Ph.1T Tthe N-Topmint. Upon ren ipt of the -baTanci -oi the
29 Contract for Deed. a.l len pholl rheas. Ph.. Ill.
30
72.
33
N
35 IS -
35
G35
J6 w M ms1 I t00 017ar laOY 08 W a01np. OOMIIRf, ABY safe11d111OgA�MOp{ggldlkL �
ADDENDUM TO
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
1 M be Wend by M 10 mime Ani of
REaUOR9! lsvrm aaorlim a 1Eal70RT
i outlens w ssdatl an d uY v m!a d are bre,
1. Oafs 4
2. Pegs of L popes
a Addw,W,n to PuucMes ApFwnars Oeltw I parties dated October S t9-L4—PMtalnb td Ns pureMs
a and /sl/ of the popsy to Proposed Past Wood Knoll Addition
3 Thi* purchase agraes.nt le comting�at upon the following term and condition.:
g
Sac on I1, bailer shell provide buyers with a recordable plat, containing no lees
than 31 reald.ntlal lot..
7. Section 12: Seller du 11 provide buyer with plans and epeclitcation. for; city rater,
city saver, •corm sever, curb, gutter, ■trate ane eine[ ogre.
a Section 13: Buyers *hall Mve upon receipt of the items listed in Sec[lom 11 and $2
of Chit sgrelmn[. JO aaJ/ to tsarist and approve alai Stem 11/[/d In
W Section* /1 and 02 of this agreement.
Section mea: If the Inaye re ao not approve tme atop ala[ed m D.ruud. • his
10 egreamo[, all pettier to this egreerot .ball sig. • .on.eilationadfa
Pur
agrsemot, and all arneac 0"ney para -to—*, •roll w re tun.Jed
11. to the buyer. _
Section s!: upon approves or rno item a,area an d .. . J. ., .a..,� ,
t2 buyers shell pay to the sellers 110,0DO-00uaa a portio, PaJmeat o1 tM
aovnpoJ,mdt. a Doyen 6o no: cine. n a y.3�.... ..... ..... .1r._ 1,
IS *eller. d .11 retain veld I10.000.00 as damages.
Section 06: Thla agroasat shall cover alt of the proposed meet rune anoaa yaec.
1a containing approslmtely l6 acres plated Into )! neldent lel lob.
1 AIiU Lot. 1, 1. ! em a, etocr !, neadw wa ran c.u, uacy or no"cacaaau,
1� Wright Coudty. Mlnmdote.
Section 97: The buyera and the city Ass lnletrator or mnc ic.l.� .,... .v . . .... ..
tg masbar architectural control comlttm to approve all futun•buf lding and
Asara Iup= at on tM proper[] aacr[sed la sec..uo ..a....�.,v..
A - Sold cotaftles shall approve any bullding plum and dpeclficat ism In
— accordance wRK any recordadTu�dlvla lo"�'£oYiRBBt..
tg
i
19
20 Contract for lead Term,
1110,000.00 by a Contract for Dud to be paid as follov*t
21• Amml-payrata-lo-tG�mros-o{-115.OW.00-(m7rdfag-1Meneb-ee-eM-•ate-el-asvenyarcent
(71) per annus, computed on the unpaid balancse. Payments dull be cradl tad first to the
22• adasltad-los.mems-aW-spa•-Nlaaoe-apl.la/-b-/MyHse{p*1.—Fume-Payment- bell -be -dee and
payable on the 15th day of April, 1996. and . like pay—t on the 15th day of April each
23 year-tberafter,-watt,-the-titA�ey-of -h"4 f rtQ9----- vMeb-t/r-eM-satfn-rert0,mg
2a
balance together vltb the accrued lot steel shall be due and payable.
25
I26
27 Upon receipt of 165,000.00 dovnpaymnt. sellers atoll island* by Warranty Med to the
tiuyiri PluoTrof tTie�"ir7lops/ne, au ou-tiTo7d'in'Ei67blt'—Ci of thio ogrumnt. attached
20 herald. Upon receipt of /53.000.00 addltlond��p�ymmt, dallera "hall relnd*_to tutero
by VaFraniy Deed: T/hs,io If-oT tl,i aevoloprn[. Upon r.ceipl'o7-tTw baTinti o'f tAe
29 Contrsat for Med, sellers shall release Phase M.
30
32. .----- — — - --- -
33
35
339---,t t—B�-y-�-pe'�p '� ,►wr - �.1fft.�-
1 A m No tm I e00 Orm tIOY c7R t AC= OOtSILy�M AllRpl mmv
WCANT LAND ADDENMM
M s spored oy ea bereeraa Aecdem d
FF-AU01t9-. Mede decease ore easy
ae1aV m co as a meas d @a lam
I. Ow October S, 1994
2. Pape AP G Pape
S AAdWdM Is Purchase Apeewsd beam Pa0@a daald October S 19-2-4- Oso to the pedes
4. eb ee of h pop. y a Proposed Bast Wood Knoll Plat and 4 lot@ in Meadow Oak. Estate..
S City of Motticsllo, Wright Collnty Minnesota.
a SPECIAL COMMSOEMMEM This Pdaafe AV" as b Koo In Ua aSeab'V wdlpeeldaP ad @ da ' - V malpucir deldad
7. babe C." be ssemled a e@had. n aerp. by Seryv by January 1 19 95 _ qy gedme Away shot becoas,
e nor am.atlaa w..ner nvay etw a atuatw la s■ � Bsys eM Berea ape la ripe a o■crdPon d d. wdm. Ap..�.a
9 (9ead wpwkftAMQa+b
D 90 SUMER / at Wade a OVOCm d Amy d ea Pop t% a BUtEli ua nal or Wn
M Jan.— 1 to -U_
12 O (M 94w obtak ho appaa of af/e7aal d paopard b,"v Pace aro apedkwua r MR / IZL—�- .masa
M IX1e Ekw dAea+I+D afpuw CO dyAaaalip d Popaeed ab*Aion dW*pTdM Plan a BUM LER masa
w e" o &rya dl ! --ER /Epaaa
1S ❑ M Blgv abr@aq d BUYER/SELLER arcane. Putoldl -. oras Mich are atnepable In BIM1
b VS Sinn atAa@aap s EPM_4Q aaa all m Hide WO. Ula de PW" .1y be I Pmad WOW asap - aiap
17.ns0ek. v ma.
tM O Aja Suyee abtsap appal d "" pane wdvapeoAe7ba n eCmda ce eth laryy aetasd SA0AWon nmw" Geld app -M d
Is dsaddedualosadcaaek.a Sea Bectioa 17 of attached addaedem.
20 O N MOM:
21.
22. Sees's auras Im des oaM1gaeyw pryl adad nal aawd a
21 Bela, pores P Mob d scree b ds papaly ore a" and -norm pupoaee
2e. PU= More: 944M mq nta edOlval oha9Pe I pDAV ea p , eauV bd m Mrs a MAAW am aowae ' go
1 naricyd dlq¢a. ab b olear 4w= - a®= nose amu:= tae dads on. Men awn day con smn aro mrsftV
26 las tab m ab No plaaV drpr
27. SPECIAL ISOMANTES: Bean eases ae1 the Papa dearaed n ab gads AV --a- ovale of
21 Alan I "!t t FEST ad Y to mad R-1
29 Bei aortas 01a M Popy 0 jjgI6 M 1ia@0 = Is Send plan ase
]D Bede w.as go h P— v ami a�nady lsoos, Paelewal@l k. a..m Pa. Own Ata► ata
D1.OTNER:
a dmW _.._ _ .�-� -c2, ick.. -- _, - — ' -• --,166
Se ore a A LIMAV RaOaD amyrim P m"m Swrm AID deA11s.
a P MU OMN UMM OR TAM OVA= OOIDUIy W ANa011SDa ROM10prL
36 M aA 1sq
0
Summary of Offer by Investors Together. Inc.
for Purchase of "Eastwood HnoIr
Base Offer
$175,000
13UT Conditions Attached to Offer:
1) City to assume all )lending assessments
24,800
(ie: Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet)
estimate ® $1,660 acre
estimate for (4) lots along Meadow Oak Avenue
1,700
2) City of provide recordable plat
15,000
(estimate cost to date @ $11,000)
(estimate cost to complete $4,000)
3) City to provide completed set of plans/
30,000
specifications for all utilities & improvements
(estimate 0 7.5% of improvement costs)
4) City to include the (4) lots located along
66,000
Meadow Oak Avenue as part of plat. (Est. value
® $16,000 to $18,000 each—used $16,000 each.)
(Delinquent assessments for original principal and
interest totaled $16,600 each). Total taxes, assessments,
penalties and interest over $29,000 per lot.
Total City Expenses or Costs Forgiven as
S(137.500)
Part of Offer
Approximate Net Proceeds to City if Offer
$ 37,500
Accepted
NOTE:
In discussion with developers, they indicated
26.500
they would assume assessments for planned
storm sewer project, so we could add back the
storm sewer estimate.
Approximate Net Proceeds of
S 64,000
Offer
1
Proposal indicates that an Architectural Control Committee would be established,
they would not want to be tied to recorded restricted covenants.
0
Suggested Counter Offer
1) Original cost incurred by City on property $ 164,500
2) Estimate value of (3) lots along Meadow Oak Ave. 49,500
that could be included in plat ($16,500 each)
3) City agrees to absorb (1) lot along Meadow Oak Ave. 0
for street right of way purposes
4) Buyer assumes coat of platting expense paid by City 15,000
5) City allows developer to use OSM for completion of 0
all utility plans at their expense
Counter Offer Total S 229,0D0
Development Cost Estimates Outlets C & D, Meadow Oak Estates
(Eastwood Knoll Plat)
A B
8 Year Sales Period 8 Year Sales
Period
1) Original Coat of Land to City $ 164,500 $164,500
(Does Not Include Interestl
2) Street, Utility & Grading 460,000 450,000
Improvement Costa
3) Platting Costs & Misc. Engineering Coats 15,000 15,000
4) Tree Plantings, Landscaping, Entry Signs 10,000 10,000
& Misc.
5) Estimated Value of (4) Lots Along Meadow 74,000 74,000
Oak Needed For Road Access to Plat With
(3) of The Lots Incorporated Into New Plat
(Estimate ® $18,500 Each: 4)
6)' Interest Holding Cost ® 5% 125,000 78,125
7) Estimate Real Estate Commission Fees ® 58,500 55,000 t
7% If All Lots Are Sold Through Realtors
8) Misc. Closing Costs For Abstracts, State 6,600 6,600
Deed Tax, Etc. ® Estimate $200 per Lot.
TOTAL $ 803,600 $853,225
Average Price Needed Per Lot To Recapture $ 26,575 $25,100
Investment (divided by 34 Iota)
• Interest costa were calculated by assuming that an equal amount of lots
were sold each year. The interest was calculated based on City
spending $450,000 for improvement costa, $25,000 for platting and
mise., along with the assumption that we would have sold the raw land
for $150,000 to someone oleo if we didn't develop it ourselves.
Under column A. 1 assumed (4) lots sold per year over 8 years. Under column
B, 1 assumed approximately (7) lots sold per year over 5 years.
Because of the "larger" size of these proposed tote and our intention to create
an upscale neighborhood by requiring (3) car garages, minimum home square
footage and other architectural controls. 1 would believe we should be able to
command prices for lots in this development that meet or exceed the average
price noted above.
Many of the lots will be capable of having walkouts and will contain trees and
ponds. These features should make them desirable residential sites and allow
us to act a higher price than the average price noted earlier to recover our
costs and still be competitive with other developments.
PROPO-NSED EAS-TWOOD KNOLL F" AT
inns
all:
APA
of
Is 9i IS%// \ `,\ ` ' t,i ; \\ //
A
too
ett p 11t�4��� i 11 �I L°":-.'"—_—..``='�^!•�� `' „�yy,��_. i \„�,,./ \
Is
Is
- — - — - — - — - —
--------- ------- -----
1#71 ly
PROPOSED EASTWOOD KNOLL PLAT S
(former oudots C&D)
pi J � I7 1 %� % • i
! r
A
1 1 ,
t �• 1
1
C 8y: Drowing•Title Comm. No.
R G D�j„�.n BITUMINOUS PATHWAY 5445.00
�y�r
a L
Date- A=oatfl.Ine. Figure
3/28/94 �mrviraw,C. l 11ininm
•4•..�•���u�•w��� MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
1& Update on Gille orouerty cleanno oroigc&. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the recent building demolition and underground tank removal projects
being completed on the former Gille Auto property site, we are nearing
completion of our cleanup project and should soon be able to offer the
property for sale so that it can be put back on the tax rolls. Although we
have not yet received a clean bill of health from the PCA, our environmental
consultant, Agassiz, Inc., is preparing a report that should indicate the
property was not significantly contaminated and that no further soil
cleanup work will be necessary. We anticipate that the PCA will agree with
our findings and eventually grant the site a clean bill of health.
It is anticipated that the City will have spent approximately $30,000 in the
entire process of cleaning up the site along with demolition of the building
and tank removal. At this time, it's uncertain how much reimbursement
the City might be eligible for through the Petmfund, but we do expect some
reimbursement for our environmental consultant fees.
With the expected approval of a clean bill of health regarding this site
forthcoming, the Council is now being asked to determine how you'd like to
proceed with the eventual sale of the property for development purposes.
As some of you may recall, the City of Monticello reached an agreement
with the Wright County Board last year whereby the City agreed to accept
ownership of the property from the County under the following conditions:
1. After the cleanup, the City would be able to sell the property
and keep sufficient fiends to cover all out-of-pocket cost.
2. Any remaining funds above the City's cost would be applied to
County expenditures they incurred in the tax forfeiture process.
3. If there were any remaining funds still left, they would be
applied to the delinquent taxes of approximately $11,300 with
penalty and interest being waived by the County.
4. Any Binds remaining after the above expenditure
reimbursements have been made would belong to the City of
Monticello.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
If the City did not receive sufficient funds from the sale of the
property to cover its own out-of-pocket expenditures (estimated
at $30,000), the County would agree to split any additional
expenditures on a 50/50 basis.
Based on advice from our City Attorney and the Attorney General's office,
the City decided to wait on obtaining title to the Gille property until the
underground tanks were removed to reduce any potential liability from
contamination on the site. If the City would have owned the property
before the tanks were removed, the City could ultimately have been
responsible for the entire cost of cleanup if the site would have been
extremely contaminated. Now that we're very confident it is not a problem
area, the City could request a deed from the State so that we can start the
process of selling the property, or we could let the County handle the sale
under the tax forfeiture proceedings. Even if the County was to continue
with the tax forfeiture auction process, Tm sure the County would agree to
still reimburse the City first for our out of -pocket expenses before any funds
are applied to back taxes. The real question becomes whether the City
wants to handle the sale process or whether the County should seek a
buyer.
Since this property does not currently have city sewer and water, although
it is easily accessible to the property, the Cite would want to make sure
that any development occurring on this property has city sewer and water
extended. One advantage to the City selling the property is that we can
somewhat control how the property will be developed if we have an idea of
what we'd like to see built on the property, whereas by turning it back to
the County, they would be strictly concerned with selling it to the highest
bidder. If the City does not want to get involved with the sale and is not
necessarily concerned over who is proposing to build what on this site, it
may be simpler to turn it back to the County, although it may not be faster.
13.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
S�1.
Council could reaffirm the acceptance of the property from the County
d`
and request the County Auditor to obtain a deed from the
��, ��
Department of Revenue so that the City can continue with the
process of marketing the property.
2.
Council could inform the County Auditor that the City is not
interested in obtaining title to the property and would allow the
County to sell the property under the tax forfeiture proceedings
contingent upon the monetary distribution of finds being consistent
with the previous County Board action
X
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although it may be simpler to avoid the City becoming involved in the chain
of ownership on this property, I am assuming the City Council would prefer
to have some control over how the property is developed now that it appears
to be a non -contaminated site. Based on this assumption, I would
recommend the Council reaffirm the acceptance of the property under the
conditions agreed to by the County and authorize the County Auditor to
obtain a deed from the Department of Revenue. If the Council does not feel
it is necessary to get involved in determining who should own and/or
develop this property, there is nothing wrong with turning it back to the
County and letting them handle the sale, provided they are willing to
reimburse the City for our cost fust.
D. SUPPORTING DM:
Project summary cost as of 9/9/94.
3
PROJECT COST SUMMARY AS OF 9/8194
GILLE AUTO PROPERTY CHARGES
I. PAST COSTS
A.
Mowing
$1,851.16
B.
Environmental Cleanup
$6,851.80
C.
Braun Intertec Engineering Fees
$660.00
D.
Cleanup charges (Ruff Auto)
$1,500.00
E.
Misc. penalty & interest & sales tax
$726.10
SECTION TOTAL
$11,589.06
II. RECENT ADDITIONAL COSTS
A.
Demolition and stockpile contaminated soil (Veit)
$6,260.50
B.
Well abandonment (Rennen)
$379.00
C.
Technical assistance (Agassiz Environmental)
$336.00
D.
Advertisements
$122.48
E.
Legal fees (Paul Weingarden)
$187.50
SECTION TOTAL
$7,087.98
SUBTOTAL
$18,677.04
III. UNDER CONSIDERATION
A.
Fuel tank removal & contaminated soil excavation
$8,947.00
(Schluender proposal)
B.
Agassiz
???
GRAND TOTAL
$27,824.04
(excluding PCA report & contaminated soil disposal)
0
Council Agenda - 10/24M
14. Conai¢eration of final navment to Gridor Construction for Proms
SWC. Second Stage Digester Cover. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The second stage digester cover is now complete and in operation. The
original contract amount for the project was $168,600. With the addition of
change order #1, which was previously approved at $1,985.10, the total
construction cost is $170,585.10. To date, Gridor has been paid $160,170,
leaving a balance due of $10,415.10.
The first alternative is to make final payment to Gridor Construction
of Plymouth, Minnesota, in the amount of $10,415.10 pending
delivery of required lien waivers and documentation.
The second alternative would be not to make final payment at this
time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City Engineer
that the Council approve final payment to Gridor Construction in the
amount of $10,415.10 as outlined in alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of request for final payment.
on
0A1S)&=tnL
3WPMk PLaCe Eag
5775 Wayzata BMkrard
MWieapdis, MN 55416-i 328
612.595-5775
1-BOb7SL5775
FAX 595.5774 s
A1clu ecu
October 14, 1994 Pune"
swvey—
Mr. John Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
P.O. Baas 1147
Montimilo, ZAN 55362
Re: Replacement of Second Stage Anaerobic Digester Cover
City Project No. 93-07C
OSM Commission No. 5098.00
Dear John:
Enclosed, for your review and processing, is Pay Request No. 4 (final) for the above
referenced project. This pay request includes Change Order No. 1, but does not include any
other outstanding issues you may have with the contractor.
If you have any further questions, pleases call.
Sincerely,
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, IN
Jon D. Peterson, P.E.
Project Manager
Bret A. Weiss, OSM
/nm
j:\5M.W\dvU\0xM\C01rCWMbW
emnoppmuu"En"
GRIDOR CONSTR., INC.
