Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-14-1994AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 14, 1994 - 7 pxL Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 24, 1994. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. b. Consideration of alternatives for addressing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts on 7th Street. 6. Consideration of amendments to cigarette licensing ordinance. 7. Consideration to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing for the modification of the Redevelopment Plan and Boundaries for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-1 to 1- 17, specifically TIF District No. 1.9, and the adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-18. 8. Consideration of adopting a resolution supporting annexation of the Robert Krauthauer property in conjunction with approval of the River Mill subdivision. 9. Consideration of authorizing use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire Dundas Road right-of-way. 10. Consideration of a resolution accepting feasibility study, ordering public hearing, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area. 11. Consideration of entering into an agreement with H -Window Company concerning future acquisition of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition. 12. Consideration of authorization of participating in soil investigation near West 5th Street and Locust Street. Agenda City Council November 14, 1994 Page 2 13. Consideration of reviewing third quarter Liquor Store financial reports. 14. Consideration of authorizing appraisals of land for bio -solids application. 16. Consideration of workshop or public hearing on the wastewater facilities plan. 16. Consideration of amending building permit and utility aooess fee structure. 17. Consideration of adopting a policy on water service disconnections. 18. Consideration of final payment to Ryan Contracting, Inc., for Project 93- 02C, Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition. 19. Review of bids and consideration of award of contract for purchase of 125 kw emergency generator for the water department. 20. Adjournment, MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 1894 - 7 p.m Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 2. Annroval of minutes of the remdar meetine held October 10. 1994. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 10, 1994, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of addine items to the agenda. City Engineer Bret Weiss noted that Council needs to adopt a resolution requesting approval from the Commissioner of Transportation for off -system expenditure of state aid funds. It was the consensus of Council to add this item to the agenda at the end of the meeting. 4. Citizens co lMot petitions, reauesta, and complaints. Bob Nelson, manager of the Marywood Apartments, asked Council to consider removing the "no parking" signs on one side of 7th Street in order to allow apartment dwellers to park on the street. He noted that many residents are using the apartment garages for storage and need to park their vehicles on the street. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that both sides of the street are needed for the bike path in order for bike riders to follow traffic laws, as it is against the law to ride a bike against traffic. It was the view of Council that the public street should not be used for overflow parking created by use of garage stalls for storage. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to direct staff to research possible solutions to the parking problem at the Marywood Apartments and bring this item back to Council as an agenda item at the next meeting. Page 1 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 Public Hearing --Adoption of delinouent charges assessment roll and certification to Countv Auditor. Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing. Council discussed the possibility of establishing a disconnect policy. City Administrator Wolfsteller suggested that, due to the manpower required in shutting the water off for delinquent accounts, Council may want to consider establishing a specific dollar amount in the policy. Once an account reaches that dollar amount, the City would then disconnect the water. It was the consensus of Council that this type of policy should be considered. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt the delinquent charges assessment roll and certify the assessment roll to the County Auditor. SEE RESOLUTION 94.31. 6. Qonsideration of Wright County Sheriffs report. Sheriff Don Hozempa presented Council with a summary of the number of calls for service, arrests, traffic, burglaries, and miscellaneous crimes for the city of Monticello. He noted that since the City incorporated 24-hour service from the Wright County Sheriffs Department, traffic speed has slowed resulting in a decreased number of traffic tickets issued. Hozempa reviewed the statistics noting that DWI's, burglaries, and thefts are declining, while criminal damage to property, assaults, and domestic calls have increased. In closing, Hozempa reported that crime is under control in the city of Monticello at this time and credited the City for being proactive and increasing law enforcement hours when needed. Conside ation of variapce requgst gllowing con tructian of storage building/garaze. Applicant. Jeff Michaelis/Riverside Oil. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the request to build a 26'x 12' temporary storage structure at the current bulk oil site on 6th Street, which would allow Michaelis to enclose his fuel transport truck. He noted that the proposed structure encroaches into the yard setback requirements, thereby requiring a variance, however, he also noted that the site is technically a nonconforming use, and the ordinance prohibits use intensification of a nonconforming site. Page 2 of Council Minutes - 10/24/94 ONeill went on to note that the Planning Commission reviewed the request at their October meeting and approved the variance request based on the finding that the structure would be temporary and would not be considered an intensification of the present use; however, the Planning Commission decision was appealed by the Monticello Public Works Director. Public Works Director Simola explained in his appeal that the request should be reconsidered because allowing this variance could set a precedent, and the BNR bulk site soils may be contaminated with petroleum products and could represent a threat to our main municipal water supply. Placement of the proposed building on this property could unreasonably delay cleanup and result in higher relocation costs for the owner if relocation is necessary. Simola also noted in his report that City staff has been working with BNR and the bulk plant operators for almost two years in an attempt to have a soil investigation performed at this site, and it was Simola's view that the investigation should be performed prior to any further building at this site. City Attorney Paul Weingarden explained that Michaelis must show an undue hardship without the proposed building and must show that he doesn't have reasonable use of his property if he is not granted the variance. It was Weingarden's concern that the Council would be faced with many other requests of this type if this variance is granted. He also noted that regardless of whether or not the proposed building is considered temporary, it would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. Michaelis responded that he has tried to relocate in the past but has been unable to find a site where the City allows a bulk plant. He also noted that the petrofund will soon no longer be available and that he is aware that he will have to move his business within approximately five years. Michaelis added that he would be willing to sign an agreement stipulating a time limit for his temporary building and other contingencies as required by Council. A suggestion was made that this request be tabled until more information from the soil investigation is available. City Attorney Weingarden noted that Council must make a decision on this matter within the time limits specified by ordinance unless the applicant agrees to waive the time limit. Jeff Michaelis then stated that he waives the right to a decision within the time frame specified by ordinance. After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Clint Herbst to table the variance request for 30 days in order to receive additional information regarding the possibility of soil contamination at the site. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 9 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 Consideration of zonine ordinance amendments uertaininq to the Nein Farms development orovosal. ADDlicant. Tonv Emmerich/Dave Klein. Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that this item was continued from the previous meeting of the City Council pending a closed Council meeting to discuss potential litigation on this issue. ONeill noted that subsequent to the closed meeting held on October 20, a letter was received from Tony Emmerich stating that after reviewing the ordinance relating to PUD districts, it appeared that his development goals could be achieved under the R -PUD designation; therefore, he requested that his application be amended by removing R-2 and R-3 and replacing with R -PUD. City Attorney Paul Weingarden noted that this issue was discussed with Council in depth on October 20 and that the R -PUD seems to satisfy some of the objections made by Councilmember Blonigen to the rezoning request. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the zoning ordinance amendment to rezone from an agricultural designation to a combination of R-1 and R -PUD zoning designations. Motion is based on the finding that the rezoning request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Herbst noted that he is opposed to this development at this time but will vote in favor of the motion in order for the Council to move on to other issues. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 261. Consideration of aRprovfl of nretiminary plat - Klein Farms subdivision, &Dlicant. Tonv Emmerich/David Klein. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Council discussed this topic at the previous meeting but tabled the item pending a decision on the rezoning issue for this property. He noted that the utility plans must be approved by the City Engineer, and the City will need an agreement from the developer regarding acquisition of 16 acres of park land. O'Neill also stated that a finance plan supporting the sewer and water trunk system has not been finalized yet; however, expenses for the improvements will be handled the same as was done previously for School Boulevard, with 80% funded by the developer, and 20% funded by the City. The City would require some oversizing of the main, which would be captured with an area assessment charge for sanitary sewer and water mains. Whether the project will be developed privately or by the City has not yet been established. ONeill went on to note that an environmental assessment worksheet must be completed, which will take approximately 45 days, and that approval of the plat must be contingent on receiving a negative declaration. Page 4 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the preliminary plat for the HIein Farms subdivision with the following contingencies: 1. Utility plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Developer must make modifications as required by Council. 3. Developer must enter into a development agreement guaranteeing development of the park area south of School Boulevard. 4. Receipt of a negative declaration of environmental impact resulting from the EAW process. 5. Final plat must be approved by the County and affected oil and power companies. 6. Finalization of description of project phasing and associated financing. 7. All required berating to be completed and financed by the developer in conjunction with the initial development of the site. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration of awarding bid for purchase of Pumper fire truck. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that 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, and bids were received on Monday, October 17, 1994. Wolfsteller noted that the fire department received three bids for the new truck ranging in price from $223,521 to $256,967. An alternate was also requested for a rear suction option on the truck, and prices received added an additional $3,000 to $4,000 to the cost. The low bid was received from 3D Manufacturing Company of Shawano, Wisconsin, with an amount of $226,521, which includes the rear suction option. Wolfsteller went on to note that the Monticello Township Board will consider this award on Monday, November 7, and any decision by the Council will be subject to the Township Board's approval. He also noted that the Joint Fire Board has the option to pre -pay for the purchase of the fire truck and receive a discount of approximately 6.16%; however, Wolfsteller noted that he and the Township Board had concerns about Page 5 9 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 availability of funds for pre -payment, and it was the consensus of the Joint Fire Board to pay the required down payment, with the balance being paid upon delivery of the truck. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to accept the low bid of $226,521 from 31) Manufacturing Company contingent upon receiving Monticello Township approval. Motion includes a down payment as required, with the balance being paid upon delivery of the truck. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Consideration of reauest for review of tobacco licensine ordinance. City Administrator Wolfsteller reviewed the tobacco ordinance as adopted by the Council in July 1994, which requires annual licenses from all retailers who sell tobacco products and eliminated customer access to cigarettes and tobacco products without the assistance of a store clerk. In addition, the ordinance restricts vending machine use by requiring that machines be operated by tokens or an electronic switch device by a store employee. The ordinance as adopted would become effective January 1, 1995. Wolfsteller went on to report that after adoption of the ordinance, the City notified all current vendors of cigarette products located within the city limits that a newly -adopted tobacco ordinance would take effect January 1. Since that time, Wolfsteller stated that he has received complaints from area retailers who have concerns about prohibiting self-service access of cigarettes, and the retailers have requested a chance to express their concerns to the City Council. Dorothy Ritze, owner of the Total Mart convenience stores in Monticello, noted to Council that a major reason for adopting the tobacco ordinance seemed to be to help control theft; however, she stated that theft of tobacco products is not a problem, as displays are located in front of the cashier. She explained that tobacco sales are controlled by training employees and by counting the cigarettes in the display three times a day. Since retailers receive incentive money from tobacco manufacturers for displaying their product, the current ordinance eliminating self-service would result in a loss of income for retailers. Ritze noted that if everyone works together, the goal of limiting access to tobacco products by minors can be accomplished. She requested that Council consider reinstating self-service of tobacco products by replacing the current language in Section 3-14.61) with language as written by the retailers and by requiring retailers to verify annually on their license that employees aro trained regarding tobacco sales. The vending machine restrictions would remain the same. Pago 6 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 Mike Carley, Manager of the Monticello Kmart, stated that Kmart receives approximately $400,000 in tobacco sales, and it is estimated by the corporation that it would cost approximately $25,000 for Kmart to conform to the present ordinance; therefore, Kmart would most likely discontinue cigarette sales if a compromise cannot be reached on the ordinance. Rick Pribyl, manager of Tom Thumb, and Tom Holthaus, owner of West Side Market, agreed with the concerns as noted by Dorothy Ritze. Patrice Bogart, education manager for the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District, noted her appreciation for everything the merchants are doing to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors, but she also noted her concern that if the ordinance is changed, retailers' efforts to prevent minors from obtaining cigarettes will lessen as time goes by. Jon Young of the Wright to the Heart of Health Coalition spoke against changing the ordinance. He reminded Council there was a 50% rate of success buying tobacco products in Monticello during the sting operation conducted by the Coalition last year. He also noted that Maus Foods discontinued self-service of tobacco products in 1992 due to theft. It was the view of Councilmember Blonigen that the sale of tobacco products is the responsibility of the store clerk and that teenagers will find a way to get cigarettes if they want them bad enough. Patrice Bogart responded by saying that it's the responsibility of adults to make it difficult for teenagers to make wrong choices. Councilmember Herbst noted that Bogart makes a good point that teens do make wrong decisions, whether they buy or steal cigarettes, and that we should help them make the right choices. Councilmember Smith agreed with the points made by Herbst but also noted that it was an oversight on Council's part to adopt the tobacco ordinance without taking into consideration the effect of the ordinance on the business community. Smith noted that perhaps a compromise could be reached and the ordinance reviewed again in the future. Councilmember Anderson agreed with the idea of reviewing tobacco sales in the future to see if the ordinance as proposed by retailers is working; however, Anderson noted that the language proposed by the retailers has not been reviewed by Council and requested that a vote be taken at the next meeting after Council has had a chance to review the final language. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan Blonigen to agree to amend the ordinance as requested by the retailers, which will require all retailers to certify that employees have received training on laws pertaining to tobacco sales and will again allow self-service Page 7 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 of tobacco products that are in plain view of a responsible employee; however, final approval shall not be given to actually amend the ordinance until the proposed language is reviewed by Council. Voting in favor. Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst. 12. Consideration of offer to purchase Eastwood Knoll plat. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the offer to purchase the Eastwood Knoll property has been withdrawn; therefore, no action is required by Council. 13. Update on Gille vronertv cleanup nroiect. City Administrator Wolfsteller updated Council on the cleanup project of the former Gille Auto property site. He noted that the project is almost complete, and the property will soon be ready to market so that it can be put back on the tax rolls. Wolfsteller asked Council if they want to become the owner of the property and sell it themselves or let the County handle the sale as a tax forfeiture property. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to accept the property from the County 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. At this point the City Attorney noted that deeding the property to the City should be contingent on receiving a report from the PCA that the site is clean. Councilmember Herbst then amended his motion to accept the property from the County contingent on receiving a report from the PCA that the site is clean, and then request the County Auditor to obtain a deed from the Department of Revenue. Shirley Anderson seconded the amended motion. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Consideratiogof final onvmen.L to Crider Construction for di te ar cover-- Proiect 9M7C. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve final payment to Gridor Construction in the amount of $10,415.10 pending delivery of the required lien waivers and documentation. Motion carried unanimously. Page 8 9 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 15. Consideration of advertisement for bids for purchase of 125 kw emereencv generator. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to authorize advertisement for bids for a new 125 kw emergency generator based upon the specifications for the last unit purchased in 1991. Motion carried unanimously. 16. Consideration of resolutions approving annexation of Krautbauer/Hawks Bar properties. Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that, as part of the River Mill subdivision platting process, Council is asked to consider adopting the proposed resolutions accepting annexation of the Hawk's Bar and Robert Krautbauer properties. He noted that in order to meet the time frame for using tax increment financing, it's necessary to consider annexation of these properties contingent on approval of the River Mill final plat and completion of the development agreement. If the project does not materialize, the properties would not be annexed. O'Neill went on to note that on October 12, Monticello Township reviewed the development plan, agreed that the plan met the requirements of the urbanization plan, and voted to approve the annexation of these two properties. He stated that the Township also commented on concerns regarding the use of tax increment financing and the fact that there is no connection between Highway 75 and Highway 39 in the River Mill development; however, Township approval is not contingent on the City taking specific action to address the comments. Joe Abbot, owner of Hawk's Bar, stated that he has no problem with the subdivision plan but was concerned about the possibility of a median being installed by the County which would limit access to his bar by permitting right -in and right -out access only. He explained that if semi's are routed through the River Mill development to get to the bar, the neighborhood will be opposed to this location and he will eventually be pushed out of the area. Abbot noted that he preferred that signal lights be installed in this area rather than a median. Bret Weise, City Engineer, explained that the County controls access to County Road 75 and that it is the County's decision as to when the median would be installed; however, he noted that the connection between Hart Boulevard and County Road 39 must be made prior to a median being placed on County Road 75. Weiss also reported that the County will not install signal lights at the Hawks' Bar location. Page 9 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 Abbot asked if he withdrew his petition for annexation to the city, would his access remain as it is. City Attorney Weingarden responded by saying that the access issue and annexation issue are separate. One issue does not affect the other, and the County will still decide when the median will be installed. Weingarden also noted that Hawk's Bar is presently considered a nonconforming use in the county. If the bar were to burn, Abott would be unable to rebuild, however, the bar would have the potential to become a conforming use when annexed to the city. Mayor Fyle stated that he is not in favor of annexing only the Krautbauer property, as that would create an island of township property surrounded by the city limits. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the urbanization plan with the Township states that establishment of isolated parcels should be avoided, but Council could annex the isolated parcel later under the urbanization agreement. It was also noted by ONeill that Franklin Denn, Township Board Chair, felt that annexation of the Krauthauer property without the Abbot property would be consistent with the urbanization plan. The Township would not object to the Krautbauer annexation if Abbot were to withdraw his request. Councilmember Herbst suggested that perhaps the access to the River Mill development should be on County Road 39, which would eliminate increased traffic past Hawk's Bar and the median wouldn't need to be installed. At this point in the meeting, Joe Abbot withdrew his petition for annexation of the Hawk's Bar property. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to deny annexation of the Krautbauer property based on the finding that TIF shouldn't be used for this development. Blonigen noted that he would like to see both the Krautbauer and Hawk's Bar property be annexed at the same time, as he felt the R-2 area should be rezoned to R-1. At this point, Rick Sathre requested that Council table action in order to give the developer a chance to work out a compromise with Joe Abbot, as Rick Murray was unable to attend this meeting. Herbst noted that he not opposed to the concept for the area but is against the use of TIF to make improvements to the grovel pit. He also noted he preferred the R -PUD concept rather than the R-2 zoning. The City Attorney stated that the zoning of the River Mill subdivision has already been approved and complies with the comprehensive plan. He Page 10 9 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 noted that since Council has conceptually approved the use of TIF, to deny annexation based on a disagreement with the use of TIF would be a change in position and may result in consequences for the Council. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the item be tabled. VOTE ON THE MOTION TO DENY ANNEXATION: In favor. Dan Blonigen, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle. Motion failed. A motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to table action on annexation of the Robert Krautbauer property as requested by the developer until the first Council meeting in November. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Motion passed. 17. Consideration of adoupne buildine inspection procedures redpfining level of inspections and amendments to fee structure relatine to sinele family housine construction. Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that City staff has been analyzing current building inspection services in an effort to determine if efficiency could be improved by streamlining the process. During review of the building inspection process, staff realized that the fees charged by the City have not been reviewed for quite some time. O'Neill noted that after researching fees charged by other ©ties, it became apparent that an increase in fees charged by the City of Monticello is 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 Monticello is experiencing. Council is asked to adopt the new building inspection procedures and consider making amendments to the fee structure relating to single family housing construction. Tom Holthaus of Value Plus Homes, Inc., requested a chance to review the information prior to Council adoption and asked that Council consider not making the fee changes effective immediately, as it would amount to thousands of dollars for Value Plus Homes. Because of the late hour, it was the consensus of Council to adopt the new forms and procedures for the building department, including collection of sewer and water access fees with the building permit, and to table discussion of increasing the fees until the next regular Council meeting. Page 11 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/94 18. Considerption of condemnation of two hazardous trees in the city of Monticello. John Simola, Public Works Director, explained that the City Tree Inspector has noted the existence of two hazardous trees within the city. The first tree is located on the Chantelle Mitchell property at 206 East River Street, and the other is located east of the fire hall on the Robert Ameriks property. Roth property owners are hesitant to have the trees removed due to the cost. Simola noted that the City Attorney recommended that Council condemn the trees and order removal as allowed by the building code and city ordinances. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan Blonigen to authorize condemnation and removal of the tree located east of the fire hall. Motion carried unanimously. 19.c�risideration of approval of bills for the month of Octobtr. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the bills for the month of October as presented Motion carried unanimously. 20. Other matters. A. City Engineer Bret Weiss requested that Council adopt a resolution requesting approval to use state aid funds for the pathway project (Project 93-08C). He noted that plans and specifications are developed assuming that state aid funds will be used for a portion of the project. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt a resolution requesting approval to use state aid funds for the pathway project. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 9432. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 12 0 Council Agenda - 11/14194 s. Consideration of alternatives for addressina oedestrian/vehicle conflicts on 7th Street. (J.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the previous meeting of the City Council, the manager of the Marywood Apartments expressed concern over the parking ban on 7th Street. City staff has also heard concerns from the Hillside Apartment management. According to Julie, City Hall Receptionist, the City has received numerous complaints from apartment residents. Council is asked to review the situation and consider alternatives. As you know, the parking ban was established to allow the shoulder of 7th Street to be used exclusively in the short term for pedestrian and bike traffic as identified in the pathway plan for the city. The logic for banning parking is as follows: There should be no need for on -street apartment related parking. This assumes that the zoning ordinance parking stall requirements have resulted in sufficient off-street parking for each apartment. The presence of the controlled intersection at Highway 25 makes 7th Street the best alternative for dedication as an east/west pathway through this section of town. There are numerous pedestrian points of destination (Burger King, Perkins, Kmart, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.,) in close proximity to densely populated areas. This makes 7th Street a major artery for pedestrian/bike traffic. Banning parking on the shoulder enhances safety for pedestrians using 7th Street to get from point A to point B. The long-term plan for 7th Street calls for development of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and an on -road bike path. This type of pathway is identified as a Class I1S in the pathway plan. THE PROBLEM: The manager of the Marywood Apartments has pointed out that his apartment complex is not able to comply with the no parking ban because one-third of the parking stalls are used for storage and because a few of the residents have three cars. Marywood also has inoperable and unlicensed vehicles parked on site. In the Marywood case, insufficient apace is left over for visitor parking, which then spills over onto the city street. The Marywood manager has noted that there is additional land available on site for a few more parking stalls. Council Agenda - 1 VI4/94 Attached you will find an inventory of the apartments on 7th Street which includes parking stalls/unit. It has also been noted that the apartment complex parking must shift somewhere during the snow removal process. If no parking is allowed on 7th Street, the apartment vehicles must be moved onto other private property during snow removal. Tina Reinert, Manager of Hillside Apartments, indicated that residents that live in the first floor apartments often park on 7th Street out of convenience, as it is only a few feet from the 7th Street right-of-way to the front door of some of the apartments. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to delay implementation of the no parking ban until April lb, 1995. Under this alternative, the City Council supports the logic of the need for the parking ban and believes that sufficient parking is available at each apartment site but recognizes that the apartment complexes may need some time to adjust management practices in order to free - up more parking stall space on-site. Under this alternative, the apartment complex management would have time to open up garage space for storage of vehicles and establish requirements limiting the number of cars that residents can park on site. They will also have time to remove unlicensed/ inoperable vehicles and require removal of boats/trailers if necessary. 2. Motion to implement the no parking ban immediately. 3. Motion to lift the no parking ban indefinitely. Under this alternative, City Council is not convinced of the need to limit parking on 7th Street. Motion to lift the no parking ban but direct City staff to complete a feasibility study on the cost to develop an 8 -ft off-road pathway for bikes and pedestrians. Under this alternative, the cost to develop an off-road path would be developed. It would be anticipated that the majority of the expense would be assessed against the apartments. Council Agenda - 11/14/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #I. It is our view that high traffic and pedestrian volumes warrant dedication of a safe area for pedestrians and bikers. Furthermore, it appears that sufficient off-street parking for the apartments is available on site if managed properly. We do not feel that parking on the street should be allowed just because the apartment complexes are allowing parking space to be used for other purposes. Development of an off-road path is not likely to be supported by the apartment owners because the cost to the apartment companies to develop the pathway is likely to be in excess of the cost of improving utilization of existing apartment parking. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of apartment stall inventory; Excerpt from pathway plan. O APARTMENT PARKING SURVEY Ordinance requires 2 stalls per unit with 1 enclosed space per 2 units. APTPKG: 11/10/94 Hillside Haven nl The Jefferson WaWNlSoeon The Untn Terrace I I Terrace II I hlarvwood I Pante I Heiohts I Bluffs Esttates (Number o1 units 38 12 28 24 12 24 24 54 18 (Number o1 bedrooms 30.2 BD 12-2 BD 14-1 BD 1-1 BD 1-1 BD 12-1 BD 8.1 BD 13-1 BD 18.2 BD 6-3 BD 12.2 BD 23-2 BD 11.2 BD 12-2 BD 16-2 BO 41-2 BD Outside stalls marked 27 24 27 30 19 33 82 18 Est. outside stalls unmarked 28 Spaces in front of garages unmarked 7 Garage units 7 2 18 24 6 B 18 54 18 �Visitornarkino marked 18 8 I ITOTAL STALLS 1 41 1 42 1 51 1 54 1 25 1 34 1 49 1 138 1 34 (Stalls per apartment 1.11 2.25 1.42 1.89 Stalls Oar bedroom I 0.53 I 1.75 11 I 1.15 I 1.09 I I 2.23 I 1.43 I I oats (Disabled I I I I I I 2 I or unlicensed vehicles 2 1 4 1 3 t 1 Ordinance requires 2 stalls per unit with 1 enclosed space per 2 units. APTPKG: 11/10/94 W I TRAIL DEVELOPMENT SCHED' - LONG TERM PLAN 6 WYPv+�m1-OrNOAAr(Lb. 75) 7,,` S, I Do.1o.A m MIEA IwttN,* Lem 701 B C I b P 5 3 I IYm Aw • Brgp Ga+Wt ) I 4 rPCOrImVCtlpn d fltlFl Aw 100 70 1 ILIOEWAI7JLONII OFF ROAD PATHWAY N CRY 11]b0 I) C Flyn •w - 5F.1 -v p G.bN ) N 1r p FAIp1 Aw ) Om 0 OFI MAO PATHWAY N PROP L57.em I+1 Al +IIp NIIP Nw>D It.SI Um \LmIUI 1 N TCOST 1 SCi{IAEN7 DESCWP110M ] 014N.tAlNF P0. M.0 TYMG utMI1 ED Ip1Y NA I REOL.REO I t! • Gut H1rY 25 - 1N to ] IWlrw 25.0w..ww- 100 U I 11 IOP' ROAD P•T)IWAr Y `l4 I n0000 11 A ]In 0 - py1 C9YN polo b EaN G 6 L100 5 WNLNISTRIF-L',JONo 1 M M A B CI 0 E F. F H EpwL/STFOPGTJdMb K L Y :0, DwwoDboe.IN:ero PYOPe:- .- I.G WPiOymmYftl �CwYhaCbm _ 3dS0111A ►IDIS ►ROFff 0-8 �4�5 I••.,Y,PROP, F M PROPRAW CRD E 0000 G41 to CSW 7% 1 11!] I,f00 A5 1 II16714 7 N M CNtt 1b0/ I 1IA7 CR]YOII.rO rmweY r. N.PN(lAN I 7119] I/m UI Is ISO.! T F IN IPROPI ,4101 I T I• IY�WRD� OrAw II ! I tM] L100 I W I Im Ib IN 7 V I. ICITY I tS] I 17II I• -•^ ^^ DI IO Vwr 9nPr I 7II.- MEI rPoaP FFNN, Ae w L410 INA 1 D lot- MAD PA7 NYAv Ia•5 I SCM A75TRIPVMk5 V IFA &l1.000 1 • IEawmO AAYOo. Lot aub I ] IN PUD conprpn tIm IMI II IREPYR EIIsnMO m IY IFA MLOOD I IA IIA IINIDPr1+0b10 AUO aYY1wu16T6A I TlN rsuPmYICAPCO YY OP+IrtloA {,Tm INAI D TOFF ROAD PAINWAY TDI IV INA I lTbml I IA IDY RaoP P IYP l ] YR.n aur I O41PYI 0010 mD IMA I II OFP ROAD PAT MAY IP.e 160WlNbRYPE.tiUNSI Y IMA I ti 000 17IA IMrP.aQP 011ANP1 7IWIwI PNLrY bIYwp010 �OINA II IOFF MAD PATHWAY 7 IY IN ICRY 'Y IIY 1 11].000 1 IA �o-_ c W O ] ItHM1 Qlnub C 1 D OP WwlGob Nm �NA I II TOFF ROAD PATHWAY I LY K! Y IMA {fi,m0 t A LR 111 - 8:NRd BA9. CSNr if ] DLOMpIr1 M B[TPA MYIWIp Il I +." U I I OFF ROAD PATMNAY II IsiAIFIIIOII! i 77 1A IC9•H 7/ Y MA {741.000 IIB ICR 111 - ,^i -no J OIrC W CSW 1! l IPJ1 I.me U '' N • ICAAH 7/ - A- IN . -, 1MM P T F M ICMt I M"J ✓M' I to 1• IcsW 75-AMNOPDY Aw.1 I I ID --In MTE+l, 1 I 17001 W 1 D 10" ROAOPATMW.v 'Y INA I I It 11,001 11 I• IYAIm. OYAw.Cbt 11 I ] WNMYN IP.rao I I.mo llul IOFI MAD NAT111YAY 'U IUMI I a+/boo +T A S:Ilo01 BIW -Free Enu IO fLre Acrled to 111] No 0 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY' w PRCP //.Om 1T 8 9erotl 0 W •Pram PPYCAn Y Y1oeP IC71I 7 P7.N N O CYueY IL91 Sw 11 1 OR ROAD PATHWAY w PROP 112.ODD +1 C Seo11 BNa - gPrewne FYon . 111 1 CA10 NOb N. V 7.00 U 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY F SLHO M.00D 17 D SapY BIuC - FAYm to BIYA tI.7 b ] MrPe BCtlob Bb Y CO1bNDa1 1,700 U I OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y PROP 679 am 17 E IUI..1 RNb W 1010[. ) YIIIM p1.N V Y LTpMNO L. MA 1 OR ROAD PATHWAY Y MA 11.750 t: F ICA. NI WOLar. to Bap. OM CP N 1,6 Ii] 1,790 30 w SGN5 T Y N CiTY 1.•'07 17 O o_C LPa' to B:- BIW r. -C ! N C_- to WIPP M C 101) 1.700 w . SONS T Y w CRY {•C7 * • WYPv+�m1-OrNOAAr(Lb. 75) 7,,` S, I Do.1o.A m MIEA IwttN,* Lem 701 F•b t Y N PAC. 60.176 I1) 11 A IYm Aw • Brgp Ga+Wt ) I 4 rPCOrImVCtlpn d fltlFl Aw 100 70 1 ILIOEWAI7JLONII OFF ROAD PATHWAY N CRY 11]b0 I) C Flyn •w - 5F.1 -v p G.bN ) N 1r p FAIp1 Aw ) Om 0 OFI MAO PATHWAY N PROP L57.em I+1 Al +IIp NIIP Nw>D It.SI Um \LmIUI 1 N 11X11 II,.w-CR • A7 c --Cb 1114 GYPtr.Ya ] 014N.tAlNF P0. M.0 {Am U Io IegNe OFF RO•D PATIMAY IM Y Ip1Y NA I L1M.Om I t! • Gut H1rY 25 - 1N to ] IWlrw 25.0w..ww- 100 U I 11 IOP' ROAD P•T)IWAr Y `l4 I n0000 11 A ]In 0 - py1 C9YN polo b EaN G L 1v111n OJIO • b aw.mn Z. L100 b WNLNISTRIF-L',JONo 1 M M TOP -T CY[W NP o11Mm1r11rA 1,WD ]btl•B EpwL/STFOPGTJdMb 1 N M PROPC 7mW - A,Wn.ppll G IP GYI H.t O 1.1 1117 I,/m >S 0-8 �4�5 SONS2 I F M PROPRAW ] ' E FRY IeC1b1 b rOp1010 L000 ]! IVBi10INVC10 O b N PMP M .� 111 IA IMM WYY11r1pt9n IP CR 111 I ]Iw11.11H1�'b pmPrlT o.+Im1 1o001 51 Ia•5 I SCM A75TRIPVMk5 I IN IN IPbOPI 6041001 ! A qw. G• EJbM PYI w CAaNA le IR+. 1 I IWIYN 110 m i EONS L Y N CRr I +1 d Cn.nw.ObY Gr ~'M ) 00. C r R0 a 1]PI 1.4101 TDI ,m IDIOMS T,Y IN CRY 11151 1111• ION. GA/ilr+.O-SAnOr lnmw.`yw 11Wr.+ CO. GIw bObropna IWNM 11901 )DI IP.e 160WlNbRYPE.tiUNSI tIN IN IPPAW alL73 701• IRwv G - Hw¢rcl a CDAH 71 , ) ON. Gw1 b b wpaGa 7 om I m I IN IBIONB 7 IY IN ICRY 15p1 r 71 1• IN.Y G C1uH 71. N;J',.ol I + �DPo -a 15TF.1 t1Plmry t Cm I m I I IDFI ROAD PATIIWAr �1 1 Y 1Y IMA I I LY K! SIA IY.Pbt'eG PIrI MIePP T1Y{hN•+11 L IDPorwNm CMANnOP1yCePrPY {SW IMAI 10'F gpA7)P•TYIWAY IY I`NA _ I {TO S1Y i 77 1A IC9•H 7/ Dm. nF:' TEA Nrrwpf +aT I 6 DW 111 � IN IUlN1 LIN IN ICM1 I7p '' N • ICAAH 7/ - A- IN . -, 1MM P I 1 DPoraPrl a 15TEA Nr1Ort9 1 Om 1! I II IOPI ROAD PITIIWAY IY IMI ti]bm t aI• ICIAH 70 1Mtt l.r.1DMCINibn1A I tDALMp.1a151EI 11rr1My 1IODI1II 11 IDFI ROAD PATIIWr , IY INI I Llpt Om iX 1 Y IA IES G - W ET' D IP DDAH /1 1 ICwPrpPm a Uh• APp.1t 1 701 75 I 11 IOPr bDAD PAl1nVAY NA Ir IM IPROP 1 / : Oo0 IAT IO Z. I1 I I I 111 Io � L M IP0.DP T CpwN 4N 10 E. 91 7Wtw rw. LPnMr b mpal� L 000 U A. PATHWAY IY I M 000 01--u.1-ntN-- I ---Lw �.I.�I..w✓.^7V IwA+F•0.0. rauN ...I.......1..A I...I... I.O...R.