1848 BERKSHIRE LANE
P.O. BOX 41246 612-U9-37UPLYMOUTH, MN 55441
I owner City of Momiocuo, Minnesota Om 720/94`
I For P. 6110/94 to 720/94 Reauea Na 4 - (Final) ++
I Engonm Ort-Schden-t� 4 Amodates. Inc.
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
Replaocnam of Digester Cover - City Project No. 93-076
SUMMARY:
1
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
2
CHANGE ORDER - ADDMON
(OSM Imo d718M l midis kne d6/17A)
3
CHANGE ORDER - DEDUCTION
4
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT
5
VALUE COMPIE7ED TO DATE
6
MATERIAL STORED
7
AMOUNT EARNED THIS PERIOD
8
LESS RETAINAGE - 0%
9
SUB -TOTAL
10
LESS AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY INVOICED
11
AMOUNT DUQ TEW REQUEST
Recommended for Approval by:
OSM ASSOCIA QUC.
Approved by Contractor,
GRIDOR CONSTR.. INC.
�j�u
Robert Meyer
/D /MAI
Date
720/94
Date
s
s
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1,985.10
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Approved by owner:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
168,600.00
170.585.10
170,585.10
0.00
170,585.10
0.00
170,385.10
160,170.00
10,415.10
Date
0
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
15. CV
Agideration of advertisgment for bids for purchase of 125 kX
emeraencv Generator. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City currently has one 125 kw emergency generator stationed at well
ill near our reservoir in the industrial park. This generator will operate
well #3 and will also operate two of our booster pumps at the reservoir to
provide approximately 1,000 to 1,200 gallons of water per minute to the
community during a power outage. The generator is on a trailer and is
mobile so it can be taken to various lift stations during power outages. The
most crucial lift station is the Chestnut Street lift station. This lift station
receives a significant amount of flow, especially during an outage at the
nuclear power plant, as the numerous workers use a significant amount of
water during that period at that plant. When the generator is used at the
Chestnut Street lift station, there is not a power supply for well #3 or the
reservoir or some of the other lift stations in the community such as
Meadow Oak, Cardinal Hills, and the industrial park lift station.
All of our lift stations except Bridge Park are fitted with emergency
generator connections. Bridge Park has a standby pump which has to be
manually hooked up to operate that facility. In addition, we also have a
natural gas -powered engine at well 02, which will deliver 500 to 600 gallons
per minute to our water supply system in the event of a power outage at
that point.
Due to the recent power outages this summer, we are becoming more and
more aware of the need for an additional generator. We have been lucky
enough in the past not to fill any basements with sewage and not to run the
community out of fire protection water simply because the tower happened
to be full, we were able to respond quickly, and the outages were not
extended in length. As the community grows, it becomes more imperative
that we purchaso an additional generator, consequently, we have budgeted
$41,600 for 1995 for the purchase of another generator duplicating the one
we have at the reservoir. The cost of the generator is estimated to be
$39,100. If we dedicate the new generator to use at the well 03 site, we
believe that it would be tax exempt, and we would save the $2,500 in taxes.
Specifications for the generator are identical to the last unit purchased with
the exception that we are adding a light bar for working in the evenings.
Council Agenda - 10NW%
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize advertisement for bids for a new
125 kw emergency generator based upon the specifications for the
last unit purchased in 1991. Bids would be returnable November 10
for consideration at the November 14 meeting.
2. The sccond alternative would be not to advertise for bids for an
additional generator at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director,
and Water and Sewer Collections Superintendent that the City Council
authorize advertisement for bids for an additional generator as outlined in
alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Al
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
18. 4gngideration of adootina resolutions acxeDting annexation of
Hawk's Bar and Krautbauer nronerty. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the special meeting on October 12, 1994, Monticello Township reviewed
the development plan in accordance with the urbanization plan procedures
and voted to approve the annexation of the Hawk's Bar and Robert
Krauthauer property. Attached you will find a letter from the Township
noting their approval of the annexations and also noting concerns regarding
the use of tax increment financing and concern over the absence of a
connection between Highway 75 and Highway 39. Please note that
Township comments on the development plan are for information only.
Township approval is not contingent on the City taking specific action to
address the comments.
Council is asked to review the attached resolutions and consider adoption.
Please note that the vote to approve annexation under the resolution
provided is subject to the developer obtaining approval of the final plat. As
you know, approval of the final plat is dependent upon the developer
providing financial guarantees necessary to support the funding of the
improvement project. If the developer is unable to complete the
requirements of the City under the development agreement and provide the
associated financial guarantees, then the plat would not be approved and
the property would stay in the township. I have spoken to the Municipal
Board regarding placement of this contingency in a joint resolution
supporting annexation. They have informed me that the Municipal Board
can Wile on an annexation contingent on a final plat being completed and
adopted.
By placing this contingency that the final plat be approved on the
annexation, the City is able to maintain its promise to the Township that
the City will only annex property that is truly ready for development.
13— ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt the joint resolutions supporting annexation of Hawk's
Bar and Krautbauer property to the city of Monticello. This
alternative should be selected if Council desires to allow the project to
proceed as envisioned under the development plan approved four
weeks ago.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
Motion to deny the joint resolutions supporting annexation of Hawk's
Bar and Krautbauer property to the city of Monticello. City Council
should select this alternative if Council is no longer convinced or has
a change of heart regarding the development of the Krauthauer
property as proposed under the preliminary plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Unless Council cares to reject the development proposal approved
previously, it is recommended that the joint resolutions be adopted as
proposed. Once adopted, staff will present the resolution to Franklin Dern
for signature, then submit the document and other supporting data to the
Municipal Board for review at the Municipal Board meeting scheduled for
November 10, 1994.
WMME�l W. -RW -11161
Copy of resolution --Hawk's Bar, Copy of resolution—Krauthauer property;
Petitions for annexation; Letter from Township Board regarding proposed
annexation.
0
RESOLUTION 94
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, Joe Abbot and Theresa Abbot, owners of territory described on
Exhibit A, currently known as Hawk's Bar, request that the City Council of
Monticello, Minnesota, annex this territory to the city and to extend the city
boundaries to include the same; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed consists of 2 acres more or less, all of this
land entirely within the county of Wright, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the territory described above abuts directly upon the city limits at the
northeast boundary thereof, and none of it is presently included within the
corporate limits of any incorporated city, and
WHEREAS, annexation of this parcel is consistent with the land use guide plan
adopted by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the urban service area which identifies land
that is presently urban or suburban in nature or about to become urban or
suburban; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water
and sanitary sewer to this area; and
WHEREAS, a development plan is in place showing the need for municipal water
and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; and
WHEREAS, the development plan meets standards and requirements of the City
of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, and comprehensive
plan; and
WHEREAS, municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for
use within two years from the date of annexation; and
WHEREAS, Monticello Township has reviewed the associated River Mill
development plan and deemed it to be consistent with the Joint City/Township
Urbanization Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Monticello accepts said
petition for annexation contingent on final plat approval of the River Mill
subdivision.
Adopted this 24th day of October, 1984
Mayor
City Administrator DIP
IN THE MATTES OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE
JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
PURSUANT TO M04NESOTA STATUTES 414 OSS SURD. I
TO: Minnesota Municipal Board
166 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, MN 66101
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree that the
joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello,
designating an area for orderly annexation dated December 8, 1872, be amended
to include the following contingent on approval by the City of the final plat of the
River Mill subdivision:
Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated
boundaries of this agreement is appropriate. Furthermore, both parties
agree that no consideration by the Board is necessary. Upon receipt of this
resolution, the Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within
30 days, order the annexation of the following -described properties in
accordance with the terms of the joint resolution.
Exhibit A - Hawk's Bar legal description
Approved by the City of Monticello this 24th day of October, 1894.
City Administrator Mayor
Approved by the Town of Monticello this day of 1884.
Town Chair Town Clerk
RESOLUTION 94.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, Robert Krautbauer and Betty Krauthauer, owners of territory
described on Exhibit A, request that the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota,
annex this territory to the city and to extend the city boundaries to include the
same; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed consists of 31 acres more or less, all of
this land entirely within the county of Wright, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the territory described above abuts directly upon the city limits at the
northeast boundary thereof, and none of it is presently included within the
corporate limits of any incorporated city; and
WHEREAS, annexation of this parcel is consistent with the land use guide plan
adopted by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the urban service area which identifies land
that is presently urban or suburban in nature or about to become urban or
suburban; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water
and sanitary sewer to this area; and
WHEREAS, a development plan is in place showing the need for municipal water
and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; and
WHEREAS, the development plan meets standards and requirements of the City
of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, and comprehensive
plan; and
WHEREAS, municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for
use within two years from the date of annexation; and
WHEREAS, Monticello Township has reviewed the associated River Mill
development plan and deemed it to be consistent with the Joint City/Township
Urbanization Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Monticello accepts said
petition for annexation contingent on final plat approval of the River Mill
subdivision.
Adopted this 24th day of October, 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator I
IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE
JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
PURSUANT TO hUNNESOTA STATUTES 414.0388, SURD. 1
TO: Minnesota Municipal Board
165 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, MN 66101
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly agree that the
joint resolution between the Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello,
designating an area for orderly annexation dated December 8, 1972, be amended
to include the following contingent on approval by the City of the final plat of the
River Mill subdivision:
Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated
boundaries of this agreement is appropriate. Furthermore, both parties
agree that no consideration by the Board is necessary. Upon receipt of this
resolution, the Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within
30 days, order the annexation of the following -described properties in
accordance with the terms of the joint resolution.
Exhibit A - Krautbauer property legal description
Approved by the City of Monticello this 24th day of October, 1994.
City Administrator Mayor
Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of 1994.
Town Chair Town Clerk
0
CITY OF MONTICELLO
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
The undersigned Joseph P. Abbott and Teresa B. Abbott, being the owners of a tract of land
consisting of 2 acres more or less, generally known as Hawks Bar, located on County Road 75
north of Interstate 94, lying within the Township of Monticello, hereby request annexation by
the City of Monticello of the Hawks Bar property.
This petition is executed in duplicate originals.
A OWNER:
os�� h� �.�A�bbott Kn �a4&*
Teresa B. Abbott
(9
CITY OF MONTICELLO
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
The undersigned Robert G. Krautbauer and Betty Ann Krautbauer, being the owners of a tract
of land consisting of 71 acres more or less, generally described as tying within the west half o1
Section 18, Township 121, Range 24 south of County Road 39 Right of Way and north of the
County Road 75/Interstate 94 Right of Way, approximately one-half of which tract lies within
the City of Monticello and the remainder within the Township of Monticello, hereby request
annexation by the City of Monticello of that portion of the tract lying outside its current City
Limits.
The entire tract is under contract to Residential Development, Inc., of Chanhassen, Minnesota
for a phased development project upon annexation. Residential Development, Inc. will be
processing all documents including surveys and effecting all improvements in accordance with
applicable ordinances.
This petition is executed In duplicate originals.
ATTEST:
6/6/ v
OWNER: /
Obert G. Kra/utb)au`er
betty AnrvRrautbauer
Monticello Township
County Road 117
Monticello, Minnesota 55362 �r
October 11th, 1994
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City of Monticello Administrator
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Mn.
Dear Ricks
The Monticello Township Board at a special meeting on
Monday, October 10th, agreed to the annexation of
the Bob Rrautbauer property as it is in compliance with
the Urbanization Plan; but we do have the following issues that
we are concerned with. Tax Increment Financing as proposed
to cover land reclamation costs is detrimental to the
township; also County Road 39 is the only access to the
public from east of Monticello between I-94 and the
Mississippi River and there is congestion presently with
the traffic there, with the matter to become worse.
MO�NTIC�ELLO TOWNSHIPBOARDOF SUPERVISORS
/ Vi'l�w<—�"�"�'�
by clerk, Darlene Sawatzke.
Q]
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
17. Consideration Qf raging bryllding iqppwdon Rrocess nrocedures
and amending building permit fee schedules. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, some months ago it was determined that the need existed to
add a building inspector to handle the inspection duties associated with the
recent increase in single family housing development. Subsequent to this
decision, Paul Waldron and Associates was brought on to help the City
handle the immediate need. In the meantime, City staff has been at work
analyzing the current manner that building inspection services are
delivered in an attempt to determine if we could improve efficiency of the
department in an effort to avoid hiring additional staff. During this process
we realized that building permit fees charged by the City are overdue for an
update. It appears that increases are justified in order to keep pace with
the rising cost to provide building inspection -related services and to provide
revenue for future City expenses that are, in part, caused by the housing
growth. The purpose of this report is to describe recommended strategies
for improving efficiency. Also outlined is a building permit fee survey,
which includes proposed increases to Monticello fee categories.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MPROVEMENT
Building Permit AaDlication Process
After reviewing the operation of the building inspection department in
detail, we found that there are a number of areas where we can improve
efficiency.
Certain forms have been developed in recent years which resulted in
duplication of Wormation on multiple forms.
We found that very little information was available to the public in writing
regarding design standards or projects such as decks, garages, etc. This
lack of public information made it necessary for the Building Official to
meet individually with building permit applicants on relatively simple
projects, thereby wasting valuable time that could have otherwise been
handled with an information handout.
Also, a standard procedure for plan review providing the Building Official
with a standard amount of time for reviewing and issuing building permits
has never been established. This has resulted in the Building Official being
placed under pressure to turn around applications in very short order,
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
which resulted in, on some occasions, contractors beginning construction
without an approved permit and did not provide time for adequate plan
review.
Another area of inefficiency relates to the manner in which the City collects
sewer and water access fees. Presently, sewer and water access fees are
collected at time of occupancy of the structure. The most efficient method
for collecting these fees, and the method used by almost all other cities,
calls for the applicant to pay the hookup fees at the time that the building
permit is issued. A number of the builders actually are requesting that
they pay the hookup fees with the building permit because it reduces
paperwork and is one less check for them to write.
Insuection Scheduling
During the review of the department inspection procedure, it was found that
the method for scheduling building inspections was very customer -oriented,
which is good unless taken to an extreme. Essentially, the Building Official
would drop everything as soon as he got a call for an inspection. This level
of response may have made sense when 20 to 40 homes were built per year,
however, now that over 80 homes per year are being built, it is simply not
possible to allow the Building Official's calendar to be driven completely by
the needs of the building community. Not requiring any advance notice for
scheduling inspections meant the Building Official was running ragged, and
there was no set time available for him to complete paperwork and complete
plan review duties necessary to maintaining good office organization.
Additionally, it was found that no addresses were maintained on the
building sites, which represents a safety hazard to the builders. Obviously,
in the ovent of a construction accident, it is nice to have an address for
helping to locate the accident. In addition, addresses posted on site are
necessary to help construction delivery trucks find the building site.
PROPOSED CHANCES To THE BtntmiNO I pEcnm PRocEss
In response to the problems noted above, City staff has developed the
following plan for improving the efficiency and operation of the building
inspection department.
Procedures
1. A written procedure outlining Cho application process, procedure for
scheduling inspections, procedure for documenting inspections, and
procedure for issuing a certificate of occupancy has been developed to
help provide a guide and to help maintain consistency, order, and
adequate control. This procedure is outlined in two forms: one is an
internal document that everyone can read and understand at the City
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
staff level; the other is a more simplified version that is submitted to
each applicant for a building permit.
2. Introduction of the Development Services Technician position to City
staff will help immensely in maintaining the process. For instance,
the DST is responsible for explaining to the public what the
information requirements are for each application, and the DST is
responsible for making sure all applications are submitted with all
required information. The DST also plays a role in helping the
Building Official by assisting with paperwork necessary to maintain
the information and status of each building permit. Please see the
attached procedure outline for more information on DST duties
relating to building inspection procedures.
3. The number of forms and length of forms have been greatly reduced,
thereby improving efficiency and clarity. All of the forms within the
building inspection department were reviewed and consolidated.
4. Public information regarding design standards associated with
development of common projects such as garages, decks, etc., has
been prepared along with a plan checklist, thereby eliminating the
need for the Building Official to meet with people completing simple
building projects.
5. The procedure identifies a 5 -day maximum turnaround time for
permits, although the goal will be to turn around building permit
applications in 3 days or less. The building community will be aware
that staff will have b days to complete the plan review process. This
policy will allow the Building Official to do a more thorough job of
reviewing permits and allow him to work plan review time into his
schedule.
6. Staff reviewed the number of reports and long-term record keeping
maintained in the building inspection department and consolidated
this activity into a single master record, thereby simplifying record
keeping and eliminating duplication. In addition, reports provided to
City Council were reviewed. Reports that provided redundant
information were eliminated.
7. In torms of improving scheduling, the policy calls for a 24-hour
advance notice in order to be guaranteed an inspection. No afternoon
inspections will be allowed unless scheduled in the morning. No
inspections will be completed outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Building Inspector will be asked to block out time when
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
necessary to complete plan review work and other City duties.
Builders will not be allowed to schedule inspections during times
blocked off for other work.
A master form documenting the inspection activity for each building
permit on one report has been prepared that will improve our ability
to track inspection activity and will enable us to flag problem projects
prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
Finally, under the policy, the Building Official will not inspect a site
if the address is not posted.
Level of Inspection
Obviously, the level of building inspection required or provided by the
Building Official will have an impact on the capacity of the Building Official
to keep up. As part of our analysis of the operation of the department, we
inventoried the building phases inspected and determined which phases are
required for inspection by code and determined which inspections are not
code required but necessary to protect against future problems.
As a result of our inventory, it was generally concluded that the level of
inspection that our department requires is very high when compared to
other communities. Obviously, it is important that all items be inspected
that are required for inspection under the Uniform Building Code; however,
building inspectors do have some discretion to skip inspection of certain
phases of a project if problems are so rare that inspection is not justified.
For instance, sheetrock inspection, garage door inspection, and basement
floor inspection all appear to be required under the Uniform Building Code;
however, none of the 17 communities that we surveyed require a separate
inspection for sheetrock, garage floor, and basement floor phases of the
building project.
In response to the discovery that no other communities are inspecting these
phases, I contacted Fred Driver, State of Minnesota UBC Consultant, to
determine if skipping certain inspections is acceptable. Driver noted that
building inspectors do have some discretion as to which phases of a project
are inspected and which aren't. If they are confident that problems are not
occurring and are unlikely to occur, then they have the discretion to not
inspect "non-structural" items. Ho noted that in 18 years of work as a
building inspector, he never onto received a complaint about a problem with
installation of sheetrock. He also noted that inspecting garage and
basement floors prior to pouring of cement is not necessary unless the
cement will be poured over ducts, conduit, etc. In many cases,
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
the inspection of conduits, ducts, etc., is done in conjunction with the rough -
in plumbing and electrical inspection. He estimated that no more than 5%
of the cities in Minnesota are inspecting the sheetrock, garage floor, and
basement floor phase. He also noted that it would be fine to inspect these
items if you had time for it.
Following is a summary of the change in the level of inspection as proposed
by the Building Official and staff.
Drivewav Inspection
In addition to building construction phases, the City has been inspecting
driveways prior to paving. This inspection is not required by the Uniform
Building Code or by city code. No other cities contacted complete this
inspection. It is proposed under the new procedures that good information
regarding city code requirements on driveway design and placement be
provided to applicants prior to obtaining a building permit. Inspection of
the driveway would DA occur prior to paving but rather at the time of final
inpsection. At the final, the Building Inspector will check to make sure that
the driveway is 3 It off the property line and that paving materials have not
been placed over private services. Checking at the final will save a trip to
the site.
Inspection Verification of Proper Building Elevatiog
We have found that an area that has not received enough attention in terms
of inspections is establishment of the proper elevation of the building
relative to the approved grading plan. Improper placement of the structure
can result in area drainage problems that are difficult to correct after the
project is well underway. It is, therefore, recommended that the inspection
of the house footings and garage footings include a determination as to
whether or not the setback and footing elevation matches the survey/
grading plan. Adding this inspection will not result in an additional trip to
the building site.
Gornge Floor
Under the new procedures, inspection of garage floors in attached garages
will be discontinued. This is a non-structural phase that is not inspected by
any other city contacted. Gary Anderson is satiefled that the benefits of
regular inspection of garage floors is limited, therefore justifying elimination
of this inspection phase.
-4-
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
Basement Floor
Although few other cities inspect this phase of construction, there appear to
be some excellent reasons for continuing to inspect basement floor
preparation prior to pouring concrete. The most important reason to inspect
is to make sure that drain the has been installed and to check for
installation of a sump basket. Proper installation of these items reduces the
chance of water seeping into the basement and ultimately into the city
sewer system via the floor drain. Due to the importance of limiting
infiltration into the city sewer system, it is proposed that the Building
Official continue to inspect this phase.
heetrock
Inspection of sheetrock installation prior to taping is a "non-structural"
phase that is not inspected by other communities because problems are very
rare. For the short term, the inspection procedure calls for confining to
inspect sheetrock installation. Gary Anderson is concerned about shoddy
workmanship that he has witnessed in the recent past and feels that
continued inspection of the aheetrock phase is justified; however, we will be
monitoring the number of correction slips issued for sheetrock inspections.
If we find a very low number of corrections slips are issued, then it is likely
that this phase of inspection will be discontinued.
summaryGAR e,
In an effort to improve efficiency, ps and forms have been
redesigned and driveway and base ant floor inspections have been
discontinued. Verification of proper footing elevation has been added. It is
hoped that the improvements in efficiency will reduce the need to contract
with Paul Waldron and Associates and/or reduce the need to hire an
additional building inspector. A final determination on whether or not to
hire an inspector will be determined after we have had a chance to operate
under the now streamlined procedures.
FBEs
City staff surveyed a number of communities and found that, generally
speaking, Monticello's fees are well below the average charged by other
communities. At the same time, tho City is facing the need to develop a
wastewater treatment plant at some point in the next 5.6 years which, to
some extent, is needed due to the growth in the single family housing
inventory. Following is a quick summary of each fee currently charged by
the City in conjunction with a single family development. This information
is summarized in the attached table. Included in this summary are the
recommended adjustments to the present fee schedule.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
Unfortunately, no incremental increases in fees have been made since 1988,
which now results in the need to make a relatively big jump at this time.
In 1988, when the present fee structure was established, there was a
concern that high fees would discourage development in Monticello. At that
time, less than 35 new houses were being built per year. Now that
development pressure has greatly intensified (100 homes/year), it may no
longer make sense to keep fees low to encourage development.
Inspection and Plan Review Fee
The Monticello inspection fee ($542) is slightly below the average charged
by the communities listed and is based on a charge equal to 90% of the UBC
recommended rate. It is recommended that the City amend its policy for
establishment of this fee by charging 100% of the rate recommended under
the Uniform Building Code. This is the practice that the cities of Big Lake,
Elk River, Rockford, Watertown, Belle Plaine, Hutchinson, Norwood, and
Waconia follow. Under this proposal, Monticello's fees will be consistent
with what most other communities charge.
Similarly, it is proposed that we adjust the plan review fee to equal 60% of
the inspection fee. Currently, the City only charges 10% of the inspection
fee for plan review. Monticello charges a lesser amount bemuse, when this
fee was established, it was determined that it was important for Monticello
to charge a competitive rate as compared to other communities. Due to the
fact that development pressure is high, it may no longer make sense to
reduce our plan review charge to encourage development.
Water Access Fee
The City presently charges $300 for access to the water system. This is
well below the average ($832). It is proposed that this fee be increased from
$300 to $500. Staff does not recommend an increase beyond this amount
because our water system is generally in good shape in terms of capacity,
and we do not foresee any major improvements at this time. The increase
in the water access fee as proposed will also result in a concurrent 66%
increase in the hookup fees associated with commercial and industrial
users. Please see the attached table for more information on the impact of
the fee change on industrial users.
Sewer Acceno Fee
Monticello's fee is currently $300. The average fee for hookup to the
sanitary sewer system charged by other communities is $743. The list
includes many cities with less growth than Monticello and cities not
anticipating major wastewater plant expansion. When compared to Buffalo,
Elk River, and Rogers, the average of those cities is $1,200. It is
6
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
recommended that the sewer access fee be increased to $1,200. This
recommendation is based on the goal of accumulating as much cash as
possible to pay for small improvements to our sewer system and a portion of
the cost to design or expand the treatment plant.
Increasing the sewer access fee to $1,200 will result in a concurrent
increase in fees charged to industrial and commercial users. Please see the
attached table which outlines the expected increase to industrial users. In
summary, the fee charged to industry will increase at the same rate of
increase to residential development. As you will note in the attached table,
even with the major increase as proposed, Monticello's hookup fees for
industrial users will remain relatively close to the average.
On Thursday, October 20, the IDC reviewed the proposed change to the
sewer and water hookup fee and voted to request that increases to new
industry be limited to not exceed what the City of Buffalo chargee. The vote
was not unanimous. Please see the draft of the meeting minutes of the IDC
for more information on the IDC recommendation. One of the rationale for
limiting the increase to industry is to limit the barriers to industrial
growth. It was the view of the majority of the IDC that it is acceptable to
shift expenses away fiom new industry and to fisting taxaavers because it
will result in one leas barrier to valuable industrial development and,
therefore, represents a good investment by existing property owners.
Storm Sewer Access Fee
At the present time, the City Attorney is working on completing the details
relating to the storm sewer access fee. We are not sure if this fee will be
charged with each building permit as a separate access charge, or perhaps
it will be a fee that is paid by the developer at the time of platting. Please
note that the total building permit fee projected as recommended by City
staff does not include the $600 access charge.
Plumbing. Mechanical. Electrical Feen
The proposed fee schedule proposes a plumbing and mechanical fee increase
to a level approximately equal with the current average.
Summary
The existing fee structure results in a total coat of $1,411. Under the
proposed fee schedule, the total fees would amount to $2,877. The average
total for all of the other cities listed amounts to $2,638. Obviously, the new
total represents a big increase and places Monticello's fee at a level higher
than the average; however, please now that the fees charged by a number of
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
communities listed will likely be increased soon, which will likely result in
Montioello's total fee being closer to the average.
The IDC also requested that staff inventory City building/zoning standards
and fees and compare Monticello requirements with requirements in other
communities. They were interested in knowing how Monticello compares to
other communities in terms of overall start-up development expenses. This
information would have been useful to determine to what extent sewer/
water fees should be raised.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
DECISION 1:
Alternative til:
Motion to adopt or modify and adopt building code inspection procedures as
described.
Under Me alternative, City Council is essentially satisfied with some of the
measures that City staff has recommended to improve the efficiency of the
building inspection department and to improve the service that we are
providing to the citizens of Monticello. Staff looks forward to your
comments and ideas relating to the procedures that we have adopted.
DECISION 2:
Alternative #I:
Motion to adopt or modify and adopt the recommended fee structure for
single family permits.
Under this alternative, Council should review the proposed table in detail
and determine to what extent adjustments to individual fees are warranted
The staff recommendation, of course, is a beginning point for discussion.
As part of the motion, Council may wish to identify at what point the now
fees should be implemented. It is staffs recommendation that the fee
schedule be initiated immediately; however, a number of building permits
have already been issued that have paid the access fees for sewer and
water. It is recommended that for building permits already issued, it would
be acceptable for the builder to pay the old sewer and water access fee if
hooked up by November 1, 1994, or another date as determined by City
Council.
0
Council Agenda - 10/23!94
As a modification of this alternative, Council may wish to tentatively adopt
the procedures and fee schedule and direct City staff to organize a meeting
with local builders to discuss the proposed changes. Staff would take this
opportunity to provide information to builders and seek input, etc. The
results of this meeting would then be forwarded to Council accordingly prior
to final approval of procedures and plana.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I would like to thank all of City staff, along with Jim Kangas and Paul
Waldron, for the effort put forth to reorganize the building inspection
processes. It has been quite a task to analyze the operation of the building
inspection department and come up with ideas, strategies, new forms, etc.,
for improving efficiencies and effectiveness. Staff looks forward to City
Council's comments with regard to recommendations on procedures and
fees. No further specific recommendations are provided other than those
that are mentioned in the body of the report.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Building permit fee survey table; Inspection survey; Building inspection
requirements inventory; Commercial/Industrial access charge comparison;
Proposed water access fees; Sewer and water hookup survey; Procedures:
building permit applications, scheduling, and inspections; Applicant
Information: building permit applications, scheduling, and inspections;
Information sheet: garage permit; Building permit application; Checklist:
garage; Building permit; Inspection record card; Inspection notice;
Inspection schedule; Master inspection record; IDC recommendation Brom
10/20/94 meeting.
/G
BUILDING PER' ! FEE SURVEY
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - Wood Frame Type V TWO BATHROOMS 1300 SOUARE FOOT RAMBLER
FULL BASEMENT - Unfinished
BUILDING VALUE OF $91,765 24'x24' GARAGE
TOTAL SOUARE FEET BUILDING -
1300
I
Monticello Albertville Buffalo Big Lake Elk River Rockford Watertown Belle Plaine Hutchinson Norwood
Waconia Average
PM nticellllo
Curren
�
w
Inspection Fee
$602
$542 S388 $422 $602 $604 $604 $602 $602 $602
$602
$602
$563
a
Pj
Plan Review
$301
$54 $252 5275 $100 $392 $392 $301 $391 $391
$301
$301
$310
state stndra
Surcharge
$46
$46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46
$46
$46
$46
Water Access Fee
5500
$300 $200 $600 $450 $1,070 $1,000 $400 $750 $500
$600
$655
$623
Matert0ther
$100
$100 $100 $70 $100 so $60 $60 $65 $90
$65
$98
$71
Sewer Access Fee
$1,200
$300 $1,500 $1,100 $450 $1,300 5850 $300 $750 $500
$200
$480
$7431
Storm Sewer Access
r3
1$60011
$0 $100 50
$100
$67
Plumbing
$45
$24 $25 $30 50 $100 $45 $45 $84 $50
$45
$45
$47
IMachanical
$38
$0 $25 $50 $0 $100 $38 $38 50 $50
$38
$38
$391
jEle tric
$45
$45 50 50 $0 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45
$45
$45
$321
IDEPST
50
50 50 50 $0 $0 $0 (55001 $0
(Sin Dpst)
()Iher
IPrK-WI
TOTAL
$2,877 1
51.41j__$2 6361$2 693 1 74Q�3 857 I S3,Q80 I >�1 B3J��2 733 52,274
1 842L$2_41_0
L—>z2
538
' Information taken from survey conducted by Paul Waldron Associates - 1992
m
Represents 1009E of base bullding permit fee as defined by 1988 Uniform Building Code
m
Represents 50% of the inSIM00 lee
m
Represents 90%01 base building permlt toe as defined by 1988 Uniform Bullding Code
m
Represents 10% of the InspocUon lee
Onr
J
Pending: mol included In total
BLDPRM94. WK1: 10/20/94
1
inspection Survey
Games Floor Basment Floor Sheet Rock Comments
Monticello
Yes
Yes
Yes
Required
Buffalo
Yes -detached
No
No
Time
Becker
Yes -detached
No
No
Inspected firewalls (sheetruck) at final
St Cloud
No
No
No
Not structural -no time
Elk River
No
No
No
Not needed -no problems with not insp.
Plymouth
No
No
No
No time for extra insp.
(following 12 cities Paul Waldron's office inspects -have not had problems in 22 years;)
Cologne
No
No
No
Time
Glencoe
No
No
No
Time
Hamburg
No
No
No
Time
Mayer
No
No
No
Time
Minnetrista
No
No
No
Time
New Germany
No
No
No
Time
Norwood
No
No
No
Time
Plato
No
No
No
Time
St. Bonifacius
No
No
No
Time
Waconia
No
No
No
Time
Watertown
No
No
No
Time
Young America
No
No
No
Time
BUILDING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS INVENTORY
Single Family Dwellings
(Proposed changes outlined in bold frame)
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS
Yes if
Monticello
Staff
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONST.
required
Inspections
Recomm.
by code
HOUSE FOOTINGS I
YES
YES
YES
Setback I
Yes
Yes
ves I
Soil/compaction I
Yes
Yes
Yes I
Forms I
Yes
Yes
ves
Rebar I
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rebar for core fills I
Yes
Yes
Yes I
Frost ftg depth
ves
Yes
Yes
Elevations to certified survey & building plans
Yes
no
ves
GARAGE FOOTINGS I
YES
YES
YES I
Setback
ves
Yes
Yes I
Soil/compaction I
Yes
Yes
ves I
Forms/depth of frost footing I
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rebar I
Yes
Yes
ves
Rebar for core fills
vas
v25
ves
Elevations to certified survey r} building plans
ves
no
ves
BASEMENT FLOOR PREPARATION I
YES
YES
Slab preparation I
ves
ves
Interior drain tile/sump basket I
Yes
ves
Proposed slope around floor drains I
ves
Yes I
Proposed thickness of concrete I
Yes
ves I
Duct work installation I
Yes
Yes I
Waterline sleeve through floor I
Yes
Yes I
GARAGE FLOOR PREPARATION
YES
NU
Slab preparation
Yes
no
Slope
Yes
no
Thickness of materials
Yes
no
Reinforcement
Yes
no
Support ledge
ves
no
' Common practice among all cities surveyed and confirmed by the State Uniform Building
Code Consultant Is to NOT Inspect despite being rquired by
lode. Problems experienced
are very rare; therefore, a specific Inspection Is not Justified.
INSPECTN.WK4: 10/21/94
0
Page 1
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS
Yes it
Monticello
Staff
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONST.
required
Inspections
Recomm.
by code
)RIVEWAY
NO
YES
NO
Base - class V - compaction
no
Yes
no
Bituminous/concrete thickness
no
Yes
no
Reinforcement materials
I no
yes
no
Location - lots line/service line
no
Yes
no
FOUNDATION WALL
I YES
YES
YES I
Block alignment on footings
I yes
Yes
Yes
Anchor bolt/straps installation
I yes
Yes
Yes
All wall core fills
I Yes
yes
Yes
Fill top blocks
I yes
Yes
Yes
Brick ledge & slab support ledge
II yes
yes
yes
FOUNDATION WALL - B.F.
1
I YES
YES
YES
Insulation
I yes
yes
Yes I
Exterior drain file
I Yes
Yes
vas
ROUGH -IN HEATING
I YES
YES
YES I
Vent stack installation
I yes
Yes
yes I
Warm Air/Cold air register locations
I yes
yes
yes I
Combustion air installation
I yes
yes
Yes I
Installation of ductwork
I yes
yes
Yes I
Gas line rough -in
I yes
yes
yes
Exhaust fans Installation
I yes
yes
yes
ROUGH -IN PLUMBING
I
YES
YES
YES I
Waste and vent piping
yes
yes
yes I
PVC/ABS connections
Yes
yes
yes
Pipe suppo"pe protection
yes
yes
yes
Five pound air test -15 min. (waste & vent only)
I yes
yes
yes I
FRAMING
YES
YES
YES
Structural support -framed openings
ves
yes
yes
Stairs/window/door openings
yes
yes
yes I
Fastening - fioodwall/roof sheathings
I yes
yes
yes
Root venting - location and number
I Yes
yes
yes I
Roof/shingle appllcatlon
I yes
yes
yes
Verity joist grading & spans
I Yes
yes
ves
Truss plant ties
I Yes
ves
yes
Truss damage
I ves
yes
yes
INSPECTN.WK4: 10/21/94 (1) Page 2
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONST.
NSULATION
Voids are filled
Air sealing around piping/wiring
Wind wash at wall plates
Air chutes
Vapor Barrier/smoke poly
INTERIOR COVERING - SHEETROCK
Fastening
Bathroom type/grade
Garagethouse fire wall
HEATING FINAL
Onset test
All duct work connected
Exhaust fans operational
Flue and gas line installation
Combustion air location
Yes If
Monticello
Staff
required
Inspections
Recomm.
by code
yes
yes
I YES
YES
YES I
I Yes
yes
yes
I Yes
yes
yes
Yes
yes
Yes I
Yes
yes
yes I
I yes
Yes
yes
I
YES
YES
I
yes
Yes
I
Yes
Yes
I
yes
yes
YES
YES
YES I
yes
yes
Yes I
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
'LUMBING FINAL
I YES
YES
YES I
Monometer test
I yes
Yes
yes I
Fixture installation
yes
Yes
Yes
Outside water fixtures - anti syphon
I yes
yes
yes 1
Sump pump
I yes
yes
yes
BUILDING FINAL
I YES
YES
YES
Egress windows
I yes
yes
Yes
Smoke detectors
yes
yes
yes
Hardware installation
yes
Yes
yes
Garage to entry door
I yes
yes
yes
Siding application
I yes
yes
yes
Address posted
I yes
yes
yes
All stoops Installed/frost walls
yes
yes
yes
Trees
no
yes
yes j
Sodlseed
no
yes
yes
Final grading
no
yes
yes
Driveway - width, location, setbacks
I no
yes
yes
Utility markers still on site
I no
yes
yes
I NSPECTN.VVK4: 10/21/94
/ Page 3
J
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
SEWER ACCESS CHARGE AND WATER ACCESS CHARGE COMPARISONS
(Excluding Meter Cost)
October 19,1994
Standard Iron ($1,870,000)
Aroplax (:700,000)
Custom Canopy
($977,075)
u) m
w
m
m
m
SAC WAC TOTAL
SAC WAC
TOTAL
SAC
WAC
TOTAL
Existing
Monticello $3,300 $1,500 $4,800
$1,200 $2,000
$3,200
$600
$300
$900
a.
Buffalo $5,600 $2,800 $8,400
$3,000 $1,500
$4,500
$2,000
$1,000
$3,000
Ropers $17,600 $8,800 $26,400
$6,400 $3,200
$9,600
$3,200
$1,600
$4,800
m
a
m
Elk River $14,300 $11,000 $25,300
$5,200 $4,000
$9,200
$2,600
$2,000
$4,600
Proposed
Monticello $13,200 $2,500 $15,700
$4,800 $3,325
$8,125
$2,400
$500
$2,900
NOTES:
1. Based on 11 units and 6' water service.
Q 2. Actual usage would be 11.24 units In Buffalo.
' 3. Does not Include Elk River fire protection charge of $1,070 to $1,570.
4. Based on 4 units and 8' water service.
+ 6. Based on 2 units and V water service.
.�i 7. Land and building estimated project costs (excludes equipment or furnishings).