�.D...?.r�Y I... �.I....I I "DW EX Pathway segments proposud for construction under ISTEA Project Council Agenda - I V14/94 6, Consideration of amendments to elearette licensing ordinance (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the previous Council meeting, Council agreed to consider amendments to a recently -adopted cigarette licensing ordinance that would allow self-service sales of cigarettes provided the tobacco products are located within the immediate vicinity and in plain view of a responsible employee of the retail establishment. In addition to this clause, it was also suggested that the ordinance contain language that would require every retailer requesting a cigarette license certify on its annual application that it has trained its employees in regard to the laws on tobacco sales. Based on the Council action, Sections 3-14-6 (D and E) were amended or added to the ordinance allowing for self-service sales except for vending machines, which will still require special tokens or an electronic device to operate. Although the new language may be a little vague in defining what is in the immediate vicinity or in plain view of an employee, the ordinance change will allow all retailers to have single pack sales and display set ups accessible to their customers and located around the vicinity of a cashier. It is anticipated that the $25 annual license fee per establishment will not generate a large amount of revenue other than to cover the cost of processing the applications and keeping track of all vendors. If the Council would like to implement more frequent compliance checks of retailers to see if minors are still having access to cigarettes, Council could consider increasing the license fee accordingly so that funds are available for compliance checks. On the other hand, if the Council is not that interested in becoming tobacco police enforcers, we can take a wait and see attitude until problems do arise before implementing more compliance checks. As an additional note, the ordinance still contains language that allows the Council to suspend a license for a minimum of three days on a first violation of any section of our ordinance, suspension for 30 days for a second violation within a three-year time period and revocation of license for a third violation occurring within a three-year time period. If there are obvious violations by a retailer allowing employees to sell to minors, they would be subject to the above penalties. Council Agenda - 11/14(94 B, ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Council could adopt the ordinance amendment as proposed. The amendment would again allow tobacco to be sold through self- service merchandising provided the tobacco products are in the immediate vicinity and in plain view of a responsible employee and that the retailer certifies annually that it has trained its employees on state laws concerning tobacco sales. 2. Council could amend the ordinance as proposed but also increase the annual license fee to cover additional compliance checks of license holders. If a compliance test is conducted at each establishment by the police department, it is possible that additional time and expenditures may be incurred to conduct the testing, which should be the responsibility of the license holders. The license fee could be increased from the present $26 to $60 or $100 to provide additional revenue for this purpose. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the previous Council action, the ordinance amendment has been amended as proposed by the Monticello retailers allowing for self- service merchandising of tobacco products, provided they are in the vicinity and plain view of an employee. If the Council is still comfortable with this concept and does not we the need for increasing the annual fee at this time, it is recommended that option 1 be adopted. 1). SUPPORTING DATA Copy of modified cigarette licensing ordinance; Information from Association for non-smokers. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT TITLE 3, CHAPTER 14, OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SALE OF TOBACCO BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 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, agars, 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 tho City. Such application shall state the full name and address of tho 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. 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, agars, 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 tho City. Such application shall state the full name and address of tho 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. Ordinance Amendment No. 253 Page 2 3-14-4: LICENSE FEE: The annual license fee shall be an amount established by the City Council. All licenses shall expire on December 31. For any license issued after January 1 in any year, the fee shall be computed by prorating the annual fee over the remaining months or fraction thereof until December 31. A penalty of fifty percent (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, bells donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. (D) Ilia ear E. r (D) Tobacco products may be sold by mgans of self-service merchandigine, provided that the tobacco oroducta are sold throueh a licensed tobaceo vending, machine. accordina to Spetion 3-14.8. or by a licensed retailer so lona ae the tobacgo nrodpcts are in the immediate vicinity and plain view of a responsible emnlovee. (E) LEvery retailer reapestine a license under this oroinance shall jmnlfm9nJA training program for employees regarding laws rglntina to the sale of tobacco products. Every retailer shall certifv qn its annual tobacco application that all emnlovees have been trained to comply with state laws regarding the sale of tobacco products. 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: Ordinance Amendment No. 253 Page 3 (A) Violation of Section 3-14.6 (B) or any other provision of this chapter. (B) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.685, relating to sale of tobacco to persons under eighteen (18) year of age. (C) Failure of the license holder to monitor, supervise, and control the purchase of tobacco from a vending machine so as to prevent the purchase of tobacco from a vending machine by persons under eighteen (18) years of age. The City Council shall suspend a license issued under this chapter for a minimum of three (3) days on a first violation of any section of this ordinance or the license holder may opt to pay a $250 fine in lieu of license suspension. The City Council shall suspend a license for a minimum period of thirty (30) days for a second violation within a three (3) year period. 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, once, 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. (C) A tobacco vending machine may be located in other establishments, under the following conditions: 1. 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. Ordinance Amendment No. 253 Page 4 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. 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)oar edu. 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. Adopted this 14th day of November, 1994. Mayor City Administrator PI I KONICA FAX 100 FAX PAGE 01 ndg- 2mUnivengityAwamisviela 8u1D0 310 $aft Pard. Mlroraote 66114.1512 (612) 8484005 FAX: (612) 646-0142 October 24. 1994 mar Ken Maus Ma Low City Hall P.O. Bos 1147 Monticello. MN 33362-9745 Mayor Maus: modified that a few wish to tobacco vendtua in your community aro rogoeadng chat ordinance wish to revisit this inane, I would eaooucap you to tengthncourage, you to stick with m it in suniler ardbwwo. If you � ptog esaive Minacaft comm—hies It is my understanding that me pmvWon which the tobacco vendors object to the most is the requirement that all tobacco products be stored behind she fir. Your ordinance is am excellent one in the aorto this it tresis tabsoco like a'conunlled substnoao', which it is. The State of Minnesota and mat ecmmuniUes teco�tim that tobacco is not joat Wm any coaumer product. it is a special product which needs and donves spew We provide special hormion far a cumber of products: wacdptloa Qe�s, 9re ams, aXplosiva Rte reasons am clear. All pose mood, hazards atnd it b io mciety'ainbe�t to prevent them from hang into the bands of e�lldrat. Tobacco is deadly. oven when used as intended. It is not necastay to miaue it for 4 W carie o add problems, cis addictive Most smokers begin whn a week of smaluia& ile he �d ea of addiction Tobacco i, a By the time they am mature enough to moogoise the coenaapucaoas to their haatth, much of the damage has been done and the a Nktian is wall listed. with a drug which is that deadly and that addictive. It simply does nm malro cease to display it out to the gum ad wady. thou tenplying this it is just a consumer ala aroumer product. It domake arose to display it in ways the msie it inviting to take and easy to aical. Your council wu on the ddo�tt track when you voted to place tobacco behind the tom. The fact that sane merchsaw Ibd it inconvenient dots not change tho validity of your decision. If the council decides to revisit your ordinance there am a number of ealunotsmeat you may wish to consider. I would suggest goat inertase your Iloeaae toesto prover the caw associated with regular compliance cheers. Pmthar. compliance checks with an ostablWtod penalty system with fines against vendors and possible "cease suspension or revocation for thosc who repeatedly fail to pus compliance checks would be good neat steps. o KONICA FAX 100 FAX PAGE 02 ANSR wa dd Him to wcmt wbth you it we cm be of help. Thcm am amodimt teaoomm w)tbb yowown community but we may be able to provide some a"doael iafa Ww or ideas. PwM do tat hmsltase to a)) an as it we can be of help. swcerely, lam/ weignm 0 KOJICA FAX 100 FAX ORDINANCE PROWSM. NOW Ple b els sm LiclonM Fee 112 111 Olbme 61t -opus 2d OIhnse I *a"— Vendor Petldtia, 3rd Olbne elm 41101, .. R�oeelei W b 1 .id Osense N41 "M 1 perk Pionoth l 2d Offt 3rd Onrtnne Ver drg 66ddm Pmtbieed Vending Medine Rec L%W x x Pf1E 03 %ler9e Sbofesiw SL Put els sm elm Sim 61t -opus am I *a"— elm 1 e4' ee0enrss R�oeelei W b 1 >, Er; � R�mdon M PSMASM Sim in Nab 1 6129 61w 61" x x x No Sed Seniw Rett a"vice Pool tions No Sade x Peds No solkeni4w less drrl e CMAM Some, 16 or drier Rsrldom Ilr11r11ottroed y adno a dry policy) 0� Yasay Tots a Mae x It per Ym Woabb Ow d bahrw pNot PfcNWG n a1 pdMasesi eere4*10 11.sefM bold41 w a 11 bse mes sa db N baaadl x berelad 00two"1 PrO itlorn TGbM Of+oeb 01ned — — 1. St ib Is "alms D 6 plop "Idrr�lrler b 1i tdxmo m mYfa. Ttn w b eppflee ay b lir ablk t. No ioenees a Ov bsued b "r, 11 Osco d bushnese. Tib don pr2pvW by Atssack on for IlonemoRwe - I W*mb 2395 UNvenly Avenue Wed SLIe 310 SAW Pawl, MN 55114-1512 (612)648-3W5 FAX(817)6160142 x D KO41CA FAX 100 FAX 141 ononmm Marl PAGE 04 MWM rE MYSM. C1 uftum ON PM* Edea Faloon �p (10" Fam M wo sm (ae0 10 oom M OR rgEw- out •r•d ar wor 0 axxt re &W of w tD r MUPWOM cwm MP" poo a div rOr.m verda penmllies bu tw m owmn 3rd Orem rw mp=bw (rreaKon afh Oflm 141 ononmm Marl Mor 1 In grid Oft" flop :id Onama Mor 1 Wrdn/ afactom PmNbIbd x K x x VwKVg fifadinm Rmhidad No sag Some x K so" $arvko PrOwdgm No single x Packs No self swim bu tw m owmn Sofa 10 of Oldmr x K PLndom ooffdmm cmft unovimm aae 1 odnOnu a dy �� Or= YmeAy Takr or Nam K per You mm" plana d bwlmn pdbWd K pod*" an poYdd mmM aArrNYg M bn=f* bwed @Khomb PMiAblfom Tobwm bboada bfnlad 1. s m law mw m M a OMrm j1dwo tta a b pt &,h— b a Miior. Ths Iw is applies Otfp b ft chill ! Flavoodon am be' i - i d I dpmom m ads dAV a ampvw M aw pgosl b Aroaiatlon Im Isonwrok m • Ubwm ob 2395 UOAwely Avefum Wd GL*@ 910 G&W PMI, MN 551141512 (012010• M FAX (012)6x60112 OOImiR 9 sen No Psoxa No sdFla Iiia dw e tenon saw 1swoat I MW*dQ . m S eX GM— SO 4t rwsVwdW I�.aueen W b 1 Ir mm 1 J P494 +, x j tem unwwnm'°In tM adnw= of dty Pdtr) C"o Y4a4 Twbo or Mom pw Year Mm" ptwa d k abnm p doled PwN bMw an pdrdd-do edvW tp Al WM*w*a � btnwd Baced pmhUW4 YdAm hibada bttxwd 1.566 bw nwtsa t e ptota nirls --M b d kbttD b e RNW. %Mtw b OPPW D* 4 M dodgy L ROYaadw oan b► l $ , t dpawtba ew dx & tp a wtpandtxt. To dw pqww by ANodWJM Sw NWA&WbeIw • ltYllMwwh MW Wkwtety AwwwA WsM Buts 310 saw PWA MIM 65116-1512 (819p6s400 FAX 1012)W4142 saawaa (00 KONICA FAX 100 FAX OMMAWE PROYt$iM: Durno ' toa+n pa 2S' tit abets ad atsw. 4 ye"daI Perlis+, ad Oft Ilh Otams tat Otams bw abr�tl xtd or" YWft mw" Pmtditd x Yendnp Muhft Psatdttd NO sdl sewioa x sen No Psoxa No sdFla Iiia dw e tenon saw 1swoat I MW*dQ . m S eX GM— SO 4t rwsVwdW I�.aueen W b 1 Ir mm 1 J P494 +, x j tem unwwnm'°In tM adnw= of dty Pdtr) C"o Y4a4 Twbo or Mom pw Year Mm" ptwa d k abnm p doled PwN bMw an pdrdd-do edvW tp Al WM*w*a � btnwd Baced pmhUW4 YdAm hibada bttxwd 1.566 bw nwtsa t e ptota nirls --M b d kbttD b e RNW. %Mtw b OPPW D* 4 M dodgy L ROYaadw oan b► l $ , t dpawtba ew dx & tp a wtpandtxt. To dw pqww by ANodWJM Sw NWA&WbeIw • ltYllMwwh MW Wkwtety AwwwA WsM Buts 310 saw PWA MIM 65116-1512 (819p6s400 FAX 1012)W4142 saawaa (00 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 7. Considergtion tq adont q repoludon calling for a public hearing for the modification of the Redevelopment Plan and Boundaries fgr Redevelopment Proiect No. 1. modification of the TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1.1 to 1-17. specificaUv TIF District No. 1.9. and the adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1.18. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At this time, the City Council is only being asked to call for a public hearing on November 28, 1994. Adoption of the following will be considered on November 28. Modification of the Redevelopment Plan and Boundaries for Redevelopment Proiect No. 1. All Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts must be located within the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 boundaries. Currently, the 72 acres owned by Krautbauer are not located within these boundaries, therefore is the need to modify and enlarge the existing boundaries. Adoption to modify the Redevelopment Project No. 1 boundaries cannot occur until the Minnesota Municipal Board has ratified the Krautbauer orderly annexation. Modification of the TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-1 through 1-17. ppecifically TIF District No. 1.9. TIF District No. 1.9, a 10 -year Economic District created in February 1990, is being modified to assist with the site improvements associated with the proposed Genereux Fine Wood Products' 18,000 sq ft manufacturing and second -floor mezzanine expansion. Projected is 15 new jobs. The modification includes a $30,000 increase to the District 1.9 budget. The tax increment generated from the expansion is projected to cover the increased budget. Expansion groundbreaking is anticipated for April 1995. /mac option of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1.18 TIF District No. 1.18, a 12 -year Soils Condition District, is being created to assist with costs associated with the reclamation of a mined gravel pit. The mined gravel pit is located within the township parcel (35 acres) located northeast of Monticello and currently owned by Krautbauer. Developers Rick and Bob Murray, Residential Development, Inc., plan to purchase the property (72 acres) from Krautbauer, restore the mined gravel pit, and construct 70 single-family homes, 48 twin -homes (98 -units), and two commercial developments. Council Agenda - 11/14/94 On October 28, 1994, copies of the modified Redevelopment Project Plan, modified TIF District Nos. 1-1 through 1-17 Plans, and TIF District No. 1-18 Plan were distributed to the school, county, and hospital taxing jurisdictions. On November 9, 1994, the HRA adopted a resolution relating to these same modifications and requesting the City Council call for a public hearing. Again, at this time, the City Council is asked to adopt the enclosed resolution calling for a public hearing on Monday, November 28, 1994, at approximately 7 p.m. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion to adopt the enclosed resolution calling for a public hearing on November 28, 1994. 2. A motion to deny the adoption of the enclosed resolution calling for a public hearing on November 28, 1994. 3. A motion to table any action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to keep the TIF process on a timely schedule, staff recommends alternative Hl. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption; Location maps. Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _ RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-17, SPECIFICALLY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 9 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-18, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearine. This Council shall meet on November 28, 1994, at approximately 7:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a) the proposed modification, by increased project costs and enlarged geographic area, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (the "Authority") Redevelopment Project No. l; (b) the proposed modification, by increased project costs and enlarged geographic area, of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17 specifically Tax Increment Financing District No. 9, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, located within Redevelopment Project No. l; (d) the proposed adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1; (e) the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17 (f) the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. Section 2. Notice of Hearing: Filing of Program. The City Administrator is authorized and directed to cause notice of hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be given as required by law, to place a copy of the proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan, Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the Administrator's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public no later than November 7, 1994. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the Council in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, on , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: Administrator O STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. CITY OF MONTICELLO ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Administrator of the City Council (the 'Council') in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the Council held on the date indicated with the original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the same is a full, true and correct transcript thereof insofar as said minutes relate to Resolution No. WITNESS my hand officially and the official seal of the Council this day of , 1994. City Administrator (SEAL) 0 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the "Council") in and for the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on November 28, 1994, at approximately 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota, relating to the proposed modification, by increased project costs and enlarged geographic area, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the approval and adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan relating thereto; the proposed modification, by increased project costs and enlarged geographic area, of the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17 specifically Tax Increment Financing District No. 9, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; and the proposed adoption of Tax Increment Financing Plan relating to Tax Increment Financing Plan No. 1-18, also located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. A copy of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-18, as proposed to be adopted at the office of the City Administrator at City Hall not later than November 7, 1994. The property comprising Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 is as follows: PID Number: 155-500-182200 PID Number: 213-000-182304 Further information regarding the identification of the parcel to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 may be obtained from the office of the City Administrator. 0 All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views orally or in writing. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Administrator 0 a r-, • u�.... •• .S1 _:.. = �T(ijfgil�.m!'-•:•may- O�Mpp i EXHIBIT X -A BOUNDARY MAP OF T1 INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-9 _ M-��e50 a IfiL�L:5it1?1 ��1iC tTOfiiB a sn .aa P= 0 ...... .j '�. �� � �� Wil'• . X•9 da .. .. 7' -E VA. 0 N j; A ....... .""I.0d.ldl.1 R IN V f.d FIN 7 7 Ra Is F7: 77- F Annexation Study City of Monticello AS 114 Zoning 1) C q L L 14 City lietto MAI Council Agenda - 11/14/94 e. Consideration of adouting a resolution suuoorong annexgdon of the Robert Hrautbauer orooerty in conluncdon with aooroval of the River Mill subdivison. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the previous meeting, Joe Abbot withdrew is request for annexation due to concerns regarding future access restrictions resulting from development of the River Mill area. The item was then tabled to provide an opportunity for the developer, Joe Abbot, and the County to develop an alternative traffic access plan that would satisfy Abbot, thus resulting in Abbot resubmitting his petition. This is to inform Council that the developer has met with Abbot and the County in an effort to resolve the traffic access issues. Essentially, there is no change in the situation resulting from continued discussion. For your information, I have included letters from the City Engineer and the County Engineer defining in more detail the circumstances that could lead to additional control of the intersection. It is difficult to understand why Abbot is now opposed to annexation when one considers the following facts: Even without annexation, Abbot has no guarantee that someday traffic access to Hawks may be restricted to right Wright out. At best, all Abbot can hope for is to delay this possibility by obstructing development. Under the zoning plan, Hawke enters the city as a grandfathered use that could expand after obtaining a conditional use permit. If annexation does not occur now, there is no guarantee that a future Council will allow such a desirable zoning designation. Abbot mentioned his concern that the neighbors will force him out in the future. The possiblity of this happening is remote if he gets the zoning he needs prior to development of the residential area. On the other hand, if the development proceeds and he delays annexation of his property and establishment of a desirable zoning designation, he will be faced with the task of obtaining the zoning he needs &0&1 residential development occurs. Under this seenerio, he may be faced with residents opposed to zoning that he needs. At present, Abbot has Cho opportunity to work with the developer to conveniently obtain city services and obtain additional land at a reasonable price to use in conjunction with possible future expansion. Council Agenda - IV14/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing annexation of the Krautbauer property. Under this alternative, annexation of the Krauthauer property would occur contingent on completion of the River Mill development agreement and approval of the final plat. It would result in the Hawks Bar property being outside the city limits and isolated as it currently is. According to the agreement between the City and the Township, if the City desires to bring Hawks into the city at any time in the future, the City could do so unilaterally via the annexation by ordinance process. If Council does not wish to bring Hawks into the city against Abbot's will, then the parcel will remain an isolated township parcel. Under this alternative, Council should make a finding as outlined in the attached memo from the City Attorney. 2. Motion to deny adoption of a resolution authorizing annexation of the Krautbauer property. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is our view that a strong attempt has been made to incorporate the needs of Hawks Bar into the development plan. The land use configuration and traffic access plan, though not suiting Hawks needs perfectly, appears to us as fairly addressing the needs of both the River Mill/Krautbauer development and Hawks Bar. Furthermore, we are concerned that holding up the River Mill subdivision because Hawke does not support annexation at this time is not appropriate because significant investments in city infrastructure have been made to serve the 70 -acre River Mill site. Does it make sense to allow a single property owner of a small parcel to block annexation of a larger parcel that is located within the urban service area? On the other hand, the finding outlined under alternative #2 provides sufficient justification for denial of the annexation if so desired by Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Petition for annexation; Resolution for adoption; Lotter from City Attorney; Letter from City Engineer; Letter from Dave Montebello of Wright County Department of Highways; Memo of November 8, 1994. 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 lying within the west half of Section 16. Township 121, Range 24 south of County Road 39 Right of Way and north of the County Road 7SAnterstate 94 Right of Way, approximately one-half of which tract Des 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: X OWNER: 14; " e��� ice% oR beR G. Krautbauer Betty Anr>�rautbauer RESOLUTION 94- RESOLUTION 4 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 leas, 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 14th day of November, 1994. Mayor City Administrator (1) 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 MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.0328, SUBD. 1 T0: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 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 14th day of November, 1994. City Administrator Mayor Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of 1994. Town Chair Town Clerk J NOV. -10' 94(THU) 15:26 OLSON/USSET P. A. _ _ TEL:612 925 5819 _ _ — P.002 —_ 01SON, USSET, AGAN & WEINGARDEN ATTORKM AT UM Surra Soo ►AOL A. vsMKWmeP OM FAIR AVEIRM SOOTN LOG" AWWA:nf CNApb T. AGN IM SSeS 80041. AOAN DAVM L low txe L AIYX11 Two" a cum 0 OW /t"W 081aA L. MOM DENNO 6 aALm1 TAR p n 10S." MTSiT A. YCRUAND Sod feRTO1 4iA am O.