SAC o sewer access charge
WAC o water access charge
PROPOSED WATER ACCESS FEES
Water Line Size: 1"
$ 500
+ material cost
1-1/4"
710
+ material cost
1-1/2"
920
+ material oust
2"1,170
+ material coat
3"
1,500
+ material coat
4"
2,000
+ material Cost
6"
2,500
+ material oust
8"
3,335
+ material cost
DEFINITIONS:
WAC.Water access charge
SAC=Sewer access charge
i GPD=Gallons per day
17
F
SEWER & WATER HOOK UP SURVEY
OCTOBER, 1884
BASE RESIDENTIAL FEES
Gallons/Day
City
water Sewer Unit Basis
Monticello
300 ♦ Meter 300 250
Big Lake
375 ♦ Meter 400 Currently considering
increase k formulas
Buffalo
500 1,000 184
Elk River
1,000 1,300 274
Hutchinson
500 500 Working on formulas
& increases
Rogers
400 1,300' 274
• Note:
$300 Base ♦ $1,000 Waste Water Expansion Fee
RESIDENTIAL NOTES:
A
Buffalo, Elk River and Rogers charge 80% sewer access charge for
apartment units and 75% for subsidized apartments.
B.
Monticello charges 75% for multiple apartment units.
COMMERCIAL NOTES:
A
Buffalo reduces sewer access charge by 50% after two units and 80% after
eight unite.
B.
Elk River uses the metro table based upon 274 GPD (per unit) s $1,300 per
unit.
C.
Rogers increases residential base WAC & SAC chargee by 100% far
commercial and uses 274 GPD (per unit) SAC (eg., 5300 a 2 0 $800
$1,000 n $1,800 for each unit).
D.
Monticello uses 200 GPD (per unit) a 5300 per unit for commercial and
industrial.
DEFINITIONS:
WAC.Water access charge
SAC=Sewer access charge
i GPD=Gallons per day
17
F
CITY OF MONTICELLO PROCEDURES
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, SCHEDULING,
AND INSPECTIONS
Anulication Process
1. Applicant contacts city hall to obtain a building permit. Development Services
Technician (DST) defines necessary permit and provides information regarding
application and information requirements.
2. Applicant completes building permit application form, plan documentation (site
plan, etc.), and provides necessary survey requirements.
3. Applicant delivers completed permit application packet to the City. DST
reviews packet for completeness. If complete, DST informs applicant that they
will be contacted in 3-6 days to pick up the processed application
If incomplete, DST informs applicant of deficiencies; no permit issued. Once
additional information is received and approved by the Building Official, the
permit will be processed within 3-6 days.
4. Building Official reviews plans and, if acceptable, furnishes inspection record,
address card, and determines building inspection and necessary hookup fees.
Approved permit number is registered by the Building Official on master
inspection record. Necessary inspections are identified with asterisk (•) on the
master inspection record for each permit. Additional information needed on
the permit form is entered on the form by the Building Official who then gives
the information packet to the DST.
b. DST transcribes information onto formal application form and creates a permit
file for each permit using 81/2: 14 manila folders. Permit files are organized
by address. DST submits completed application to Building Official for
signature.
6. Building Official signs approved application.
7. DST calla applicant to inform them that the permit is ready. Applicant signs
permit form. DST then directs applicant to finance department for payment.
Finance department collects all fees, issues receipt, and makes 2 copies of
permit form, one for utility billing and one for finance to determine if
assessments are due at time of occupancy. If assessments are due prior to
oacupancy, finance department will record (.) that assessment is due in the
master inspection record book.
1. Scheduling of inspections is completed by DST at city hall. Generally, 1/2 hour
is provided for each inspection. 7
INSPGEN.PRC: 10113/94 & Page 1
2. A 24-hour advance notice guarantees neat day inspection. Same day inspection
may be allowed in the afternoon only. No inspections shall be conducted before
9 a.m., after 4:30 p.m., or on Saturday, Sunday, or city -recognized holidays.
3. Building Official is responsible for contacting DST to block out time necessary
for plan check activities.
4. Builder provides building permit number to DST when scheduling an
inspection.
5. DST checks master inspection record to determine if a permit has been issued.
If so, an inspection is scheduled as requested.
8. Inspection notice is completed by DST for each inspection and given to
Building Official.
7. Address and inspection record card must be posted at site in order for
inspection to occur.
8. Builder is free to move to subsequent construction phase after inspection
record card has been signed by the Building Official showing an inspection was
made on the previous construction phase.
1?�rocedune for Documentina InsnecliM
1. An inspection notice must be completed for each inspection. A copy shall be
placed in the permit information bag.
2. Inspection notices completed by contract inspector must be placed in the
Building Official's basket to be reviewed by the Building Official. After review,
the Building Official will put the inspection notices in the DST basket.
3. Master inspection record is updated by the DST using inspection notices.
4. Inspection notices are filed in the individual manila permit files by the DST
after information from the notice is recorded on the master inspection record.
P>eucednre for IRauina Certificate of Occnoancv
1. If assessments are due and payable prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy, DST will place typed C/O in finance folder. Once the finance
department has obtained required assessment payment, the C/O may be
issued.
INSPf 3EN.PRC: 10/13/94
Page 2
APPLICANT INFORMATION
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, SCHEDULING,
AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES
ADDlication Process
1. Applicant contacts city hall to obtain a building permit. Development Services
Technician (DST) defines necessary permit and provides forms and other
information regarding application and information requirements.
2. Applicant completes building permit application form(s), providing plan
documentation and necessary survey requirements.
3. Applicant delivers completed permit application packet to DST, who reviews
application for completeness. If complete, DST informs applicant that they will
be contacted in 3-5 days to pick up the processed application.
If incomplete, DST informs applicant of deficiencies; no permit issued,
applicant returns to step 2.
4. Building Official reviews plans and, if acceptable, furnishes inspection record
and address card and calculates building inspection and hookup fees.
If not acceptable, applicant is contacted by Building Official regarding
problems. Applicant returns to step 2.
5. DST calls applicant to inform them that the permit is ready. Applicant signs
permit form, and receives permit information bag. Applicant is then directed
to finance department to pay for permit, including hookup fees, and receives
receipt.
Procedurehj:jchedulinq nI fflHtj#o
1. Scheduling of inspections is completed by DST (295-3060). Do not ask for the
Building Official to schedule inspections. Generally, 112 hour is provided for
each inspactiom
2. A 24-hour advance notice guarantees next day inspection. Same day inspection
may be allowed in the afternoon only. No inspections shall be scheduled before
9 am., after 4:30 pm., or on Saturday, Sunday, or on City -recognized holidays.
3. Builder must provide building permit number to DST when scheduling an
inspection.
4. DST checks master inspection record to determine if a permit has been issued.
If so, an inspection is scheduled as requested.
INSPAPP.PRC: 10/122/94 0 Page 1
I�
Address and inspection record card must be posted at site in order for
inspection to occur.
Builder is free to move to subsequent construction phase after inspection
record card has been signed by the Building Official showing an inspection was
made on the previous construction phase.
For each inspection, an inspection notice will be completed and placed in the
information bag. If inspection results are positive, the inspection record card
will be signed.
INSPAPP. PRC: 10/12J96
Pape 2 I "
CITY OF MONTICELLO
EAC' Y^ Q� L Building Inspection Division
PO Boz 1147 250 E BROADWAY
G(,K.yQ- Monticello, UN 55382
�0 / General Information (812) 295-2711
Sn Inspection Information and Scheduling (812) 298-3080
INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR A RESIDEFLUL DFTACBED GARAGE RuiLDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
L Signed, completed BuMng Permit application term.
2. Two (8) copies of a Plot Plan based on a current Certificate of Survey, and/or Side Plan drawn to scale
indicating the lot dimensions, the location and ground square footage of existing struepue(s), and the location and
area of the proposed structure. Indicate the setbacks from the property lines.
3. Two (2) copies of plans showing proposed design and material Plena shall be drawn to scale and shall
include the following:
A. A floor plan indicating:
Proposed garage size
Type, size, spacing and direction of roof Gaming
Size of window and door headers
Location and size of window and door opening
B. Caws section plan indicating:
Footing/slab design and size
Roof Construction materials
Roof slope
C. An elevation plan indicating:
Front and side view of the proposed garage
Approximate height of structure
Location of door(s) and windows
Siding and roof covering materials
Size of all overhangs
Attached are esarnples of drawings which may assiaL you. They aro intended as a girh only.
LANDUSS RESTRICTION&
1. Minimum required setback distances from the side and rear lot lines may vary aaordhtg to location. They are set
by Zoning Ordinance and approved plans. Contact the Zoning Development Department for this information (when
requesting this information, please provide the legal description for the property).
2. A detached garage may not be located within any required front yard.
3. A detached garage shell be located at lees 10 feet (rem the principal building.
4. If manufactured trusses aro to be used, they shall be stamped "Approved' by a recognized third party inspection
agency.
0. Real Sheathinc and Coverin¢ Approved roof sheathing and coverings shall be installed according to the
manufacturer's recommandations.
5 11
NOTE: The above only outlines general code requirements relative to garage construction. For specific code requirements,
please contact the Building Inspection Division at 2983080. Questions regarding design and costs should be referred
to a professional builder or architect.
A ` IIRM INSPECTION&
L Concrete Slab: To be made atter all form work is se, the mesh has been laid, rods have been wired in, etc, but
PRIOR TO THE PORING OF CONCRETED
2. Framine: To be made after the roof, all E4ammg, and any bracing is in place, rough electrical (if any) is
approved, but. PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF ANY SIDING OR ROOF COVLWNG
3.Frnat: To be made upon completion of the building and grading.
GENERAL NOTES:
L Post address viseble from curb.
2. The City stamped, approved Building Plan and Plot Plan shall be kept on the job site until the final inspection has
been made
3. Plan review and Building Permit issuance normally require three (3) worbng days from receipt of a complete
application. You will be contacted when the permit is ready.
4. The Inspection Record Cards shall be placed on the outside exterior wall of the garage addition and shall remain
posted until the final inspection hes been made. Bards should be gMj2dgd pm the weather.
S. A separate permit is required when installing an electrical wiring system. Please contact the State Board of
Electricity at 012-483.5670 for this information.
0. Call 012.2853000 between 7:40 AM and 4:30 PM to arrange fbr an inspection or use the Inspection Request Line.
a 24 hour recording service (call 6112954M for inspection requests only). Please provide the permit number with
your request
24 ROUR NOTICE 18 REQUIRED FOR ALL MPBCTIONSM
wrn$t, -% jLl f u pftt, - VLPO r 5Wt, bBILi►Ii.� 011D
�IwrtGN
dN
H
' S�Dw�•Ve{�rrsli_Ouctyfs
,,WvsTi4rk*- vr+!iy KF—AND J%{rC
5TU05• VbNOIr 6tM AND 7PA&U&
e -a" G Ise %s^PJ1+ = 4
sl.pb FeINPeFLiNv•ver�y sas�'^re '�
V
ftmIwICo Ff mp-ve's!y ogl► i QUL*Mfr r
L 6
"L.Ym4py Tm OHa�llorally�
0{�.oveD
�eATlD of� N/',�Fou..Y Ma>TUF4'
pey�aTb� >;u. �u.Ta
A"WoF Fei.t4 • Yb(dfY bI: a1JD sPaal� V
apAoR
C*O" * of TAWx �AROt %� •o'
►7
--- --- -- �o:pr�
l�`vhu�tlu+�
III
v vt-hr'{ b�pF
IGS ELtYay'lOj.� '�'=��-o
P]
T—ayp r Zc: CR F• VwF6t'
1 LoNL{�T! �Piby 0114L
0
I
FA
Q , �
i
r J J;F
N&m-r DiKcrto%)
10,
CRY OF MONTICELLO PID p
BUILDING PERMIT APPUCA 1ON
(612) 295-3060
P: .ASE PRINT—INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
Site Address:
Zone:
Leges: Lor Block Plat
Property Owner Name:
Phone 0
Address: City:
State: Zip:
Contractor Name:
Phone #
State License N
Address: City:
State: Zip:
Eng./Architect Name:
Phone b
Address: City:
State: Zip:
Plumber Name:
Phone N
Address: City:
State: Zip:
Mechanical Name:
Phone 0
Address: City:
State: Zip:
Time of Wnv*i
Q New ❑ Sin& Family
Use of buiiaing:
r I Addition ❑ Duplex
a of stories:
Altew;on Muld-Family
®
Floor area sq. R:
U Repair Commercial
Estimated value:
Move ❑ iadustrinl
Water meter size: in.
O❑
Other ® Res. Garage
Water line size: in.
Other
Sever access units (e):
Description of wort:
egg. (if applicable)
Flrtena T.m
NEW CONSTRUCTION: Please record any pre ds wristnsction site damage such
water Ciao ( )
Ballituh
as but not limited to damage to curb: water dud -off; pub c utilities (no utility
Lavatory (wast basin)
marten in place): street: dgns: etc.:
Shower
— Kitchen Sink
- Dishwasher
(cmuiatre on back if necessary)
LarsbY Tub
- Clothes washer
u••....•....•..••••s••.••
Water Heater
Wet performed without required will result In removal of materials as
Urinal
ownerlconuwtor's expense until inspections aro completed. NO EXCEPTIONS
Drinking Fountain
— Floor Drain
1 have rod and examined this permit application and agree to comply whb the
Slop Sink
building code In effect at the time of this application. 1 agree to comply with the
Hydrants
0 axes of the City of Monticello. 1 u dentand that any damage to the pre-
—
co .trmtion site oat ootM above will be repaired at my expense.
— TOTAL FIXTURES
sit par nmwl
Signature Application Dam
Applicant
CHECKLIST OF REQjfIRED INFORMAT[ON F011 THE FOLLOWING
RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS
Screen/3 Season Porch Swimming Pool
Fireplace (Factory Built) Finished Basement
Room Addition Garage
Deck
The following items constitute a complete application for a Building Permit for various types of Residential
Construction.
1. Application: Signed and Completed
2 Plena: Two (2)
-foundation plane: Room Addition, Porch, Garage
-floor plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Finished Basement,
Deck
-cross sections: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Deck
-elevation plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage
3. Survey or plot plans: Two (2), drawn to scale indicting the lot dimensions, the location and ground
coverage area of existing structures, the location and area of the proposed structure and the setbacks
from property lines when applying for the following: addition, porch, deck, swimming pool or garage.
Firmlace
Only lostallation instruction manuals: Two (2) from the fireplace manufacturer to include fireplace
listing by U.L., AGA or recognized testing agency. Masonry fireplace rep. cross section of hearth and
pot, throat and damper.
Bm-
Addition Onlv Brterior envelope calculation: Two (2) -which complies with the State Energy Code.
These plans are to reflect design and materials which meet or exceed the standards of the current
Minnesota State Building Code. Plena which are code deficient require more review time, may be
returned for corrections, and delay the issuance of permits.
Plan review and Building Permit issuance normally requite Ba working days from receipt of the complete
application. You will be contacted when the permit is ready.
b
CITY OF MONTICELLO
BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION
PO Box 1147 250 E Broadway
Monticello, MN 85382
General Information (612) 295-2711
Inspection Information and Scheduling (612) 298-3060
CHECKLIST OF REQjfIRED INFORMAT[ON F011 THE FOLLOWING
RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS
Screen/3 Season Porch Swimming Pool
Fireplace (Factory Built) Finished Basement
Room Addition Garage
Deck
The following items constitute a complete application for a Building Permit for various types of Residential
Construction.
1. Application: Signed and Completed
2 Plena: Two (2)
-foundation plane: Room Addition, Porch, Garage
-floor plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Finished Basement,
Deck
-cross sections: Room Addition, Porch, Garage, Swimming Pool, Deck
-elevation plans: Room Addition, Porch, Garage
3. Survey or plot plans: Two (2), drawn to scale indicting the lot dimensions, the location and ground
coverage area of existing structures, the location and area of the proposed structure and the setbacks
from property lines when applying for the following: addition, porch, deck, swimming pool or garage.
Firmlace
Only lostallation instruction manuals: Two (2) from the fireplace manufacturer to include fireplace
listing by U.L., AGA or recognized testing agency. Masonry fireplace rep. cross section of hearth and
pot, throat and damper.
Bm-
Addition Onlv Brterior envelope calculation: Two (2) -which complies with the State Energy Code.
These plans are to reflect design and materials which meet or exceed the standards of the current
Minnesota State Building Code. Plena which are code deficient require more review time, may be
returned for corrections, and delay the issuance of permits.
Plan review and Building Permit issuance normally requite Ba working days from receipt of the complete
application. You will be contacted when the permit is ready.
b
CITY OF MONTICELLO / BUILDING PERMIT PERMrr #
(612) 295-3060
PH) #
Site Address:
Otho Handwat Regained ❑ Yes ❑ No
Legal: Lot Block
Plat
I ..petty Owner Name:
tip:
Address:
City:
Contractor Name:
Ocr— grou;y
State License #
Address:
City.
EngJArchitect Name:
M Storiex
Address:
City:
Plumber Name:
Mat. occ. toad:
Address:
City:
Mechanical Name:
Ire tyinkl— ❑ yes ❑rho
Address:
City:
lkscripdon of work:
Est. Value: $
Tym err Wase_
Tree OMinaam Applin: p Yes ❑ No
New
r� Addition
Otho Handwat Regained ❑ Yes ❑ No
gAtteration
�Rqair
hove
tip:
Other
C.aou type:
T?SO4S�0:
Ocr— grou;y
❑ Slagle Family
❑ ��
Ston
Sq. F
Sq. Ft
Mu ti-Famlly
M Storiex
8 C Rime ciat
• Res. arch
❑ Irdastrw
Mat. occ. toad:
®Res. Garage
FILE xor=
Other
Ire tyinkl— ❑ yes ❑rho
Off sum Parking covered
Off-street padting uncovered:
wort petfbrtaed wllhoat required toapeetbm will emit in r+emovsl of materb at
owoer/cam octal Is e>aeme until impeedom an mmpkted. NO EXCEPTIONS.
I have read and emmined
this permit and agree to comply with the buBAing code In
erect at the dme of this application 1 agree to comply with the ordinance d the
City d Monk .
Applic= Signmme Dazs
Building Official Signuura gate I
Zone:
Phone #
State:
Zip:
Phone #
State:
tip:
Phone #
State:
Zip:
Phone #
State:
Zip:
Phone #
State:
Zip:
L� F.n.M Tree
water 0033 (toilet)
Bmnmb
Lavatory (wash basin)
Showa
Kiwi= Sink
Dishwasher
Laundry tab
Clothes washer
Water Hems
Urinal
Drinking Fountain
Floor Drain
Slop Sink
Hydrants
Other
TOTAL FUTURES
(f l ps ti�w)
EUL
Big. permit
Plan review
State stutauc
Big. Total
Pin& permit
Futures
State sur=
Plbg. Total
Sewer access
Water amen
Wow meter
Sola tat
S / w permit
other
TOTAL FEES
Receipt •
Data
Post M a conspicuous place
City of Monticello
Building Inspection Dept.
INSPECTION RECORD
BUILDING PERMIT NO. DATE ISSUED
ADDRESS
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
Approvals Dab Time hnpedor
Set Backe .