&M BOKM TROM ROCKPOW arm ousmAin 7975(69) November 10, 1994 TOaa01®pW4n4oto Honorable Mayor and Kosberg of City Council City of Monticello 250 Rest Broadway Monticello, MM 55762 Rai Annexation of Hawk's Bar and Krautbauer property Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: I as in receipt of the staff report concerning the above - entitled matter, which was tabled from the lost meeting. As you are aware, the City has engaged in extensive negotiations with the owners of the above parcels and the Township concerning the proposed annexation. At the last hearing, Hawk's Bar indicated they desired to withdraw their petition for Annexation. Therefore, if the Krautbauer property is annoxed, there will be a small island that will be completely surrounded by property owned by the City. It is my understanding that the Township does not object to this scenario. In my review of the staff report, I concur with the general finding that annexation is appropriate and that you can legally annox the Krautbauer property without the Hawk's Bar parcel. If you are uncomfortable with the concept of an isolated pocket of Township property surrounded by the City, after completion of annexation of the Krautbauer parcel, you can simply annex Hawke Bar by ordinance without the necessity of a lengthy annexation proceeding pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5414.073, Subd. 2(2). I am aware that Mayor Pyle may be concerned about the appropriate use of this ordinance. The purpose of this letter is primarily to address the appropriate grounds for denial in the event the Council wishes to deny the annexation request. My concern in this respect is that you present an adequate basis for the denial. For example, it is my understanding that you have already previously approved the use of TIP funds for this project. Accordingly, the motion to deny annexation by Councilmember Herbst based on opposition to TIP financing Is Inappropriate and might constitute an arbitrary and capricious decision in the event the motion passed. NOV. - 10' 94 1 THU) IS: 26 OLSON/USSET P. A. _ TEL:612 925 5879 _ _ P. 005 — November 10, 1996 Page 2 if you are going to deny the annexation, you should either deny it based upon the statutory criteria or by virtue of the changed circumstances. In regards to the former, I have attached a copy of the findings that the municipal board utilises when determining whether or not annexation is appropriate. In the event that you believe any of the criteria are not present so as to justify denial, you may mate a action for denial based on such shortcoming. if you are leaning toward denial, i believe that the safest basis for denial is due to the withdrawal of the Petition by Hawk's ear. This motion incorporates the following factual findings: 1. The City intended and desires to annex the Hawk's Har and 10rautbauer property together. 2. City policy is not to annex property if it creates a pocket of Township property which is surrounded by City property which would occur if only the Nrautbauer parcel was annexed. 7. Although the City has the statutory means in order to force annexation of Hawke Bar, the City policy is never to tore* anyone to annex into the City it they do not wish to do no. a. Based upon the above findings of fact, annexation is improper. My only legal caveat is that you are establishing a policy which may create difficulties for you in the future. For example, if you do not wish to ever •force" people into annexing into the City, what would you do under circumstances where literally doaens of property owners wish to be annexed into the City in order to obtain adequate sewer and water facilities but one or two parties necessary for the annexation object? would you extend the same policy to condemnation proceedings when tho person whose property you desire does not wish to roll? In conclusion, it you reject the annexation on this basis, I believe that it would be legally sustainable. rrom a public policy standpoint, however, it may have the affect of tying your hands in future proceedings unless there are compelling factual NOV. - 10' 94 (THU) 15:26 OLSON/USSET P.A. _ TEL:612 925 5679 _ _ _ P.004 povaabor lO, 1994 page inconsistencies. It is an unfortunate fact of life that on occasion you must •force• reluctant property owners to accept annotation (or aeli their property to you) when it is in the beat interests or the City. I will be available for consultation on this issue at the meeting. very truly yours, Pau p1Uit lld NOV. -10' 94(THU) 15:27 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL 61? 925 5879 P. 005 away INCORPORMON, BTC. INCORPORAr1OK.L"M 414.031 Nodes ... ' ... not lees than ulrm nor mare than seven in number, whose limits N prescribed to the board ' required to a cord proper presentation In order upon a findinIl'thst use npresentsdon b re tem.. iied b 199t, p;yaDlo m 11.4 fore® 6: � the proposed t°porsted seri because of uneven popnlstim density in different parts th es 1990 tepsbauan - thereof or the edetance of aVWu -d lands therein which are is the path of suburban - devatopment, but alta four yeses from the effecmra date of an Incorporation the council of the madci; a&U l' may by resolution adopted by s four-BRhe rots shomb the wad system and ®a,'c6ut art L 1 47, smmded taw provide for the alscdan'-of all council mambas, at LsM as b other'mtmieipalitim - EN a1;IdeZ" ik,i 6L m 0ovide in part PI ,to P A n' m, RS b 31(1" The board's arder for mmrporatdon shall provide for the rJocti m of municipal off erm in 414A9. 7be be 'Optional Plan A', 4L, ae:mrthe for tam ,i y -reoftm' woudsace with seition plan of aovanmeal shall provide that to altcnate'pbtm'mmy be adopted pmsmaht to section 41MG1, 4t any time.' The f1s9�-sad ordloane m of the towmWdp in which Use new =Wdp.EW*fm located shelf motions to effect .,toil cbllplsa: iE: ,:a:i;-; . -r:: naN repealed by Use governing body of the new Immlt'pallty. .!tar, ri6jt,:"04 et:y($a,s : - �'� frfii5s'f{'f�•%rv• . .` .. . ". ... ma(n ooliariaJbr Js, to 6i,'. .. ..._ • •u"'teed 7dj yd!ay:�.n i ... ,. be boardsUll mndda.the following Amended by Ions 1988, Fp,, 719, rat 4 1 al: law 1918, a ZM, mL 13. 1 nm, dL Jw. L IM Lr. .. ' •� um for the area: ... , . Blatmi el and 8tsbetarl Ndra ' �r Soiba tar Isaarpo- tolls laafataliae .: .. .. oche ft than ere .mpethm. sediom'oi Mtoo - _ I y�Ltta�hods„am7 I— 19M a 710. art- S. 1 K diredad No to Statutes sec919. a. eded by law 1 20: d ” rerbor of statares to' ehnt a -the wmtb 'maeaesd Iaee'1989 let t eI'srL'C 1.11 .46 m _ uc adotdadiag7 eaiddemtlal •ledastrlal W m ra 'aamsd rslsetion" wbmwar the sp. Pk, Wt to QA an -4 'it afmamcto Smarts. { �r Mi—Im StatutesStatutesto - ran tea np.dty- ptesaseitr�partpfbo setwort sae sIn ebmi: era in itleaati Surinam 19M eM'tint tea ce{ndty-Vu rvleor elmD, s 7sdibae the term nu' for Was tatpedty rue m nmSpr_ o-` m tleo6odlblOtia-e' ':` '. , - :. t .,• : . ,tram is Mkumeta ewvto 1089 Svppbment and sabw. of the statute ere ept l rmou. ph— mil -m It mr— to the rate of las appUd rata• atm. 0 they 'mthetsi-apaeL/ifptQ* mmhbt6Iotawdt 1Tppru ' in 10 -h m ulmenu &acne to Wax mpsdty of svicnnam ov to the sem of the Mad d tea of rate' in. Mbomou Substee I= and eohergoent kcl In SL 199%'ioarwas, debar. •.a` Smmamenta tditbm f use stammi ssctyl 1 m,01I. • ed tram "loco to rate' b v6d. t. - .. . riot 1ptladlryl rester and oawnr 11/9 la¢lamtlon . ed'''•• em�ta ansintanioee, d m Ian 11189, a 378. art 19, 1P4 amended Iaw 1x91( 1 1K,& by ' a"719, ort 4 a tsm tnaWctbn d d aceefm addttmaal .olldtlan'timd thti for Now of Decisions. I . t .• Incl" t, Deald of vsvuime., 3 . - I tar? tvvico 7bme d Frown [eke i. ldlneteola PlamuDtime bados Nan. Bd. App m review do- tmptauad aeletdnd praPn":•7md the Presentwawa sad of iced . 4 -1093, 497.N.Wld . sled. ', tr ,W°ib•bil '� aid la�n.hlp; T_ a Plerreatioee asd.bnde of peoef 1 Dodo! of pefrikn.. Burden d estallLhiea endtI mat to +1j00 dao atbotoaL to the deems; : v�:r..: •f'=a• , of pant Dodo. of pities for. lmaeporatioe man cup. htempmntlm to as facer petlWeme fm.,lempo- fe the oras; and m sed byy kdmsutim tLet raver t+as sQ�eetm m suss' lbw e! terser '�ln r. ha=cwu tlaa +mleinafa4.raP" d trv.H?i8 seddbaal near• Bd. Atm.1998, 491 N.rr7e tom,'review doled. rim tun, boat be provided thratrgh . 4310.9L' Anrmattltrn of adnomponmd prapm ty to s mnmieipalld o -W board der _ ` • �. moon madam If*Mido that (a) the =' . - /Son maim ooSteu Jar! r got] . • - e. turban or miburhan in edtarocter, or ooddKo�uoa.l!ee pptroWloatttt sould'Wlr' lhr'be9l intr�xstu-tom Bubd. 4. BoanFs aede. 'Ili ., at Its dedden, the board shall eondder tho followlma teeters arrlrlo� • . mtsepdrstion If the arm or o past (a) Twrc t poptdatfom, peat pord um avoth acct gkoefad popu}atJoe of tlr0'vVerb' Jaeant mmnSdpdt". prod for sanention and the --dog mumidpol"; aed•totmrporstiom'by ImeasLttg or (b) Quanti" of land within the propaV proposed for anscutL•a and"' the ansa ugly that property wbicb Is nista, or Is rnualdmUtx and matmd terrain indudin(r on mPogr*), n4Sor wstmsmh:ds, Boll Q • ovRLWU pigrpoty'thst rosy bo bbttar eondltlom and rain reo mabrel feaar rive % lake and major blab; he hoard d6aB sot forth 1hm factor. (a) Dagma of toaugul" of the boundasim between the anumiuug .upundlty nod the psofav" proposed for ,zwy rdating to the mumbo of words (d) Peraesrt,pauvn of physical domdapairnt ed the pr°6" Dr4owd annamArr"n -and eetion of eoamtO IDembsre by.wm'dd. the. anma>aB W g reddantlal, bdaWlal. _tnmmadsl, apAaBh+r+t'.amd 37 NOV. -10' 94 ITHU) 15 21 OLS06'/USSET P. A. TEL 612 925 5879 P. 006 INCORPORATION, BTG Institutional land user the txwmporbdon oetmork end potential -non lam!, fedadlK Pt°Dored y t t 1n°epo (e) Ind sse_eostroh sad planrdng prwemtty bring sUlhtwd In the.00aedakm>mldpality and,the. propaetj.puopoaed for amenstim Windlegcavaprehenalva plow for deredvpecent in lhs nava .asd jam'sad poll i a pf -thetemapoUbo, mundl . U. thaw .le. an AnCansjteney bet'.een the prapaee 1.4mabpmeut and. -the land. me pianabag ordinance ho'ford, the nylon fm the,lse®rdsfaaq . _ _ U) Pteemt goverarmnhl mervlees beinS.pvo!Ided !n the e= ^ ;. municipality and the F W IO I>ro1>d I de.—Mom, ladadlag-irate sed eemer eer„im,fim.�radmjf and pry Bon, ptilia�p(vlaeGfon, stmt imp mements and melntaaascr, dml@(striti:o eery( m and (g) or poeeatial problems of environmental pollution and the coed for additional earvfoes b reaob.e these ptobla®; .. ,...(N plins:and'pto�ams by the sinoubg mm(dFallty for providing ner`.ded`govarnmmtal =view b chi property proposed for Lhossa Ion; ' . N Y'hml data of the annexing lntm(dPality. and the property propneed for aanexatino. Including ae tan apody and the present bonded Idebtodnetsn, and the local tax rates of the emtntY; k4aol;diatriet, sad toirmkdp; ... . Relationship sad effect of the proposed annoatlon on communities adjacmot to the are on school .distriets withln.eed adjacent to the area; (W Adequacy of town goeernment to"dallver' Qrvices to the property propmed for ennexntion: (l) Amlytb,of.wtwther .,ecess ry emar@meatah aerviam eon best be provided through tsmrp@ratlou or saeeatlon to an adfeceot mut"'�.11ty; and , - . –. (m) If only a part of a totvonwit la smarntt the ablllty of the remaloder of the towwhlp to continue or the feadbdiyef It bang incorporated separably or Waif eaoewd to mother municipality. Raced upon thme fadoM the buard may order the annexation (Wif It finds that the property propowl for a..nveH^n in now, a Is about to baeomca urban or suburban in ebemetri, or (b) U It dads that municipal government in the arra propoord for annexorion Is required to protect the public health, sdety, and welfam or ( J U it finds that the annexation www be In the beat interest of the property fimpoa_^d fnr annembon. If only a part of a Iowmzhip V to be annexed, the been( shall consider whether the temeiuder of the tawmNp can mennuo to carry on tho functions of govarmrr+nt without undue hardehlp The board @hall deny the amexatim U it•Rnda that tba Increase, In revenues for the annerdng maaldpaliy bean rad reawtukhld� relation to the monetary value of benasb conferred upon the angewd eras lbs 4amm4y dotty the annexaUan W UhtLppears that ottnrantion or tn. or a part tial the P*crty to an @dj@oerlt muddyality,w6um better oervo W interests of the reMeotasof the propvq at (b) If the temalndcr of the tommhlp would suffer undue hsr&hip � .7M cord many altar the boundaric* of theama, to he assented by i cesaing or decreasing the ares ao an to Include only that properly which b now or b about to become urb-r or ouburbm In character or to acid property of each chmuw,t abutting the arcs prepocad for saacusloo in order to pewaervo at hupre" the eymmet y of the are, or to atduds property that may better be saved by another unit of gwerr m.af. U the board detormtnes that pari of the area mould be, bpdn by cmlhcr m 4 or towealdp, the board may mitlits rod q W m aaamtfnn m lbs 8ww �olldb 11f Qtr+ . Mfher hearings and Iwdag cadet powas at to mbdleho" 4,4 sag, Ib LR ass► Ow board shall sot forth the radars wbleh'am the heals M the dedalop - :"I' - . . /Sae autm'admmss jb �J . Sabd. G Repeated by taws Iwz a 6Gd. i ki— SubdL i EffeRM dab of en—im ?be smmatim ahog be efiecflvo u of the dots ftxed to the atu emsthes order' or,on math latter dab as to eted In the amm adoe order. A eopY'af the annexationorder meat be ddtmvd fmmdlaltety by the executive dlewctar of the as M tVOV 10 '94 12'.10 OSM M?LS. M ' (M%4sam sdidel300 PX* PbM daft 612495-6776 �w � xOd 228 FAXSWSniS MIih10RANDt7M TO: Jett O'NeW, City of MondeWo FROM Brat A. Wdss. PkFy < DATE: October A 1994 t . SUBJECT! hirer MW/Hawtt's Bar Coaaty State Aid Highway 75 Access OSM Project No. 4960M ' This memo is a follow-up to our.telepbm coxmrsation of Octobei 21, 1994, regarding the above-referaneed subject. as well as•discussions at the October 24. 1994 City Council meedn& At tbo cmmdl meeting Joe Abbott. from Hawk's Bar, decided to terminate his annexation request due to the Ceunry/City position regarding !Notre access to bis facility from CSAR 75. As was discussed at the meetin& traffic projections have identified that the i 1W turn movements for the proposed access location could present problems in the future cad may require the extension of a mediae along CSAR 75 to restrict the proposed access ; to a right-in/right-out control. The County initially outlined tbefr position as being that the fun access would be allowed with no restrictions umfl Hart Boulevard is extended to the i project area. As I mentioned at the meeting, it was my understanding that tbae is no guaraatte that the median would be eucaded even at that time unless there was a perceived . problem associated with the access to CSAR 75. After the meeting U contacted Dave MontebcUo to further discuss the County's position to whfch be stated he agreed with my asseasxt:tuts.: 1 The County/C lty objective for identifying that the median may be extended in the fature is. i simply for notiSeatfen to the coxamereiai properties locating in the River Mill Development t as well as Hawles Bar so that it is not a surprise. This in no way should be construed as a guarantee Zat tee median wiU be extended at any time in the, near future due to the following reasons: • i Two are 'no immediate plant to extaad Hart Boulevard from the• River MM Devaloptaent to County State Aid Highway 39. 