Mage Foodngs
Garage Footings
Basement Fktor
Garage Floor
Do not pour concrete wall above has been Inspected and signed.
Foundation Wall
Foundation Wall B.F.
Rough Plumbing
Framing
Insulation
Interior Covering
Do not cover work until above has been Inspected and signed.
ng�' I i
Do not occM until above hes been Inspected end &Vsed.
BUILDING TYPE:
Minnesota Bleb RaWalbn No.
MONITICELLO BUILDING OFRgAI
Call 2964= for all requleed Inepwilom —
M I'1
Gary's Notice for each inspection - copy left I DATE TIME
CITY OF MONTICELLO �S&� ed
INSPECTION NOTICE IComoleted
PERMIT #:
ADDRESS:
OWNER:
PHONE #:
CONTR: '
❑ Setbacks
❑ House Footings
❑ Garage Footings
❑ Basement Floor
❑ Garage Floor
❑ Driveway
COMMENTS:
❑ Foundation Wall
❑ Foundation Wall B.F.
❑ Framing
❑ Insulation
❑ Interior Covering
❑ Plumbing Rough -in
❑ Plumbing Final
❑ Mechanical Rough -in
❑ Mechanical Final
❑ Building Final
INSPECTION RESULTS:
REASONS: Inspector:
❑
Approved—Proceed
❑
Work Not Ready
❑
Unable to Inspect
❑
No Permit Issued
❑
Stop Work
❑
Corrections Not Done
❑
Correct Work—Proceed ❑
Do Not Occupy
❑
Correct Work—
p
Unable to Access
Call for Inspection
Call 295,3060 for the next Inspection 24 hours In advance.
Whte Copynnspectore File Yellow Copy/sra Notice 4
to,
INSPECTION SCHEDULE Date: Tues OcG - /F
I TIME F -INSPECTOW-AK . IMME .. _ . INSPECTKTN:- PX - - I
Name:Iuc. p .13'1
us 01 Name: Kok$ {Jus 0 1Vol-
Locanm:- 3Yo M-,Loeation: 93o /headoj or 0/'
8✓
1A0
Type: Go -5c flo,,/, Type. i3sont
Name: I,[ Lh t Yiw 0 a3d(a Name: ,jM-+n Koof,;,5 a ;Lyvs
Location: 931(0 I/.c1;Cc✓1 Location: laaay
s3a 190
✓Type: G`r`') e- �/cc:/ ' Type: -
Name: iSrPc-^ 54--P g.73.?1 Name: V,rZnvP6A4.j
10.100location: 109 £/..oed 220 Locdon:S.••y yo csf�✓�*+' �'V
,/ ..�/
✓T�' 17-.(-�arnod¢j Type.. d- C
Name: q\ n7V # kul Name: M. %D&Kdkhtn ravy
Location: (Ili
Or Location: fob 4-ok C.s(L /
1090 230 r
./'Type: r M� ( Tom•
4,vw time: -,rj;NN b /f 2. 0 Name: G• b it 7YaS
Location: 7C0 SUrc:4c(wc Location: II Sandi wp C;/,
>'
✓ Type: c,Mt lS ° Type: mowe
5kd
wu l(
Name: pormut Andes.^ o 2,4as ` Name: p.E•4w1fr. p�'�lQ
1190 Location: l 0 3 Cry 5 1�� �, 330 Location:
Type: �ooFc n� S - S-� .� t Sod Type:
J/ Name: a\\.,:ju(tl fu//^@A •$Us Name. Alw-/�L,��- ��Al� L 0 2Y3
9 Location: gw II Sond,t,-p c,,- Loeanon:11V /I AdW O+t 01-
A" MVrc—
Time Type: �Ou�'n5 %�", c, Type: :en Pao no. Of th:94 r
Name: 4 Name: D E . - y
Location: i �/n I�04.1
7 �!n on: �
rmme Type: %(/ ' 1 cGF� Tim Type: .
1 � � psi k.1�� �
Name: y/o,ftA44,; • Name: r 0
Locatlon:� ,(�,-0--v
w �,y,�n Location:
Type:%: /N / �j'• J- T1ma Type:
L
INSPSCHD: 10/12/54
-rV C S
P- 9
R - Re.mocb a Noosed
j C
T ��KRWT O WMAMM
1994 MASTER INSPECTION RECORD
O B I JO6 MTI 11109 PI.UrB ISA
T r! ffCW4"PMM
'f74on As 316 RR T., 1i4k�rc
iD , , 6
z5 22 M u�ARVBR IZ i 6ti1 D�eK . r
'MIG ilH6<. 106 $A CgOUL ;1 �g4ACer 'K�;
voiw PL O FA(Coa/ p 3)JSW - rN J�
Z. 3.SIL0 LFLCe✓� 3 N6W - f -FFM I oal 7'0
2300 F1 RPOLDRVSri,! !C��prr G44-
E,f,(�IoLp
RD _ �J0
Cy Z-341 !ROD 6-19_11.11.911 508 R,9" -WY 0
G �rA.►c r 1 �o
Ey ?,302 ;SPRING[=R Bl� 29R� ��_ �2;N' Q �eso� mr••
��Tjo� NoMES P6 u5 2-95/ n.VW a B I-FOh Mgr or e.r
� RRIDGR J4,DR r D6pa-
��'SuN�Jr F�6'Srr 'L06 W.tTU Si' -rRN ../M t ..
Z37o5 ,VRA. 49' P[.uS :535 �T4RLi4 �„� N6W- 1-�MM �' o na ow
l\ nY 15 15 LTD
zao6'HRRIFN N6Stby,�q/.z.9 a/c0y' � LTD-
JQu.0u4�4 '
07 i WAR 80WaAbA.1 V.6 Ni siPPI 'g Al6�J - -r p•'!,'��j'
s Q_ �.'-f,5
�C y
L-14
Mo rl 8.4 4017 t✓q1, 51- s"roA�Lop�GJlkwaw 906 w. �8���,.j
INSPREC: 0&2at94
R.DORi EXTERIOR
11 i62.
647
Ells"
I.®®
Mw
IDC RECOMMENDATION
Thursday, October 20, 1996
Based on the IDUs objective of industrial business recruitment,
Bill Tapper made a motion recommending the City Council deny an
Increase of the sewer and water access charges as it relates to
industrial businesses and if the Council duly felt an increase was
necessary to limit the increase to an amount not -to -exceed the
Industrial sewer and water access charges of the City of Buffalo.
Merrlyn Seefeldt seconded the motion and further discussion
followed.
Some members were uncomfortable to vote on a motion without having
access to the total project coats of construction. Other project
costs of concern were those associated with required site
Improvements, plan review and permits. City staff was directed to
complete a comparative study of project costs charged by other
cities and actual project costs incurred by industrial businesses.
Some members felt the pro-bueinese message sent by the City of
Monticello to prospective industrial businesses Per-outweighted the
small amount of revenue anticipated from the proposed industrial
access charge increases.
The motion passed eight to four.
Recorded by 011ie Koropchak, IDC Executive Director
Q@
►i$irii�iii
250 0. Box 11147 TREE PICTURES
hloniWlo, MN 33362.9245
,_Ar-
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
18. Consideration of condemnation of two hazardous trees in the Citv of
Monticelio. W.S.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The city tree inspector has noted the existence of two hazardous trees within
the community. The first tree is located on the Ms. Chantelle Mitchell
property at 206 E. River Street. This tree was first brought to our attention
by an adjoining neighbor, Mr. Stromberg, in July of 1993. At that time we
informed Ms. Mitchell that the tree was in danger of falling and that it could
cause significant property damage or even personal injury. We recommended
that the tree be removed by a capable insured tree cutter. The tree was again
brought to our attention by a new adjoining property owner who requested that
the tree be inspected and removed. Our tree inspector again looked at the tree
and it still represents as big of a hazard as it did last year. We again asked
that Ms. Mitchell remove the tree. She indicated that it would be costly to
remove the tree and she did not wish to have the tree removed due to the high
coat.
The second tree is located east of the Monticello fire hall on the east side of
Locust Street on the Robert Ameriks property. This tree is dead and rather
large. It appears that the dry, heavy limbs from above could fall onto the
street at any time. In addition, a large wind storm could knock the tree over.
We have informed the estate of Robert Ameriks of this situation and Roger
Mack has had discussions with a member of the estate. Again the tree would
be very costly to be removed and the property owner is hesitant to have this
taken caro of. I spoke with the City Attorney on both of these issues and it is
his recommendation that we condemn the trees as we would any building
violation. Then have the trees removed and assess the property owners for the
removal. Consequently, I am asking the City Council to condemn both these
trees and order the removal as allowed by the building code and city
ordinances.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Council could condemn both of these trees and authorize the removal as
per city ordinance and building code.
2. Council could have the City have the trees removed by a contractor and
subsidize the removal by paying a portion of the cost and/or assisting
with some of the clean up.
3. Council could take no action.
Council Agenda - 10/24/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and tree inspector that
we condemn the trees and order the removal as outlined in alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letters to Ms. Chantell Mitchell; Copy of letter to Robert Ameriks;
Photos of trees.
2
250 East Broadway
P. 0. Box 1147
Mondcello, MN
55362-9245
Phone. (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 2954404
Ms. Shantelle Mitchell
206 E. River St.
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Storm Damaged Maple Tree
Dear Ms. Mitchell:
July 29, 1993
COPY
This is to inform you that it is the opinion of the City that the large storm damaged Maple
tree to the rear of your lot may be unstable during one of the larger wind and rain storms
which can typically occur in our area. Should the tree fall in an inappropriate place,
significant damage to property and even personal injury can occur. It is our recommendation
that you have the tree removed by a capable and insured tree cutter.
If you have any questions or if we may be of assistance with this matter, please contact us.
Respectfully,
AJC'hn
Simola
Public Works Director
JES/pk
cc: Roger Mack, Monticello Tree Inspector
David Stromberg, Adjacent Property Owner
/ 102 Cedar St.
Monticello, MN 55362
Ig
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Merro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
Ms. Shantelle Mitchell
206 East River Street
:toncicello, MN 95362
REi Storm Damaged Maple Tree
Dear Ms. Mitchells
October 4, 1994
Enclosed please find a copy of our letter dated July 29, 1993, which is in regard
to a storm damaged Maple tree on your property which needed to be removed. It
has come to our attention chat nothing has been done to mitigate this situation
as of yet. I have been instructed to inform you that this matter is slated to
be on the Agenda of the City Council if no action on your part has been taken by
October 17, 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or if we can be of any
assistance, please feel free to call me. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CITY .% Moi cnio
9� e Al
Roger C. Mock
Streer 6 Parks Superintendent
RCM/beg
Enclosure
D
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
Dear Mr. Amerika:
DATE: June 16, 1994
OWNER: Mr. Robert Ameriks
38 Harrison Avenue South
Hopkins, MN 55343
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Block 13, Lots 1,2,3,4, and 5,
Original Plat Addition
155-010-013010
225 West 6th Street
The manner in which vegetation is being maintained on the above property
is in violation of one or each of Sections 7-1-4 (C), (D), end\or (E) of
the attached excerpt from City Ordinance No. 7-1-1.
Please take action to correct the situation within 7 days. If you so
aeire, you may appeal to the City Council for a determination that the
.omplained of activity does not violate the ordinance. Please submit
written notice of your appeal within 7 days of the date of notice.
Appeals will be placed on the next City Council agenda for purposes of
the Council hearing the appeal. If no action is taken to remove tall
weeds and grasses or if no appeal has been received by the City, the City
will be compelled to remove the public nuisance and collect the cost to
do so as a special assessment against the property.
Included in the cost to remove the nuisance will be an administrative
charge of $25. The balance of the charge will be based on labor and
equipment time required to remove the public nuisance.
Please be aware that this notice serves as your single notice of
violation for the remainder of this growing season. If after this notice
repeated violations occur, the City, wLtho t additional notice, may
correct the conditions creating such violations and assess the cost
against your property.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you should
have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO 4
1a5
C de� //'
Zoning Administrator 06
cc: File
C 2 TY Oi-- M01�7'S 2 C==LO
• Bi.iC'ss3T =NS?ECT=OST R=�QRT
L°3- O!0 -0/30/0 video up. t
cess,-e�oz: r
M --S: 79 Me
ct-_r, StAZO.:.4: 4-I'*P7
� c''cl l,-I'•�i��
IIcsased =at= --
c I
at==[I zrczc ."--L'ceased moot.-- VO -4 r-, /x�e"^�•' veh:�e, L�avabLe
LI C=&=%-'7 L'==ad met= veh-,e:e/_acmd a veh-lrle, movable
Pill
El
I ' EcaaacaiGfi
• (� Grata/weeGa .. • ���' � r
is. 2_re�=ra eats'. I i/�p�' u-, L.r- Daes:
I OF
. 21 I:sye�..aa Data: •
ed: (I iea [I so Dats'=T and Cvar tz 6-e- • ,
lY moi:, .. �• .'Y � '
�Qr�P>L a f'+t i•
Data asvieNd by ,C==- Qc
Date 2--- ab ti=id
?I.ZLi 1 Cal! Q! S3 ?Clz SD
Fm CST!! L" -mur: Qs=
Data SecsiTeG by Ccoa--7 &t`�__ eq: C__C_ Data :
aLiaSi ZC'.= R C=W. CT "'0 S YLlOi 0.0 ffi C:'! Ct '.fir.-C='.:d FCA CCR *4
Qui C^=!J= . =a .=.
L"
COUNCIL. UPDATE
October 17, 1994
1995 Budget Revisions from WorkshoD Session. (R.W.)
Attached you will find some new 1995 budget worksheets that reflect some of
the changes that occurred as a result of the discussion at the session
September 6, 1994. In addition to the changes that were discussed at the
session, I have also received final valuations from the county assessor that also
resulted in revisions to our tax levy increases.
The two funds that have revisions since the workshop are the general fund and
the capital outlay fund. The general fund levy is proposed at an increase of an
additional $6,655 as a result of an increase of $7,405 for the additional salary
requirements for the Mayor and Council departments, and a reduction of $750
from the community education/summer recreation budget. This net increase
of $6,666 in the general fund was accomplished by lowering the capital outlay
by an equal amount. Although the community education/summer recreation
budget will undoubtedly be discussed further before a final allocation has been
made, I did lower the proposed amount by $760 to the same level we are
currently budgeting in 1994.
In regard to the capital outlay fund, the total tax levy requirements were not
altered very much, but the capital outlay expenditures proposed for the
Meadow Oak Park Improvement project was lowered from the original $89,000
to $45,000 per Council consensus. The $44,000 reduction in the park
improvement budget still remains within the capital outlay fund but was
simply added to the reserve for future wastewater treatment plant expansion
project account.
One other change that has come up since the workshop relates to the City's tax
capacity valuations for determining individual property tax amounts. Since
the workshop, the county assessor has provided me with final valuation figures
after deductions for tax increment financing districts, which lowered our tax
capacity value slightly from $15,651,653 to $16,686,930. This slight reduction
in our tax capacity value will result in our proposed 1995 tax levy increasing
by 4.43% instead of 4% as the Council had originally anticipated. If the
Council feels it is important to keep the increase at only 4%, we would have
to reduce our tax levy at the final hearing by $11,780. If the Council
eventually chooses to lower the levy to the 4% increase, it is then suggested
the lost revenue be deducted from the reserve for future wastewater treatment
plant expansion.
Council Update - 10/17/94
Since the changes that have occurred since the workshop are relatively minor,
with only slight adjustments in the general fund and a reallocation of funds
amongst the capital outlay departments, the Council may not find it necessary
to have an additional workshop session prior to the actual public hearing on
the proposed budget Wednesday, December 7. If you would like to meet prior
to December 7 to go over additional items in the budget, we could possibly set
a time for this additional workshop session at the Monday night meeting. If
you do not feel that the changes are enough to warrant an additional meeting
at this time, I will prepare the budget for the public hearing similar to the
summary enclosed.
Revised 10/6/94 - Based on a 48 levy increase with updated tax capacity
values from County
ALTERNATIVE $1
Fund
General
Library
Transportation
Shade Tree
OAA
NRA
Debt Service
Capital Imp. Revolving
TOTAL
TAH LEVY SUMMARY
1995 BUDGET
ALL FUNDS
Net Certified Levy Increase - $188,658
Payable
1989
Net Payable**
Adjusted
Levy Before
1995 Adjusted
Levy
HACA Adj.
Levy After
Payable 1994
Payable 1995
Deducting HACA
$1,726,851
$1,859,960
$1,674,402
29,510
30,735
30,735
15,024
16,816
15,054
18,004
25,960
23,271
26,401
29,450
26,390
15,255
17,850
15,995
600,863
706,400
637,098
220,619
463.123
417,684
$2,652,527
$3,150,794
$2,841,185•
Net Certified Levy Increase - $188,658
Payable
1989
Tax
Capacity Rate
14.283
Payable
1990
Tax
Capacity Rate
16.187
Payable
1991
Tax
Capacity Rate
15.511
Payable
1992
Tax
Capacity Rate
16.492
Payable
1993
Tax
Capacity Rate
16.313
Est. Payable
1994
Tax Capacity Rate.
17.527
Est. Payable
1995 Tax Capacity Rate.
18.228 (4.0t increase)
Tax
Capacity Value
'88/Payable 1989 $ 15,405,139
189/Payable
1990
15,873,242
190/Payable
1991
16,161,043
191/Payable
1992
15,513,574
'92/Payable
1993
15,490,500
193/Payable
1994
15,154,786
'94/Payable
1995
15,586,930
Tax
Capacity Rate
Tax Levy
14.283
$2,198,008
16.187
2,568,106
15.511
2,506,132
16.492
2,558,554
16.308
2,526,216
17.527
2,652,527
16.228
2,841,185
• Actual levy collected from taxpayers --balance received from state in
HACA aid payments ($309,109 is est. State Aid for 1995).
•• Did not deduct HACA from library levy, but deducted library portion of
HACA from general fund levy.
NOTE: To keep 1995 levy increase to 4%, the preliminary levy adopted
In September would need to be reduced by $11,780.
V
Preliminary levy as certified in September 1994
(Based on updated tax capacity values from County)
TAS LEVY SUKKARY
1995 BUDGET
ALL FUNDS
Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 14.283
Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 16.187
Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 15.511
Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate 16.492
Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate 16.313
Est. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527
Est. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 18.304 (4.43% increase)
Tax
Capacity Value
188/Payable 1969 $ 15,405,139
'89/Payable
1990
15,873,242
Net Payable••
1991
Adjusted
Levy Before
1995 Adjusted
15,513,574
Levy
HACA Adj.