1 A traffic study ptrparad for the liver MN Development {deatiil4d that the major concern for tM. left turn movements would be experienced approximately fifteen to twenty years from this time. 'lige study t the southbound left turn out of the development during peak Noun could experience delays of up m two MIRI M While this does not appear to be exctssM for turban area% it is SIPAant for rural areas such as Monticello. and was one of the thrusts behind the County's peslt{oa. ky1�IgW0.1CD R MOV 10 '94 12:11 091 PRS, MI P.6 Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello October 28. 1994 Page 2 I� Even with the long delays for left tum movements, the County has agreed to not. . extend the median tmtil Hart Boulevard is extended unless there are five right eagle accidents at the intersection. Therefore, it does not seem likely the County will extend the median, even when the Hart Boulevard extension is completed, due to the fact that persons would have another route to utilize, if they perceive a problem with delays at the CSAH 7S access location There has been recent talk regarding a dill interchange at County Road 118 to replace the half interchange at CSAR 75. U this is deemed to be a viable option after discussion with Mn/DOT, FHWA. Wright County. and the ity of Monticello. and would be eonsvueted, it is possible that the traffic volumes on CSAH 7S would be significantly reduced.This would have a direct impact on whether the median would be extended, and most likely would reduce the possibility of that ever 17herefore, as we stated at the meeting, it does not appear the extension of the median 'would occur at any time in the near future. However. the City has requested that the 'County construct CSAH 75 to a four lane section from Washington Street to the signal lights at County Road 118. This =suucuoa would include a median and would restrict full ;acoess crossing to locations where them are streets located on both'sides of the highway. 'The recent City of Monticello traffic study also idendfled the need to construct the 'remainder of CSAR 7S from County Road 118 to the freeway interchange between the years 12bM and 2010. This four lane construction would be similar to what was Just described and .!most likely would not Previte for a full access at the River Mill entrance. In addition, them was some discussion regarding the possibility of constructing a signalised lin+tersection at this location. It is my opinion that it would be extremely unlikely that a ;signal would be constructed at this location due to the close proximity to the County Road 118 sign4 and that the trallgc volumes generated from the side streets would not meet state bald sig . I 'Please do not hesitate to contact me at S95 -570S if you have any questions or comments TegardIng this memo, or if you would like to schedule a meeting with Mr. Abbott to discus #-m items in greater detail C i John Simola. City of Monticello Dave Montebello, w:itaant Wright County Engineer Chuck Rickart, OSM Traffic Engine 6UM JNTY C) vo�2 t• Z M 7868 November 3. 1994 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public works Building 1901 ffigh"y 25 North B4fato, Minnesota 55313 JcL T.H. 25 and CIL 138 Telephone (812)682.7383 Facsimile (612) 682-7313 Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello 250 East Broadway, Box 1147 Monticello, Mo. 55362 Re: River Mill/Hawk's Bar County State Aid Highway 75 Access Dear Jeff, WAYNE A FINGAL40N, P.E. 1110—y Eaetn..r GM47s88 DAVID K MONTEBELA, P.E. Amuant Hieb.ey Pngi- 6n7987 RICHARD E. MARQUETrE Right d Wsy Atmt 6Mt mw You have indicated to me that there have been some misinterpretations or misunderstandings of the County's position with respect to the proposed access to CSAH 75 for this proposed development. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the County's position with respect to the above referenced development and proposed access to CSAH 75. 1 would like to reference Bret Weiss's letter of October 28th. 1994 as this letter does a good job of accurately representing the County's position on this access. The County position was developed based on the following: 41 SRP Report Indicated that extended delays for outbound left -turners were likely during the peals hour periods. This delay would Increase over time as traffic levels on CSAH 75 Increase until the Intersection would not function adequately. / Rural areas such as Monticello have a much lower tolerance for delays than an urban area. I Experience has shown that extended delays and high volume, high speed traffic are the Ingredients for potential aeddent or safety problems. .01 Future extension of Hart Boulevard would provide access through signalized Intersection at CSAH 39. This would not significantly Increase the trip length or trip times. This extension would likely be driven by additional development In the area. / Developer has Indicated that It may be three years before the development Is fully constructed thereby [educing the Immeadlate Impact or additional traffic generated. fiadok Cpponanity / Affirms" a Action EMployer p Changes to the freeway accesses on CSAR 75 are under consideration by the City and may significantly alter future traffic patterns. Freeway access accounts for the majority of traffic east of CSAH 39 on CSAR 73. of County feels that future slgnalizadou of this intersection would be unlikely as It does not provide for cross -traffic movement and there is a signal at CSAH 39 which could provide the needed access function. The County feels that the position it has developed is reasonable with respect to providing access to the proposed development and it adequately protects the public interest with respect to potential safety problems. If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact me. Sincerely, �," /- �4/l Dave Montebello, P.E. Assistant County Engineer Enclosure: Bret Weiss October 28, 1994 letter pc: %ync Fingalson, County Engineer Pat SawatrYe, County Commissioner Bret Weiss, City Engineer - OSM Ferrol Robinson. SRF Inc. File i; , ( MONTICEU0 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 MEMO Phone: (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Fax: (612) 295.4404 November 8, 1994 -rntRGf ' f TO: Steve Grittman, Rick Murray, Bob Murray and Howard Lepidas FROM: Jeff O'Neill INC" RE: Summary of building and development design requirements for the River Mill subdivision On Monday, November 7, 1994 a meeting was held to discuss design requirementa for the River Mill subdivision. Following is a summary of the design requirements established which shall be incorporated into formal agreements governing the project. 1. Development Landscaping Rick Murray indicated that he would direct his engineer to prepare a landscaping plan that features the following improvements. a. Berm and dense evergreen plantings strategically located along entrance ramp to mitigate visual impact and headlights. b. Berm and landscape plantings located along east side of Hart Boulevard at development entrance and in areas necessary to block headlights. C. Entrance monumentation/landscaping at Hwy 76 access point and at west access to East County Rd 38. 2. Building and Site Design a. Three basic front elevations will be utilized throughout the site for the split entry twinhomes. A development plan will be prepared by Murray and Lepidas which links front elevation design to specific parcels. C River Mill memo November 8, 1994 Page 2 b. Wingwalls will be required for six structures including four along the park and two located adjacent to the freeway ramp. The specific locations will be identified on the development plan. C. No occupancy will be granted without installation of sod in front yards. The price of the home will include installation of sod. d. The 6 -ft grassy area between driveways will be landscaped as follows: an arborvitae will be planted to screen the view of the utility meters; an additional understory tree shall be planted in the 6-R space somewhere near midpoint between the property line and the structure; and one additional tree shall be planted in the front yard area of each unit. e. The sidewalk leading from the driveway to the front entrance shall be extended out around the corner of the garage to create a space for landscape plantings along the garage wall. 3. Protective Covenants Rick Murray indicated that he would prepare the protective covenants which would include sections of a party wall agreement commonly utilized by Lepidas. The protective covenants shall include the following: a. No kennels. b. No storage of vehicles anywhere other than on the driveway, no unlicensed or inoperable vehicles stored outside, and no more than two operable and licensed vehicles stored outside. C. No outside storage of boats or recreational vehicles. d. Fences shall be regulated. A minimum fence design shall be established. Murray and Lepidas to discuss further. e. A party wall agreement governing application of maintenance Gree siding and requiring common color. f. Mailboxes shall be established in groups of four as designed by Murray. g. Storage buildings shall be prohibited or strictly regulated. No storage building shall exceed 1,200 square feet and siding must match residence. No fish houses allowed. 0 River Mill memo November 8, 1994 Page 3 Steve Grittman noted that a few of the lots on curves have lot lines that are not perpendicular to the right of way which creates awkward driveway access to the right of way. Murray indicated that he would review the plat and consider making adjustments in conjunction with final plat approval. It was agreed that the builder would recommend placement of TV antennas in the garage rafter area. The recommendation would be made to potential buyers in conjunction with the sales process. J Council Agenda - l V14/94 Consideration of authorizing use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire Dundas Road right-ofway. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND For over 10 years, it has been the City's long-range plan to extend Dundas Road in a westerly direction to connect to Highway 25. Dundas Road currently ends at Cedar Street, adjacent to Highway 25, and it has been our plan to extend the road to Highway 25 and eliminate the Cedar Street access to Highway 25 someday. In order to complete the extension, the City will need to acquire a small triangular piece of property lying between Cedar Street and Highway 25. When the Dundas Road extension was first being considered in 1982, our City Engineer attempted to determine who owned this small strip of land. The property was originally part of the Olga Swanson farm, which encompassed a larger area on both sides of Highway 25. In 1979, Mr. Mel Wolters purchased approximately 20 acres of land lying west of Highway 25 from the Olga Swanson estate. Originally the Swanson farm covered both sides of Highway 25 and Cedar Street; therefore, they had originally owned the triangular property in question that now lies between Cedar Street and Highway 25. Since it didn't appear that this specific strip of land had been sold previously, it also didn't appear that Mel Wolters had acquired it as part of his 20 -acre purchase, since his description referred to property only west of Highway 25. It was our engineer's recommendation that the strip of land was a leftover remnant that the heirs of the Olga Swanson estate still owned, and the City should attempt to acquire the property from the estate. In the meantime, during the preliminary discussions on extending Dundas Road in 1982, the City must have done a good job of convincing Mr. Mel Wolters that he possibly owned this property since he was the last purchaser of the property from the estate. As a result, Mr. Wolters now feels he is the rightful owner of this property and had previously indicated the property could be worth $20,000 to $30,000. Our City Attorney was asked to review the real estate documents to see if he could determine who was the actual owner of this property. Upon his review, there is still a question as to whether this strip of land is a remnant parcel still owned by the family members of the estate or whether it is owned by Mr. Wolters, who made the last purchase from the family. When discussing this remnant parcel with heirs of the estate, they did not think they were selling this strip of land to Mr. Wolters. They thought they were selling property all lying west of Highway 25, but they also admit that they did not know they still Council Agenda - 1 U14/94 owned it either. They had originally thought this property was sold to the State of Minnesota as part of the new Highway 25 alignment. In reviewing the tax books, it doesn't appear that this triangular parcel has been on the tax rolls in anybody's name. Even the County Assessor had assumed it was the right-of-way owned by the State of Minnesota. As you can see by the above information, it appears attempting to purchase this