Levy After
Fund
Payable 1994
Payable 1995
Deductinq HACA
General
$1,726,851
$1,859,960
$1,675,144
Library
29,510
30,735
30,735
Transportation
15,024
16,816
15,054
Shade Tree
18,004
25,960
23,271
OAA
26,401
29,450
26,390
HRA
15,255
17,850
15,995
Debt Service
600,863
706,400
637,345
Capital Imp. Revolving
220,619
474,903
428,475
TOTAL
$2,652,527
$3,162,074
:2,852,965•
Net Certified Levy Increase - $200,438
Payable 1989 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 14.283
Payable 1990 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 16.187
Payable 1991 Tax Capacity Rate . . . . 15.511
Payable 1992 Tax Capacity Rate 16.492
Payable 1993 Tax Capacity Rate 16.313
Est. Payable 1994 Tax Capacity Rate. 17.527
Est. Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate. 18.304 (4.43% increase)
Tax
Capacity Value
188/Payable 1969 $ 15,405,139
'89/Payable
1990
15,873,242
'90/Payable
1991
16,161,043
191/Payable
1992
15,513,574
'92/Payable
1993
15,490,500
193/Payable
1994
15,154,786
194/Payable
1995
15,586,930
Tax
Capacity Rate
Tax Levy
14.283
$2,198,008
16.187
2,568,106
15.511
2,506,132
16.492
2,556,554
16.308
2,526,216
17.527
2,652,527
18.304
2,852,965
• Actual levy collected from taxpayers --balance received from state in
HACA aid payments ($309,109 is est. State Aid for 1995).
•• Did not deduct HACA from library levy, but deducted library portion of
HACA from general fund levy.
1995 BUDGET SUMMARY
(Based on 4.43% increase)
• includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets
•• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets
NOTE: If overall levy is reduced to 4% increase, capital improvement
revenue and expenditures would be reduced by $11,780 each to a
new total of $517,523.
L_I
1994
1995
FUND
REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
General
$2,402,985
$2,402,985
$2,432,730
$2,432,730
Library
31,335
31,335
31,865
31,865
Transportation
70,647
70,547
67,479
67,229
Shade Tree
26,160
26,160
32,960
32,960
UDAG
10,845
85,000
11,695
-0-
OAA
29,800
29,800
29,800
29,800
HRA
352,210
272,035
414,700
321,771
EDA
218,710
2,110
118,770
201,440
SCERG
8,345
-0-
63,100
33,300
CMIF
-0-
-0-
13,320
13,320
Debt Service
1,261,020
1,423,350
1,266,115
1,419,712
Liquor
1,487,125
1,479,495
1,540,900
1,483,625
Water
174,280
332,905••
182,350
411,000••
Sewer
464,785
812,985•
505,900
862,575•
Capital Imp.
278,190
262,195
$28,553
528,553
Water Access
15,550
28,000
24,400
-0-
Sewer Access
14,675
35,000
33.550
-0-
TOTAL
$6,844,162
$7,311,402
$7,298,187
$7,869,680
• includes $367,750 Depreciation --contributed assets
•• includes $165,930 Depreciation --contributed assets
NOTE: If overall levy is reduced to 4% increase, capital improvement
revenue and expenditures would be reduced by $11,780 each to a
new total of $517,523.
L_I
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
1995 BUDGET
REVENUE
1994
1995
Taxes
Current Ad Valorem
$1,934,765
$1,859,960
Penalty/ Interest
1,000
11000
Tax Increments --Kmart
103,000
99,600
$2,038,765
$1,960,560
Licenses and Permits - Business
Liquor
17,000
$ 20,950
Beer
1,550
1,445
set UPS
300
325
$ 18,850
$ 22,720
Licenses and Permits - Non -Business
Building Permits
44,500
$ 80,000
Variances/Conditional Uses
1,500
1,800
Dog Licenses
150
150
Others
2,200
3,600
$ 48,350
$ 85,550
Inter -Governmental
Fire Department Aid
30,875
$ 31,125
Police Department Aid
19,500
20,000
State Highway Aid
-0-
40.000
$ 50,375
$ 91,125
Charges for Services
General Government
1,000
$ 1,150
Public Safety (Township Contract)
59,770
60,020
Streets - C.S.A.H. Ntnc.
3,650
5,050
Deputy Registrar
68,000
93,750
Other
100
3,200
Subdivision Fees
500
9,000
Special Processing Fee (Garbage)
5,000
8,500
Recycling Incentive
6,000
7,500
Inspection Fees
2,500
3,000
Garbage Cart Rental
3,200
3,700
$ 169,720
$ 194,870
Fines
Atmel Impoundment
20,000
20.000
$ 20,000
20,000
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest on Investments
i 37,425
$ 50,555
Sale of Property
300
350
Contributions/Donations/
Park Dedications/Rofunds
2,500
2,500
Other
1,700
2,500
$ 41,925
$ 55,905
Refunds and Reimbursements
IDC Reimbursement
15,000
# 2,000
$ 1$.000
i 2.000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
$2,402,985
$2,432,730
i
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
1995 BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
Proposed
1994
1995
Mayor and Council
f
18,400
$
29,750
Administration
231,970
232,120
Finance
92,900
97,960
Insurance
58,250
66,825
Audit
12,500
13,500
Legal
23,275
23,775
Planning & Zoning
53,010
81,290
inspections --Bldg. Official
44,655
96,550
Assessing
13,880
12,525
Deputy Registrar
70,470
85,685
City Nall
48,385
50,260
Computer
23,325
29,840
Elections
13.595
-0-
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT
$
704,615
$
820,080
Law Enforcement
t
279,875
i
293,635
Fire
123,395
132,400
Civil Defense
7,930
9,405
Animal Control
38,225
38,075
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY
$
449,425
$
473,515
Inspection
$
35,500
39,800
Admin. b Engineering
82,490
102,795
Streets b Alleys
297,920
230,850
Snow 6 Ice
28,885
17,735
Street Lighting b Parking Lots
54,950
64,490
Shop & Garage
42,900
35,500
Refuse Collection
304,090
269,070
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS
$
846,695
$
760,240
Senior Citizens Center
i
36,500
36,500
YMCA/Community Ed.
25,000
25,000
Information Center/Museum
2.095
1,795
TOTAL HEALTH & WELFARE
$
63,595
$
63,295
Parka & Rec./Cemetery
S
186.650
f
170,055
'DOTAL PARKS & RECREATION
$
186,650
$
170,055
Community Development
6
146,505
i
135,045
TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
S
146,505
$
135,045
Misc.--Severence Benefits
L
5.500
!
10,500
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS
$
5,500
=
10,500
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
$2,402,985
$2,432,730
E
SUMMARY
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
1995 BUDGET FORECAST
CURRENT AD VALOREM
INTEREST
SPECIAL ASNT--COUNTY
TRANSFER IN --TAX INCREMENT
1994 1995
671,992 706,400
66,725 80,165
195,778 1500900
326,525 328,650
TOTAL REVENUE $1.261.020 11,266,115
rrrrrrsrrrrrarrsrararr�arrrrarrsarraraararararrraararaarrrrr
EXPENDITURES
PRINCIPAL 880,000 925,000
INTEREST 508,734 456,851
PAYING AGENT FEES 91191 8,661
INTEREST EXP. 25,425 29,200
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,423.350 11.419.712
F
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS
1995 BUDGET
(Based on 4.43% levy increase)
FUND/
DEPARTMENT
ITEM
AMOUNT
FUNDING
SOURCE
Admin.:
(1/2) Copier replacement
$
5,000
General
Fund
Small copier at counter
2,700
General
Fund
Typewriter
1,280
General
Fund
Computer file rack
150
General
Fund
$
9,130
Finance:
Check signer b stand
$
1,800
General
Fund
Planning S
Zoning:
Comprehensive plan review
$
15,000
General
Fund
Data
Processing:
Personal computer
- PW secretary
$
2,500
General
Fund
- City hall secretary
2,500
Genoral
Fund
Laser printer
3,500
General
Fund
Uninterruptible power
supply
700
General
Fund
(2) Data racks
175
General
Fund
Big. inspection software
3,500
General
Fund
$
12,875
City Hall:
Brick sealing 3 repair
$
10,000
General
Fund
Interior wood sealant
8,000
General
Fund
(50) Council Chamber
chairs
3,250
General
Fund
Reserve for future city
expansion
90,550
Capital
Outlay
$111,800
Deputy
Registrar:
Office chair
$
275
General
Fund
Microwave
125
General
Fund
Refrigerator (used)
250
General
Fund
Ticket i system
350
General
Fund
$
1,000
Fire
Department:
Building refinishing --
siding
$
7,000
General
Fund
Unallocated
10,000
General
Fund
Balance of new fire truck
($70,000 allocated
from prev. yrs.)
80,000
Capital
Outlay
$
97,000
Building
Inspection: Llteraturo rack for
handouts $ 225 Gonsral Fund
Mobile radio 575 General Fund
Car phone 125 General Fund
$ 925 �i
V
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS
1995 BUDGET
FUND/
FUNDING SOURCE
DEPARTMENT
ITEM
Pub. Works
Reserve for interceptor
Admin.:
Document feeder --copier
WWTP:
Typewriter
$ 21,500
Cabinets
Streets:
Small loader 6 trailer
81000
Paint striper
27,500
Used pickup
$ 61,000
Sealcoating
Water
Department: Senus Meter Master
Control panel wiring
125 KW generator
Sewer
FUNDING SOURCE
Collection:
Gas detector
1,280
Reserve for interceptor
800
sewer ext. (3rd year)
WWTP:
Tri- or quad- gas meter
$ 21,500
WWTP expansion
4,000
Future City share of
81000
intrastructure imp.
27,500
Klein/Emmerich plat)
$ 61,000
Sewer lateral
i 6,100
Trunk water
3,550
School Blvd ext.
41,600
(117 to Fallon)
S 51,250
Fallon Ave. rebuilding
WWTP:
Reserve for future
60,000
expansion
Storm
Sowor:
Noadow, Oak pond outlet
Pub. Works
Bonds
Buildings
Phase iI expansion
Pub. Works
Inspections:
Scale
AMOUNT
FUNDING SOURCE
$ 1,220
General Fund
1,280
General Fund
800
General Fund
t 3,300
$ 21,500
General Fund
4,000
General Fund
81000
General Fund
27,500
General Fund
$ 61,000
i 6,100
Water Fund
3,550
Water Fund
41,600
Water Fund
S 51,250
$ 2,500
Sewer Fund
60,000
Capital Outlay
$ 62,500
$ 3,000
Sewer Fund
i5-8 million
Bonds
i 10,000 Capital Outlay
33,800 or
Bonds
54,000
66.000
$163,800
$205,153
$375,000 Bonds
$400,000 Liquor Fund
$ 1,500 General Fund
0
FUND/
DEPARTMENT
Shop a
Garage:
Parke:
Parks—
Meadow Oak
Park Imp:
Parke:
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS
1995 BUDGET
ITEM
Electric arc 6 air cutter
(plasma cutter)
Picnic tables a repairs
Front -mounted diesel
mower
Trees
(1/2) of fertilizer
spreader
AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE
S 2,500
General Fund
$ 4,000
General Fund
15,000
General Fund
10,000
General Fund
11500
General Fund
i 30,500
(2) Irrigated ballfields $ 45,000• Capital Outlay
(1) Irrigated soccer field Capital Outlay
(1) Storage building Capital Outlay
(2) Basketball courts Capital Outlay
(1) Sand volleyball court Capital Outlay
Assumes improvements are phased over two years with this
being (1/2) of costs.
Balance of pathway
project (ISTEA) $ 45,000 Capital Outlay
Tree
Department: (1/2) of stump grinder $ 7,500 Tree Fund
1898
SUMMARY OF LEVY INCREASES/DECREASES
PROPOSED BY FUNDS
General fund levy is down $52,449. Some of the increases or decreases by
department are as follows:
1. Council - Up $11,400 to allow for increase in Mayor/Council salary.
2. Assessing - Down $1,355 mainly due to no longer allocating portion of
Building Inspector's salary to this department.
3. Planning & Zoning - Up $37,370 primarily to cover 75% of salary and
benefits for new Development Services Technician (Wanda's position)
and allowance of $15,000 for comprehensive plan review.
4. Deputy Reeistrar - Up $15,215 mainly due to additional salary and
benefits for parttime help and extra costs associated with being
located in separate building.
5. Police Contract - Up $13,750 due to hourly rate increase from $30.50
to $32.
6. Fire Denartment - Up $9,000, includes $7,000 for refinishing/
maintenance of siding on building.
7. PW Administration - Up $18,305 mainly due to addition of part-time
secretary position and related office equipment purchases.
8. llefuse - Down $34,980 because of lower tipping fees at compost
facility.
9. Parks Department - Down $18,095 due to lower capital outlay
purchases.
10. Buildine Inspection - Up $52,105 duo to allocation of 25% of
Development Services Technician position, salary/benefits and
funding for additional full-time Building Inspector position, and
related costs such as benefita/mileage.
11. Street, Denprtment - Down $67,000 mainly because of reduction in
capital outlay.
'94 budget for Capital Outlay was: $116,000
'95 budget proposed for Capital Outlay: $ 61,000
In addition to the changes noted by various departments above, the 1995 general
fund budget also has additional non -tax revenue fiutds of $40,000 for state
LEVY.SUM: 10/18/94 Page 1
highway aid and approximately $36,000 additional building permit revenue. With
the proposed expenditures only increasing by $23,000, the additional revenue
allows the actual tax levy for the general fund to be reduced by over $52,000.
The second area of notable change from the 1994 budget is in our debt service
funds where the levy proposed is up $32,000 to cover next year's debt payments.
So that you can get an idea of our debt payments and tax levy requirements in
future years, I have enclosed a summary of our outstanding debt and a schedule of
future year tax levies we will be collecting.
As you will note, most of the remaining funds have proposed tax levies very
similar to the 1994 budget with the only exception being the "capital outlay" fund,
which will vary depending on the amount of tax levy increase the Council is
comfortable with.
The following is a revised summary of the expenditures proposed in the capital
outlay fund under the preliminary levy increase of 4.43% and the alternate levy
increase of 4%.
Prelilm uwv Levv as Adonted:
Balance of fire truck purchase (estimated
City share at $150,000 with previous year
allocations of $70,000)
$80,000
Park improvements (Mepd9jy Ogk): (phased over 2
years)
a. 2 irrigated ballfields
$53,000
b. irrigated soccer field
15,000
C. storage building
9,000
d. 2 basketball courts
10,000
e. 1 sand volleyball court
2.000
$69,000
Proposed allotment for 1995 (1/2)
$45,000
Balance of ISTEA trail system project (City share)
$46,000
Reserve for interceptor sewer Ord year)
$60,000
Reserve for future WWTP expansion (2nd year)
$144,000
Reserve for future city hall expansion
$90,550
Additional reserve for future WWTP expansion
$61,153
TOTAL PRELIMINARY CAPITAL OUTLAY
BUDGET CERTIFIED
$625,703
LEVY.SUM: 10/18M Page 2
Alternative Levv #1 (4% total levy increase):
Same items as previously listed $525,703
LESS: Reduction of additional reserve funds for WWTP expansion 11780
REVISED CAPITAL OUTLAY BUDGET TO KEEP
OVERALL BUDGET AT A 4% INCREASE $513,923
The expenditures proposed under the two alternatives above were done to match
capital outlay fund revenue for each alternative to possible expenditures the
Council may want to consider, depending on how much of a tax levy increase you
are willing to consider. Under each of the tax levy proposals, the primary
adjustment was always made to the capital outlay revolving fund using most of
the tax levy increases to be set aside for future projects we know will be coming
down the road. While the capital outlay fund has built up substantial reserves
during the past years, the Council is reminded that most of these funds have
already been earmarked for various future improvements such as:
New dog pound $ 75,000
Portion of new fire truck purchase $ 70,000
Future interceptor sewer extension $160,000
ISTEA trail project $ 95,000
The Council should take under consideration in deliberating a potential tax levy
amount what the future needs of the city will be to keep up with the growing
demand and our eventual replacement of infrastructure throughout the
community. As the city continues to grow, the City will be faced with being
involved with various improvements such as the recently -discussed Meadow Oak
storm sewer project, future water and sewer line extensions to new developments,
and the eventual replacement of some of our streets and infrastructure. As an
example, the main street project in 1977 saw curb and gutter, along with
bituminous paving, being installed in the core city, which will soon be 20 years
old. Normally, the expected life can be anywhere from 20.30 years, and eventually
we will be facing major replacements of streets. I'm sure the question at that time
will be whether the City will be participating in the cost of the replacement, or
will we attempt to assess 100% to the property owners. While it may be
unrealistic to exiwa to save sufficient funds to cover all the City share of these
various improvement projects, the Council is reminded that every year we get
closer to the possibility that the power plant may no longer be part of our tax
base. That's not to any that the City should get too carried away in over -taxing
today for future projects, but it may be prudent to systematically continue a
process of levying certain dollars for reserve funds to cover some of these eventual
projects we know well be facing. For example, it may be easier to simply set
aside $75,000 to $100,000 per year for the eventual city hall expansion that will be
needed so that the funds are available in 3.5 years rather than requiring a
referendum bond issue. The same could be true for many projects, but it does
come down to a philosophical question as to whether we want to take the
LEVY.SUM: 10/18/94 Pago 3
approach that we will increase taxes when projects are needed by issuing bonds,
or whether it would be better to have increases in taxes but at smaller steps by
saving annually additional funds.
Other items the Council may want to discuss that do not necessarily affect our tax
levy for next year include:
1. Phase II of the public works building expansion - $400,000.
The current liquor budget again earmarks $100,000 as a transfer to
the EDA for the revolving loan program. Even with the potential
transfer, the liquor fund is estimated to have a surplus of
approximately $427,000 at the end of 1994, which would primarily
cover the phase I1 expansion.
2. Meadow Oak pond outlet project - $350,000.
(Not covered in 1995 budget and also assumed that this project would
be financed by bond sale.)
3. Future WWTP expansion in 3.5 yrs - estimated cost $5 to $8 million.
Also assumed that most of this cost would have to be covered by a
bond sale even if we start setting aside some money annually through
additional tax levy.
4. Possible acquisition of agricultural land for sludge disposal - $200,000
to $300,000.
6. Future city share of infrastructure improvements for 10ein/Emmerich
plat - $160,000 to $260,000.
LEVY.SUM: 10/18194 Page 4 Is
Based on 4.43% Levy Increase
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED REVENUES, EMMIN RURES,
AND FUND BALANCES (CASH & RMSTMEM)
REVSUAM.WKt: 10/19%
61
PROJECTED
1995
1995
PROJECTED
FUND
BALANCE
1201194
PROJECTED
REVENUE
PROJECTED
FXPENDITLIRES
BALANCE
12/31/95
General
$1,613,500
$2,433,480
$2,433,480
$1,613.500
Ubrary
$4.400
$31,865
$31.865
$4,400
Tree
$117,250
$32,960
$32,960
5117250
OAA
$6,345
$29,800
$29,800
$6,345
Water
$108,700
$182.350
$245.070
$45.980
Water Access
$146500
$24.400
$0
$170.900
Sewer
$61.000
$505.900
$494,825
$72.075
Sewer Access
$24,800
$33.550
$0
$58.350
Transportation
$7,400
$67,479
$67,229
$7,650
Liquor
$427,350
$1,540,900
$1,883,625
$84,625
Capital Outlay Revolving
$379.000
$528.553
$528.553
$379.000
HRA
$410,400
$414,700
$321,771
$503.329
UDAG
$38.000
$11,695
$0
$47,695
EDA
$87,100
$118,770
$201,440
$4.430
SCERG
533,300
$63.100
$33,300
$63.100
CMIF
$540
113 320
$13320
M
SUBTOTALS
$3,463.545
$6,025.417
$8,309,833
$3,179,129
Debt Service
General Obliptlon Bonds
$527.519
$577,504
$588280
$518,743
Special Assessment Bonds
$1,864,653
$357,971
$513,970
$1.708,654
Tax Increment Bonds
9350158
1330,840
x318482
1,361.336
SUBTOTALS
$2,742,330
$1266,115
$1,419,712
112.588.733
TOTALS
$8,205,875
$7,291,532
$7,729.545
$5.787,882
REVSUAM.WKt: 10/19%
61
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMBINED STATEMENT OF INDEBTF,DNF.SS
(PROJECTED) 12.31-95
Auth. and
General Obligation Bonds $3,900.000 $1,940.000 $1,990,000
Specht Assessment Bonds $15,449.00D $11.748.000 $3,700,000
General Obligation Tax $32,OOD $32.00D $0
Inurement Note
General Obligation Tax S a2.45MO 5855.0DO 161.690.000
Increment Bonds
LI
-0
082901
621.725,000 $14,375,ODD $7,350,000 $880,000 $508,734 $925,000 $456,951 $6,425,000 62,742,330
Projected
Funds On
Mand For
Prindpal
Interest
Prindpal
Interest
Debt
Paid In
Paid in
Due N
Due In
Outstanding
Retirement
1994
1994
1995
]995
12131ts5
17131[94
$275,000
$127,662
$295,000
$114,597
$1,675,000
$527,519
$415,000
$245,493
$445,009
$220,739
$3,255,DOD
$1,864,653
$D
$0
$0
So
$0
$0
1190 QDQ
1135519
1195 -ODD
4121.516
41.495.000
vi5D-12
621.725,000 $14,375,ODD $7,350,000 $880,000 $508,734 $925,000 $456,951 $6,425,000 62,742,330
CITY OF MONTICELL.O
TAX LEVIES TO RETIRE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
Dmmftn 71, 1f W
BONDDEBT.N6U96r7t/W
3
Gens
Owasso
Ovoll
Owasso
0.rr
@¢en
o—
011. 0.tar 0." a..r a4ao 0..r 00" o.w r 0.a..
�� OmQW- 00 ooamm 0aam" 0evio" 09.. = a.o•.m
tiam.s.+ wes er.r. laisr /pra w4s /r4um ava.n.1 „ oboe Ftv.wn.4 P400.a
YM co
Bao B.iw Bona BMr Bael.44
BoeBs 9"Goll !mels Baa ss"m
ancon ams/
aMMD
Inw
fnl.fa
laea1477 Bematlee
8$327$3$4!!
,61M 19rm
I.71R
IFOR
QW IMI•
Ian.
ire" IMA I TmAAL.
8887
,6391
114,1113
634,323
{121,OS1
$149,246 $129.6'88
$26,084
i20.J82 11,876
(,,029
{,72.8$3 $67],849
1984
1997
(17,819
$37,,08
(124,an
6148.37 $t2S.b71
(21,131
9W.ODO
$26,010 62,971
$10272
114&770 i706,490
1988
1991
W503
$37,091
$124,/82
8126.741
$27,626
00,000
924,1,7 67.907
$11.117
1114,6W $126,812 03,.167
1896
1987
8&310
876,414
$124,672
$125.743
(71.400
$1$.086
127,160
6111843
$171.167 9670.081
1887
1996
{&876
63&866
{124.072
$126.717
$20.4,1
$87,167
=181
$12.414
8178.6" swim
1886
1899
$W=
f, 2&200
$128.235
W,BU
184.087
$2&423
$7.578
$17/.782 :36&970
1889
2000
634.631
{1126,310
1170.597
179,715
$23.034
8&,40
$170,916 $571,987
2000
2001
$37,689
6129,207
f, 28,604
scam
88,697
9172.076 (480.057
2001
2002
11126.712
$&90211127.490
$267,,01
2002
200)
0120.704
$127.090
6277.762
2007
2001
so
2004
2006
so
2003
20D/
i0
i m
TOTAL
, �,y
i
U== .=
W= It 777 flu
JIM6i
L7=
&a= a=
12n39
UnAU sib'
BONDDEBT.N6U96r7t/W
3
1995
(Based on levy Increase of 4.3°x)
The effect of budget Increases or decreases on the proposed:
Effect on
General fund
+29,745
-51,707
Library fund
+530
+11,225
Transportation
-3,068
+154
Tree
+6,800
+5,421
OAA
0
+174
HFLA
+49,736
+833
Debt service
-3,638
+36,482
Capital outlay fund
+246,358
+207.856
EDA fund
+199,330
0
UDAG
+850
0
Liquor
+4,130
0
Water fund
+78.095
0
Sewer fund
+49,590
0
Water access fund
-28,000
0
Sewer access fund
-35.000
0
SCERG
+33,300
0
CMIF
+ 13.320
0
TOTALS --ALL FUNDS
+642,078
+200,438
3 2� Re-w-�
1%Af:cello Fee 6tP}.
T�ly - sc-?I"ber 30pl, /?N
Co ks , 585 elks. AoeraZe Offen ce /y alert
Lpe--r-oe. r 141
Srtoke. 0.tafr-." 7
S+rvci q
Gross 3
Power I"P- 60,z.,-
S}
0,z.,S} or,-, w., &-
b
—'b " 2-,C lucka :s owikc l &A G; uen> B't 6Xe- • errie L>ke
3 Trc.;,,;^% Sess;o.,s eetu:r:n%
Are. ()Mtpt dunce —> d3 me.,-.-
K
em
k n cs4.i- ay .-rPs, cJ•'A( /a? .ve4
Ii Pal}:CGQa�to.. ;. Ae %Iloa;w9 F[5%u:�:e5> BeC�tC/
H� ol� Porade . Aokrel% kvv ),:rest.
a•) Held oux owAuo.l Sleo.K dry A,,gas .
4 l- cello F,- I -e- Dep/.
4 61to.kJo,.>. A c -Its %r T,,.11 — $arae bel` 30th /994.
sAC'ello .LY—: S}ruc: ,Om > a
rlt uo .l A;d ,rcce: Jed
76W ,wMber of c,.11s
N:9h� c.%\)
vel.:cle. 3
Grass I
Resuxe II
Vclvcle p
Gross 1
Rcscv 3
oi'1.e� I
_:�; Ivrr Cmek Tzo :
Sero url—z > O
vel�:cle I
G raSS I
Reese. o
o}ter' n
z
s}roc}vr2 > o
VP6,:c-1e- I
Grass O
Resc.Kr- O
offer
Tfi�l —> I
rlt uo .l A;d ,rcce: Jed
76W ,wMber of c,.11s
N:9h� c.%\)
ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/30/94 15:23:05
�a.,RRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37357 09/30/94 R. P. UTILITIES
37358 09/30/94 U.S. POSTMASTER
37359 09/30/94 PETTY CASH
37360 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37361 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37362 09/30/94 U.S. POSTMASTER
91363 09/30/94 KOROPCHAK/OLIVE
37304 09/30/94 TRI-STATE PUMP & CON
)7364 09/30/94 IRI -STATE PUMP & CON
1',65 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
1366 09/30/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
313G7 09/30/94 PETTY CASH
37367 03/30/94 PETTY CA:+H
1/367 09/30/94 PETTY CALH
37361 09/30/94 PETTY CA14H
x'1367 09/30/94 PETTY C.ASN
M67 09/30/94 PETTY CASH
G�NLkAl CHECKING
c
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLI
821 CONST COSTS/C HILL 65,225.01
210 POSTAGE/DEP REG 145.00
166 PETTY CASH/DEF REG 50.00
118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 467.00
118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 10.00
210 RECYCLING WEEK MAILIN 230.84
97 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE REI 213.56
832 CHANNEL ALARM DIALE 2,500.00
832 CHANNEL ALARM DIALE 1,872.88
4,372.88 •CHL
118 WATER/SNOW/A1V REG 9G8,00 0
118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 30.00
166 POSTAGE REIMB 0.01
166 POP RF'IMB & SUP/C HALL 10.4'1
166 POST CARDS/FIRE DEPT 2.05
166 FAPES/8LD DEPT 911P 7.01
166 POSTAGE REIMB/DATA PROC 9.53
166 VCR TAP(:S/PLAN E 2GN 23.37
91.?6 *('.HE
TOIA( 11.193.5')
BFC FINANCIAL SY:'TEM
09/28/94 13:36:06
4ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37368 10/03/94 ADVANTAGE PAPER
37369 10/03/94 AFFORDABLE SANITATIO
37370 10/03/94 B & D PLUMBING & HEA
37371 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
37371 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
3 737 1 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
31371 10/03/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
37372 10/03/94 CHOUINAD OFFICE PROD
37373 10/03/94 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMEN
37374 10/03/94 FLICKER'S T.V. & APF
37375 10/03/94 GOLDEN VALLEY FURNIT
37376 10/03/94 H & H WATERTOWER, IN
31377 10/03/84 HERM173/JERRY
37378 10/03/94 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC
37370 10/03/94 HOLMES & CRAVEN
37380 10/03/94 J C� K SERVICES
373131 10/03/04 J M OIL COMPANY
3'1382 10/03/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0
3130? 10/03/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0
37383 10/0)/94 K MART :.PORE
/:)03 10/03/04 K MART STORE
37,103 10/03/94 K MART' OTORE
JJJO3 10/03/94 K MART ,`.TORE
;17104 10/03/94 L t'• 1001. & DELLIGN
3130b 10/03/94 I.FAGIIF OF MINNLCUTA
1
1306 10/03/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
Disbursement: Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA
833 PLASTIC BAGS/BLD DEPT 88.95
802 LATRINE RENTAL/PARKS 58.58
600 HEATING/NEN DEP REG 2,045.00
794 CAR PHONE CHGS/GARY A 111.91
794 CAR PHONE CHGS/FIRE DEF 1.74
794 CAR PHONE CHGS/MATT T 11.59
794 CAR PHONE CHGS/TOM B 88.45
213.69 *CHE
413 TYPEWRIIER kLPAlkS/L1 1US.UU
290 STORM PIPE/MEADOWS DI 926.97
GO COPY IAPB/BLD INSP 6.00
720 RUG MAT/NEW DEP REG OF 53.20
575 INSTALL SAFETY CLIMBE 504.00
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONI 227.50
85 GAS/FIRE DEPT 45.02
86 HRA I.EGAL FEES 262.00
834 HAUL LOADER TO SHOP 50.00
95 GAO/�;1'RF.ET DFPI 850.b0
026 INI'O CENTER SALARY 170.00
070 INTO CENTER SAIARV 60.000N
1?0.00 *CHI
460 CLFANING 5UPPLIF'�/P WR 90.?,1
460 CLLANING S'UP/C HALL 1:1.03
460 IiUPPI.II'i/NFW DFP RI1, U 21. 12
460 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE ULP 31.03
1'0. 16 *CIU
?J1 E.HARPEN CHIPPER RLADEO 75.00
98 MF.MBER5HTP DIA, ''. 3,0?7.00
105 ANIMAL CONTROL PYM1' 1,100.00
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/28/94 13:36:06
t
JAkRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37387 10/03/94 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI
37388 10/03/94 MONTICELLO VACUUM CE
37389 10/03/94 D.E.I. BUSINESS FORM
37390 10/03/94 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I
37390 10/03/94 ONE CALL CONCEPTS. I
37391 10/03/94 PITNEY BOWES
37392 10/03/94 REACH EQUIPMENT
37393 10/03/94 RED'S MOBIL
37394 10/03/94 RIVERSIDE OIL
37395 10/03/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
37395 10/03/94 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTTC
37396 10/03/94 SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCT
37397 10/03/94 SERVICEMASTER BY HIC
37390 10/03/94 5HUMAN/CATHY
37399 10/03/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
37399 10/03/94 SIMONSON LIJMOI:R COMP
:.7799 10/03/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
37399 10/03/94 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
37401) 10/03/94 4PE(,TRIIM SUPPI Y Co.
31401 10/03/94 1RUEMAN-WELTERS, INC
3740? 10/03/94 II C & MASONRY CONTR
17403 10/03/94 V 0 N C 0 CORPORATI
37404 10/U3/94 WOLE'�TELLF.k/RICHARD
37406 10/03/94 WRI(.HT COUNTY SUkVFY
1741111 10/03/94 ZEE MFUICAL ,FRVTI1
GCNLkAL CHCCKINC
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA
139 MONTHLY CONTRACT PY 2,833.33
141 VACUUM CLNR REPAIRS/LI 54.87
158 COPY MACHINE PAPER/C 149.53
836 GOPHER STATE PRINTE 1,073.75
836 GOPHER STATE CALLS 420.00
1,493.75
168 POSTAGE SCALE RENTAL/ 129.00
705 NUTS & BOLT/SHADE TREE 60.45
324 GAS/FIRE DEPT 21.00
496 ANTIFREEZE/SHOP & GAR 181.58
227 TIRE REPAIR/PW INSPECT 31.57
227 TIRE REPAIR/PARKS DErr 10.84
42.41
187 TANK REMOVAL/CILLI: 8,897.00
835 CARPET CLEANING/LIBRA 466.47
191 TRAVEL REIMB/CONFERENC 54.60
193 CEMENT/KRAMER RENTAL 17.03
193 NF'W DEP REG OFFICE 119.34
193 CONCRETE MIX/SIREETL 27.10
193 LUMBER/LLECTION DOO1H:: 132.19
215.'74
498 SUPI'IIES/PARKS RCPT 172.32
207 EQUIP RI PAIR PARTE/`-.IR 04.22
90380 MCMIICRSHIP DUF.r�/OLD IN 50.00
013 DUMPING CHGS/NEM OrV 0 80.00
217 TLLEPH0NIr!;/NL'W DIP RI 233.50
1,32 PIAT COPY/P W INbPECT10 (1.1,0
1,94 MEDICAL- !IUPPLICS/';HIII' 3?.06
TOTAL 25.196.00
MCHf
*CHI
*CHI
M
BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/06/94 14:36:07
!ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37407 10/05/94 U.S. POSTMASTER
37408 10/05/94 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA
37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
37409 10/05/94 LUKACH/JOHN
37410 10/05/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37411 10/06/94 A.E. MICHAELS
37412 10/06/94 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL
37413 10/06/94 AME GROUP
37413 10/06/94 AME GROUP
37414 10/06/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE
37414 10/06/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE
37415 10/06/94 ASSOCIATED VETERINAR
37416 10/05/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELE•PHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37416 10/06/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON
37417 10/06/94 CAMPBELL ABSTRACT CO
37418 10/06/94 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT
37410 10/00/94 CORPORATE REPORT
t 37420 10/06/94 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
l
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA
210 POSTAGE/CITY HALL 1,500.00
156 REG FEE/SEMINAR/GARY A 10.00
327
MILEAGE REIMB
45.10
327
MILEAGE REIMB
15.03
327
MILEAGE REIMB
15.03
327
MILEAGE REIMB
15.03
90.19
118
WATER/SNOW/ATV REG
577.00
339
PAINT/NEM DEP REG OFFI
36.36
3
PEST CONTROL/LIBRARY
46.92
8
IMPROVEMENTS/PARKS
1,617.75
8
MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS
0 106.73
1,724.48
10
PAINT & MSC SIGNS/STR
836.75
10
BKTBL BACKSTOP/PARK
2,955.50
3,792.25
683
ANIMAL CONTROL SUPPLIE
47.50
24
PHONE CHARGES
85.92
24
PHONE CHARGES
60.28
24
PHONE CHARGES
123.01
24
PHONE CHARGES
42.01
24
PHONE CHARGES
108.08
24
PHONE CHARGES
22.94
24
PHONE CHARGES
20.75
24
PHONE CHARGES
171.67
24
PHONE CHARGES
31.16
24
PHONE CHARGES
725.74
24
FAX PHONE CHG/PW INSPE
22.94
24
INSTALL PHONE/DEP REG
207.69
1,622.39
28 ABSTRACT/OAKWD PARK 81.00
822 CMIF PYMT 4 LOAN 00 1.100.21
837 SUBSCRIPTION/OLLIE K 29.00
394 POSTAGE DUE 34.SU
•CHE
•CHE
•CHF
•CHt
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/06/94 14:36:07
r
/ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37421 10/06/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
37421 10/06/94 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
37422 10/06/94 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP
37423 10/06/94 HEARTLAND APPRAISAL
37424 10/06/94 HOGLUND COACH LINES
37425 10/06/94 HOLMES & GRAVEN
37425 10/06/94 HOLMES & GRAVEN
37426 10/06/84 KERN/DAVE
37427 10/06/94 M & P TRANSPORT, INC
37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PROOU
37428 10/06/94 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
t
37429 10/06/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC
37429 10/06/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC
37429 10/06/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC
37430 10/06/94 MINNEGASCO
37431 10/06/94 MN OEPARTMENT OF HEA
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37432 10/06/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37433 10/06/94 NORWEST MECHANICAL I
37434 10/08/94 PAGE LINK
37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK
37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK
37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA
56 PROF SERVICES/WATER DP 60.00
56 CHEMICALS/MATER DEP 3,045.15
3,105.15
60 BATTERY/BLD INSPEC DEP 62.84
838 APPRAISAL FEES/BAUER 400.00
483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS C 4,985.63
86 FAY MAR LEGAL FEES 144.OU
86 HRA LEGA FEES 48.00
•CHE
192.00 *CHE
357 SIGNS/NEM DEP REG OFF 160.00
265 VEHICLE REPAIR/FIRE D 131.24
106
CALCULATOR/DEP REG
OFF 93.67
106
TONER/COPY MCH/P WOR
100.64
106
MTC ARGMT/DICTAPHONE
372.00
106
TYPEWRITER/P WORKS
1,112.93
1,679.24
107
SEED/MEADOWS DITCH
PR 151.23
107
MISC SUPPLIES/STREET
0 23.00
107
MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS
OP 32.27
206.50
772
UTILITIES
10.70
235
WATER CONN FEE/3RD
2,101.00
148
UTILITIES
3,236.96
148
UTILITIES
286.02
148
UTILITIES
4,666.06
148
UTILITIES
596.59
148
UTILITIES
14.14
148
UTILITIES
436.58
148
UTILITIES
229.23
148
UTILITIES
531.33
148
UTILITIES
020.93
10,917.84
777
FINAL PYMT/DECHL DI
2,451.90
703
PAGER CHARGES
42.60
703
PAGER CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER CHARGES
24.50
703
PAGER CHARGES
21.30
•CHE
•CHE
*CHL
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/06/94 14:36:07
/ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK
37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK
37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK
37434 10/06/94 PAGE LINK
37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
37435 10/06/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC
37436 10/06/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
37436 10/06/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
37436 10/06/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA
37437 10/06/94 VIKING COCA COLA
37438 10/06/94 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO
37439 10/06/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
37440 10/06/94 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP
GENERAL CHECKING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLP
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
703
PAGER
CHARGES
21.30
211
UNIFORM
RENTAL
194.90 *CHE
211
UNIFORM
RENTAL
14.00
211
UNIFORM
RENTAL
27.28
211
UNIFORM
RENTAL
12.80
211
UNIFORM
RENTAL
12.80
211
UNIFORM
RENTAL
59.03
211
UNIFORM
RENTAL
59.03
184.94
524
OIL RECYCLED/SHOP &
GA 60.00
524
GARBAGE
CONTRACT/SE
9,508.62
524
SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON
612.18
10,180.80
779 POP/PARKS DEPT 63.00
670 METERS FOR RESALE 3,184.99
219 SCERG PYMT t4 LOAN 2,760.51
512 UTILITIES 9.00
TOTAL 53,674.00
*CHE
*CHE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/10/94 15:45:25
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37441 10/17/94 JONES/WILLIAM O
37441 10/17/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0
37442 10/17/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37443 10/17/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
37444 10/17/94 MICHAEL W HAMLINE
37445 10/17/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
37446 10/18/94 A T & T INFO SYSTEMS
37447 10/19/94 ALBINSON, INC.
37448 10/18/94 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORK
37449 10/18/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE
37449 10/18/84 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE
37450 10/18/94 ARA CORY REFRESHMENT
37451 10/18/84 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS
37452 10/18/94 BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIO
37453 10/18/94 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS,
37454 10/19/94 BUSINESS RECORDS COR
37455 10/10/94 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INC
37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/10/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/19/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/10/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/10/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST
37456 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST
37450 10/18/94 COAST TO COAST
37457 10/18/94 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT C
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA:
826 INFO CENTER SALARY 170.00
826 INFO CENTER SALARY 50.000R
120.00 *CHE(
118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 945.00
118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 10.00
90367 REPAIR CAR WINDOW/REI 189.75
162 ENG FEES/PATHVWAV 19,000.00
15 FIRE PHONE CHARGES 27.60
412 SMALL TOOLS/PW INSPEC 77.99
843 MEMBERSHIP DUES/J SIMO 60.00
10 MISC STOP SIGNS/STREE 135.82 0
10 EMPLOYEE PKG SGN/DEP R 23.49
159.31 *CHE(
408 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 114.00
17 BATTERIES/FIRE DEPT 79.81
636 ENG FEES/C HILLS IV 1,279.00
25 CLASS V/SAND/PARKS DE 181.70
27 ELECTION SUPPLIES 517.15
30 SUPPLIES/SHOP & GARAGE 21.12
35 NEW DEPUTY REG OFFICE 85.08
35 MISC SUPPLIES/SEWER CO 37.21
35 SMALL TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 0.95
35 SUPPLIES/SHOP & GAR 2.00
35 SUPPLIES/CITY HALL 47.25
35 TOOLS/PARKS DEPT 23.87
35 SUPPLIES/PARKS DEPT 15.24
35 SUPPLIES/SHOP 8 GARAGE 23.42
35 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/MAT 20.21
35 TOOLS/SEWER COLLECTION 83.06
35 CLEANING SUPPLIES/LIBR 12.75
351.94 *CHE,
661 OIL & TAR/STREET DEPT 55.45
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/18/94 15:45:25
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37458 10/18/94 COMPRESS AIR & EQUIP
37459 10/18/94 COMPUTER PARTS & SER
37460 10/18/94 COMPUTER 1
37461 10/18/94 COPY DUPLCATING PROD
37462 10/18/94 CULLIGAN
37463 10/18/94 DYNA SYSTEMS
37464 10/18/34 EGGHEAD DISCOUNT SOF
37465 10/18/94 EMERGENCY APPARATUS
37466 10/18/94 ENERGY SALES, INC.
37487 10/18/94 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE
37488 10/18/94 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE
37469 10/18/94 GOVERNMENT TRAINING
37470 10/18/94 H WINDOW DESIGN CENT
37471 10/18/94 HARRV'S AUTO SUPPLY
37471 10/18/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37471 10/18/94 HARRV'S AUTO SUPPLY
37471 10/18/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
37472 10/18/94 HERMES/JERRY
37473 10/18/94 J CRAFT, INC.
37474 10/18/84 JOHN'S AU10 ELECTRIC
37475 10/18/94 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN
37470 10/18/94 KOLLES SAND & GRAVEL
37477 10/18/94 KRAMBER & ASSOCIATES
37479 10/18/94 MAPLE LAKE LUMBER CO
(� 37479 10/10/84 MAUS FOODS
37478 10/16/94 MAUS FOODS
37479 10/16/94 MAUS FOODS
37470 10/16/04 MAUS FOODS
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA
356 MTC AGRMT/FIRE DEPT 34 1.50
500 CABLE/COMPUTER/CITY HA 72.23
839 NOTEBOOK COMPUTER/C 2,566.00
41 LIBRARY COPY MCH MTC 54.40
753 MATER SOFTNER CHG/RENT 23.11
50 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIE 343.56
51 COMPUTER SOFTWARE/C H 379.47
480 VEHICLE MTC/FIRE DE 2,389.56
640 GASKET/SHOP & GARAGE 342.28
510 TOOLS/FIRE DEPT 253.50
64 SOD CUTTER RENTAL/PARK 79.50
72 REG FEE/C SHUMAN/SEMIN 55.00
841 WINDOWS/NEW DEP REG 0 986.87
78 STREET SUPPLIES 15.25
79 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARKS 1.28
78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREET 1.03
78 SUPPLIES/MATER DEPT 3.37
20.93
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50
844 NEW SNOW PLOW/INST 12,652.66
615 MTC OF EQUIP/STREET D 100.66
697 ANIMAL CONTROI SERVICE 90.53
592 CLASS II/STREET SUPPL 736.45
686 ASSESSING CONTRACT 1,245.83
604 NEW DEPUTY REG OFFI 3,555.08
100 SUPPLIES/SHOP & GARAGE 24.14
108 SUPPLIES/CITY HALL 62.50
100 CLEANING SUPPLIES/LIGRA 9.03
100 ANIMAL CONTROL SUPPLIE 13.30
+CHE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
C 10/18/94 15:45:25
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37480 10/18/94 METRO SALES INCORPOR
37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37481 10/18/94 MN DEPART OF REVENUE
37482 10/18/94 MN STATE TREASURER
37483 10/10/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
37483 10/18/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
37484 10/19/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
37484 10/19/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PP.
p 37484 10/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
\ 37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
37484 10/18/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR
37485 10/18/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING
37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES
37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES
37486 10/18/84 MONTICELLO TIMES
37486 10/10/94 MONTICELLO TIMES
37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES
37486 10/18/94 MONTICELLO TIMES
37487 10/18/94 MOON MOTOR SALES, IN
37488 10/18/94 MTI DISBTRIBUTING CO
37489 10/18/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
37488 10/18/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
37489 10/19/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
37499 10/19/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
37489 10/18/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
37499 10/10/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA
108.97
819 MTC AGRMT/FAX MCH/C H 150.00
119 SALES TAX ADJ/3RD QTR 0.35CR
119 SALES TAX/3RD QTR GEN 307.22
119 SALES TAX/3RD QTR/WAT 972.80
119 SALES TAX/3RD QTR/TREE 42.33
1,322.00
262 3RD QTR BLD PERMIT 1,823.52
185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00
185 BARK ELIMINATOR/ANIMA 164.95
1,264.95
136 OFFICE SUP/PW INSPECT 39.42
136 SUP/DEPUTY REG OFFICE 86.23
136 NEW DESK/CITY HALL OF 514.74
136 OFF SUPPLIES/P WORKS 367.78
136 SUPPLIES/BLD INSPECT D 50.51
136 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CITY 933.74
136 COPY MCH PAPER/CITY H 240.13
136 PAPER/RECYCLING MAILI 123.48
2,356.03
137 BUILDING INSPECT FORMS 26.73
140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 983.02
140 BLD PERMIT INFO 60.90
140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 231.35
140 CREDIT/COMMUNITY GUIDE 25.000R
140 ADS/MOTOR VEHICLE MOV 104.40
140 LEGAL NOTICE/FAY MAR P 69.12
1,423.79
142 GASKETS/TREE FUND 167.07
299 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARK 117.60
144 SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 69.89
144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREE 94.26
144 VEHICLE MTC/FIRE DEPT 10.93
144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/MAT 15.96
144 EQIP REPAIR DARTS/STREE 3.91
144 VEHICLE MTC/STREET DE 136.79
321.74
•CHE-
•CHE-
'ACHE,
*CHE
+CHE
SCHE
n
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/18/94 15:45:25
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37490 10/18/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37490 10/18/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE
37491 10/18/94 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS
37492 10/18/94 O'NEILL/JEFF
37493 10/18/94 OLSON & SONS ELEC TRI
37494 10/18/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN 8
37494 10/18/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN &
37494 10/18/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN &
37495 10/18/94 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I
37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
37496 10/18/94 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
37497 10/18/94 PAUL A WALDRON & ASS
37498 10/18/94 PHOTO I
37498 10/10/94 PHOTO I
37499 10/19/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
37499 10/18/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
37500 10/18/94 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
37501 10/18/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
37501 10/18/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
37502 10/18/94 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN
37503 10/18/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION
37503 10/18/94 RELIABLE CORPOkATION
37503 10/10/94 RELIABLE CORPORATION
c
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLAI
148
UTILITIES 30.61
148
UTILITIES 29.81
60.42
•CHEC
550
PROF SERVICES/PLAN 3,790.58
161
MILEAGE EXPENSE 89.60
160
CITY HALL COMPUTER MT 165.50
292
LEGAL FEES 540.00
292
LEGAL FEES/WWTP 131.25
292
PROF SERV/EASTWOOD KN 150.00
821.25
'ACHE(
836
GOPHER ONE STATE CALL 300.00
162
PROF SERV/WWTP DECHLOR 88.88
162
ENG FEES/C HILLS IV 6,337.24
d
162
MISC ENGINEERING FE 4,726.94
162
ENG FEES/M 0 TRUNK SE 158.00
162
ENG FEES/POLYCAST PRJ 99.00
162
ENG FEES/FAY MAR PRJ 266.63
11,676.69
•CHE(
830
BLO INSPECTION SERVIC 840.00
743
SUPPLIES/PW INSPECT 38.00
743
SUPPLIES/C HILLS IV PRJ 8.70
46.70
•CHE(
173
FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50.00
173
CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00
450.00
*CHE(
175
WWTP CONTRACT PYMT 31.840.50
20
PROF SERV/HRA 225.00
26
PROF SERVICES/TAPPER 225.00
450.00
•CHE(
319
MOWING CHARGES 1.200.25
179
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIE 112.87
179
COMPUTER OFFICE SUPPLI 74.52
179
CITY HALL OFFICE SUP 22.41
209.80
•CHE•
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
( 10/18/94 15:45:25
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
37504 10/18/94 RIVERSIDE OIL
37505 10/18/94 RWE ASSOCIATES
37506 10/18/94 SCHARBER & SONS, INC
37507 10/18/94 SETON NAME PLATE CO
37508 10/18/94 SHAMROCK INDUSTRIES,
37509 10/18/94 TELXON CORPORATION
37510 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
37510 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
37511 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEY
37511 10/18/94 WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEY
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CLA
496 GAS/STREET DEPT 860.65
344 STREET SUPPLIES 132.59
229 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARK 287.45
691 RECYCLING LABELS 302.05
576 RECYCLING BINS 3,368.10
842 SCANNING WANDS/RECYCL 313.44
219 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 23,322.33
219 ADD'L LANDFILL CHAR 8,312.15
31,634.48 *CHE
632 POSTAGE CHARGE 7.00
632 AERIAL MAPS/P WORKS 72.00
79.00 *CHEQ
37512 10/18/94
WYBRITE INC.
755 COMPUTER CABLE/C
HALL 137.39
37513 10/18/94
V.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO
224 CONTRACT PAYMENT
625.00
GENERAL
CHECKING
TOTAL
148,539.28
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/10/94 08:44:31 Disbursement Journal
.RkANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl/
LIQUOR FUND
17748 09/29/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE CREDIT 12.99CR
1774£ 09/29/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3.954.98
3,941.99 *CHI
17749 09/29/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 6,509.94
17749 09/29/94 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHASE 663.77
7,173.71 mCH!
17750 09/29/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 856.94
17750 09/29/94 F.AGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MIX FOR RESALE 25.75
882.69 #CHE
17751 09/29/94 CITY OF MONTICELLO 800003 TO GENERAL CHECKIN 80,000.00
LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 91,998.39
17752 10/04/94 NORTHWEST CARPEI & U 800179 MTC OF SLD/CLEAN CARP 266.25
LIQUOR FUND TOTAI 266.25
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
10/04/04
MONTICL'L(0 TIMES
(400032
ADVERTTGIN(,
10/04/94 08:21:10
17/( /
10/04/94
Disbur:;e.nent Journal
000050
MT(t ;UP/VArl)UM BA-;.-.
19.05
1/701
10/04/94
NORTHERN STATES POWE
AMOUNT
C
ARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
PA11'1TI5 8 :SUN''
DESCRIPTION
Il( ( R PURCHA ,1
J0. 011
//411
LIQUOR FUND
PAUSIIS C ON',
000103
WINE PUFCHASE
SPG. 15
17753
10/04/94
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA
800001
POP PURCHASE
208.85
17754
10/04/94
CEDAR. MAP COMPANY
800084
ADVERTISING
143.00
RON'1� ?(,1 ( OMPANY
17755
10/04/94
COAST TO COAST
800004
PAINT FOR OUTSIDE SIGN 61.73
17756
10/04/94
CONSOLIDATED COMM DI
800163
ADVERTISING
39.25
17757
10/04/94
OAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT
800009
BEER PURCHASE
14,593.70
17757
10/04/94
DAHLHEIMER OISTRICUT
800009
NON ALCOHOLIC
BEER/RE 403.25
14,996.95
tr
17750
10/04/94
DAY DISTRIBUTINGG COM
800010
NON ALCOHOLIC
BELR/RES 31.70
17750
10/04/94
DAY DISTRIBUTING COM
000010
BEER PURCHASE
597.50
17758
10/04/94
DAY DISTRIBUTING COM
800010
CREDIT/JUICE
RETURN 11.75CR
617.45
4c
11759
10/04/94
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
800011
BEER PURCHASE
2,057.40
17759
10/04/94
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800011
LIQUOR STORE
SUPPLIES 36.75
2.094.15
4C
77760
10/04/94
FLFSCH'S PAPER SERVI
800116
SUPPLIES/PAPER
BAGS 39.43
177UI
10/04/94
G & K SERVICL
000129
RUG MATS/MTC
OF OLD 30.70
1/'762
10/04/94
GRO££L(TN BEVERAGE. 1
000019
BEER PURCHASE
9,30.05
11703
10/04/04
JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO
800021
CIGS & CIGARS
FOR RI;S 269.41
1'7/63
10/04/94
DUDE CANDY & TOBACCO
000021
LIOUOR STORE
SUPPLIES 64.00
334."i
17764
10/04/94
MINNEGABCO
800160
UTILITIES
In,79
1116', 10/04/1)4 MN UAR f',UPPLV 000130 5T'VROF'OAM 0001 LCRti/REG 37.04
10U5 10/04/04 MN OAR SUPPLY 000130 SIGNS/GENERAL OPER SII(' 10.41
1/746
10/04/04
MONTICL'L(0 TIMES
(400032
ADVERTTGIN(,
?00.60
17/( /
10/04/94
MOr4TI(.Fl_l.() VACUUM (f
000050
MT(t ;UP/VArl)UM BA-;.-.
19.05
1/701
10/04/94
NORTHERN STATES POWE
00003E
UTILI IEU
1,244,"1.
1770!)
10/04/134
PA11'1TI5 8 :SUN''
O00103
Il( ( R PURCHA ,1
J0. 011
//411
10/04/114
PAUSIIS C ON',
000103
WINE PUFCHASE
SPG. 15
564. /5 0.
. IIIU
10/04/94
RON'1� ?(,1 ( OMPANY
100041
IC( lOk RESALL
.(;?G. 66
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
,10/04/94 08:21:10 Disbursem?nt Juurn,
I
IL"ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT _
LIQUOR FUND
17771 10/04/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 MIRES FOR RESALE 115.50
17771 10/04/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 MI. -'C LE000R STORE SUP 34?.G",
458.35
11772 10/04/94 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE 19,316.35
11772 10/04/94 T40RPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEEF/RE 159.75
19,476.10
17773 10/04/94 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 800051 POP PURCHASE 575.85
LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 52,184.37
0—
c
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT
14 $497.50
$1970 $43.90000
78
04
Month of September, 1994
PERMITS $ USES
29
trKkzvlal
9
thisSame
Alomh Lest Year TM Year
PERMITS ISSUED
Month SEPT.
Last Year To Date To Dare
17 $456 DO
$1150
RESIDENTIAL
Be
--
Number
31
24 141 190
valuation
$1.252.60000
9932.10090 $4.272.40000 $6.305.70000
FW3
$9,36998
$6.68684 $31.745 32 $46.387.10
$1500
$0.50 91,500 00
Surtrra'm
$62390
$46355 $2.097.60 $3.132.09
COMMERCIAL
0
DFMOLII ION
Namber2
32 24
„F�.4-1v�__fTiQ$1.252.W000-_
Valuation
9:26.50000 $1.697200 00 $709.60000
Feel
91.79205 $12.81893 $7,3.6.03
,;Wcha%n
$113,00 $842.10 9363.30
INDUSTRIAL
"ber
1 4 12
VaWatbn
$60.20000 $351.763.00 $1.659.600.00
Fees
$75966 92.98981 $11,771.99
Surcharpm
$3010 $17598 $829.55
PLIIMBIN0
Nurrloer
17
14 58 83
Fees
$45600
$36000 $1597.00 $2.429,00
Surcharyes
$850
$700 $2900 $48,50
OTHERS
Number
4 5
vilwo n
$58.900 00 $000
Fees
$759.02 $50.00
Sur0hames
929.20 9250
TOTAL PERMITS
48
41 239 314
TOTAL VALUATION_f1,25260000�_f1.218.80000
$0328.28300 $4874.909,00
TOIALKES
__99.62588,
_fy.59Bb5NB 87009 $87.994,12
TOTAL SLI�CHAROES
230
$61383 i3,173.78�4.373.94
CURRENT MONTH
FEE$ I N VEl TO DATE
PERMIT NAA�RE
Numbm
Parml__�S uchorpc Valuatlor Thg YBai Last Y$ai
SIr101a Famty
15
$7.511,72 $528.45 $1.056,90000
77
49
tea'
0
0
Mual ramty
1
$1.34566 $75.15 $150,30000
2
2
Commercial
1
3
loduaulal
3
1
Roe a,&Dn
5
4
69M
0
0
P"c BldP
0
2
ALIERATIOWREPAIR
DrWtrgs
14 $497.50
$1970 $43.90000
78
04
Commercial
23
29
trKkzvlal
9
3
PLL7AIOINO
AN Tyam
17 $456 DO
$1150
93
Be
ACCcSSORY
SIRUCIURES
SSvAm a9 Pooto
0
0
DOW1
$1500
$0.50 91,500 00
20
22
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0
0
DFMOLII ION
„F�.4-1v�__fTiQ$1.252.W000-_
314
MONT143LO WKt