small, unbuildable, triangular piece of property is a real can of worms. We don't know who to make an offer to because we don't know who legitimately owns the property. While I don't personally feel that Mr. Wolters had originally intended to purchase the property, he may have a good argument by claiming that he intended to buy everything that remained from the estate. If this parcel was originally owned by the Swanson estate, then he is now the owner. Since his legal description does not cover this property, I am uncomfortable in actually buying it from him, as I am not convinced we would be getting good title to the property. As a result, it is suggested by our City Attorney, Mr. Weingarden, that the City just proceed with eminent domain proceedings to acquire the right-of-way and let Court-appointed representatives establish a fair value for the property which the City would pay. Since the property is basically unbuildable because of its narrow width and because of the set -back requirements in the B-3 zone, it is assumed the market value should be very minimal. By going through the eminent domain proceedings, the City would be acquiring title to the property and depositing the market value cost with the County Court system, letting them decide who should be the owner of the property to receive the proceeds. It would probably be up to the heirs of the Olga Swanson estate and/or Mr. Mel Wolters to file a claim for the money. The City would then be out of the process of determining ownership. It appears in the long run that this may be the simplest method and possibly less costly than attempting to make deals with people when we don't even know if they own the property. As part of this eventual Dundas Road extension to Highway 26, the City will be shifting Cedar Street to the east, starting near Automatic Garage Door Company's property. Cedar Street will eventually extend as a frontage road parallel with Highway 25 to Kjellberga Mobile Home Park. In anticipation of the eventual shifting of Cedar Street and the Dundas Road connection, the City has acquired the right-of-way adjacent to Mr. Posusta's A -Max storage facility. As the industrial park in the area adjacent to the storage buildings develops, the City will be improving Dundas Road with bituminous. That may be the appropriate time to make the final new connection to Highway 26. As a result, it appears that the City should proceed with the clearing up of ownership on the Council Agenda - 1 V 14194 property needed to complete the extension. This is why the Council is asked to approve the concept using eminent domain to acquire this right-of-way. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1) Authorize the City Attorney to begin eminent domain proceedings for the purpose of acquiring the narrow, triangular parcel adjacent to Cedar Street and Highway 25 for the purpose of future expansion of Dundas Road. 2) Do not authorize eminent domain proceedings at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Although I firmly believe that eminent domain proceedings usually coat the City more money than an outright purchase, I would recommend this process be used in this situation, as there is a genuine conflict over who is the actual owner of this needed parcel. In addition, after reviewing the property and analyzing uses, it appears that it is impossible to utilize this property for any commercial use; therefore, the value should be minimal since it is technically an unbuildable piece of Property. As a result, it appears that Mr. Weingarden's recommendation of using eminent domain is the most logical in this situation, as it is left up to the Courts to determine who really is the owner of this property and who should receive the proceeds. Since it is in our long-range plans to eventually connect Dundas Road at a right angle to Highway 25 and eliminate the current Cedar Street access to Highway 25, we might as well start the process and acquire the necessary right-of-way. Map outlining property to be acquired in question. 12 D CERTIFICATE of SURVEY r� m.• nv a� mm, w.• 6s a.r a �r a• t• msa �uw as�e�as ara �a I w ..� .� •�• �r own•ecx�s�•rw7r�wnawxieoci.a4atra ¢Au. •:Dcu.n.s moQ AbauMxur Fweo / o: m—ns lc' ,to„ Apar s r G✓vno R.L•S Alc.us74 I : iAue+[s 1J.i, Sr jf to be' �� w or O cY• Wu+•tsb. �� l �j Ii.M Li•Ia L. Am. it � / •'ej.M • d�a �ti MA[ru 1��,�af P.v�o x C.o��Ceo�t srwrir rds Orr 01 Abwrwc&Aa V.o. a.. 7/1 tso e•..' 9a"b od l Mam sux&w, Af a. "54.L io Council Agenda - 1VIV94 to. Consideration of a resolution accenting fesobillty study, ordering public hearing, and ordering orenaration of plans and specifications for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to review a feasibility study, order a public hearing on the improvement, and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for a project that proposes the extension of sewer and water services to an area referred to as the southwest area. Specifically, the improvement calls for development of a lift station and other trunk sanitary sewer improvements necessary to provide sanitary sewer access to a large area bounded to the north by the freeway, to the east by Sandberg Road and Highway 25, to the south by Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park, and to the west by Oakwood Drive as it turns south. The lift station proposed for development at this time will provide trunk service to the area mentioned. Additional lateral sanitary sewer and water lines are proposed for extension to five parcels owned by Gehardt Everson, Milton Olson (located in city), Stuart Hoglund, Dean Carlson, and John Michaelis (located in the township). The feasibility study was prepared at the request of Stuart Hoglund and John Michaelis with authorization from the City Council in 1992. The need to move the project along stems primarily from pressure by the Environmental Protection Agency on Goulds Chevrolet and D & D Bus. The ability of Goulds and D & D Bus to operate in compliance with EPA rules is greatly improved if connected to city sewer. In addition, Goulds Chevrolet has received approval from the OAA to expand the facility in the Township and has obtained a building permit allowing construction to begin. However, John Michaelis has indicated that he prefers to develop his facility with access to city water and sewer. He prefers a sprinkler system for fire protection and the benefits of access to a public sewer system. However, in the event that the city utility project does not proceed, he has indicated that he will build a private sewer and water system to serve his needs. D & D Bus has also indicated a need to have access to city utilities stemming from pressure by the EPA. Stuart Hoglund has indicated that he has a purchase agreement on the sale of land to Value Plus Developers, Inc. of Monticello. It is my understanding that he supports extension of utilities as proposed; however, at the time of preparation of this memo. I have not received a petition for improvements to his property. Council Agenda - 11/14/94 Milton Olson, owner of Olson Electric, has expressed some interest in obtaining access to city sewer and water; however, staff has not received a petition for services at this time. Gehardt Everson owns approximately b acres in the city located south of Olson's property. Everson has petitioned for the improvements and has indicated his support of the preliminary finance plan as outlined in the attached spreadsheet. In summary, of the five property owners benefiting from the project, three support the project and associated finance plan. The other two have indicated general support. I hope to have direct confirmation of Hoglund and Olson's position by meeting time. Please see the attached worksheet for information on project costs and the proposed distribution of costa. Following is an outline of the steps necessary to complete the project. 1. Accept feasibility and associated finance plan, order public hearing on improvement, authorize preparation of plans and specifications contingent on contribution by Goulds and others ($10,000 est, cost to prepare plans and specs), notice of public hearing provided to all property owners. 2. D & D Bus and Goulds submit petition for annexation to city. 3. Township reviews annexation request and makes comments to City. 4. City receives Township comments and acts to approve annexations and/or respond to Township comments. 6. Municipal Board acts on annexation request. 6. Public hearing on improvement is conducted, plans and specifications approved along with authorization to advertise for bids. 7. Bids opened, contract awarded, project ordered- Feasibility study expense and plans and specs deposit refunded and incorporated into project costs for assessment back against all property owners benefiting from the project. 8. Project completed. 9. Assessment hearing conducted. Assessment levied against properties in city, deferred assessment levied against Hoglund property if not in the city by the time the project is completed. 14 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt a resolution accepting feasibility study, ordering public hearing, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area. Tt:- 1-y / Under this alternative, the City Erigineir will begin preparation of plans and specifications at such time that a deposit of $10,000 is received to cover the cost of preparation of plans and specifications. The petitions for annexation and the associated feasibility study will be submitted to the Township for comment. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution as proposed under alternative #1. It is our view that the time is ripe for installation of the lift station necessary to serve the Southwest Area for the following reasons: 1. Goulds Chevrolet and D & D Bus have a critical need for sanitary sewer and water systems. 2. City systems have been designed and sized to serve the areas that now need such service. 3. If the City does not extend utilities at this time, it will be faced with fewer property owners to sharp the initial relatively high cost of development of the lift station. 4. At a minimum, three of the five property owners desire service immediately. The other two, though not petitioning, have not objected to the project or the finance plan. b. According to the joint agreement with the Township, D & D Bus and Goulds Chevrolet are located in the "urban service area;" therefore, there should be no objection by the Township to annexation. D. SUPPORTING J)ATA: Copy of Southwest Area Feasibility Study and addendum; Copy of preliminary finance plan. is PRELIMINARY FINANCE PLAN SOUTHWEST AREA TRUNK SEWER AND TRUNK WATERMAIN PROJECT EXPENSME SUMMARY Ult Sukn lamrm "Tnoe1 Lamw Oho 4 $3.000 65.700 ID and For sow wear Www TOW Acres Wln Etoww E=wm Emarus Coq Pro- Owsam 5.1 $0.375 S%700 50 Emamem S1O1A00 $28300 $120.000 530MO $279=1 Tnn1k Fa I wAsw —Tnnk I.Aww Tate) Sen Ban. Mml Fee Ban. Aunt FM Swan satyr wow Wates $42.950 PROPERTIES Oho 4 $3.000 65.700 ID 58.000 519.700 Norman 5 $8950 m7w IO $11.000 $17.050 Owsam 5.1 $0.375 S%700 50 SBA00 $18.075 D and D Bum 4.8 $5.750 $3.700 So WOOD $17.450 Ho'" 25 $312% 97,700 W $5.000 $42.950 TM* pea Ammwnwh 534,823 $28.900 so $30.000 $113,125 COy staaa 548,373 Io $120AW SO $188.375 Flew... 48% 0% 100% O% BO% TOW cost 5101,000 $MAW 5120.000 $30.000 $279300 PGawl Total $101.000 $28300 $0 $30.000 $159300 Raw I Furls $101,875. Per— m toml Pnaw I arlprarernents kada0 W emeawrrlb w w GOra pee. 84% Irgeroet Rely 7.50% Twnv"ms to ' Bemnwy pear bulk tae anessae at dm of use, " Tank -so Maven Wlpravwtlants not wcesawy at 01b *a, Raprawntm Uses Costlopop Mtmn eorop koway. "no k M my W eataI I at am poka in M kRue. CaoAcre 51.290. — Cay st— tobe rewwora0 Ms pay ma of s1a41 pea eworiNee w 01 kreem tpntoprnwa. NOTE: Pimp I Gads lrlcpdm eve vulm aomhpwanwae tts ptutr I lest an w atstbn Id tomo rrsln cats for Olson • Everson, Ttlsme oats N be maps upon OWal Ism. FILEOOOI.WK4: 11/10/94 r1� CITY OF MONTICELLO PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I (We), the undersigned owner(s) of the property described below petition for a feasibility study pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (Local Improvements, Special Assessments), for the following improvements: Please indicate with an X the improvements requested: x Sanitary Sewer x Water I Storm Sewer Bituminous Surfacing Curb and Gutter Street Lighting I (We) agree to pay 100% of.the cost of the feasibility study. I (Me) understand the City Council may pro -rate the coat of the feasibility study attributable to my property if the scope of the study pertains to other benefiting property owners. Description of Property: See attached. I hereby petition for public improvements as identified and funded via the attached finance plan. I understand that cost estimates are preliminary, and final coats will be based an actual costs. Signature of Corners: &4L6x- C.artn.6�� IMPFEAS.PET : 9/16/92 0 Council Agenda - lV14/94 �i. Consideration of entering into tin agreement with H-Windog Comnanv concerning future acauisition of Lots 1.2 and S. Block 1. Oakwood Industrial Parks Second Addition (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In June of 1991, the Council adopted a resolution agreeing to hold all six (6) lots of the Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition for the H - Window Company's future expansion potential. This agreement expired December 31, 1992, and in February of 1993, it appeared that the H - Window Company would be making a decision on whether to purchase the property by June 1 of 1993. In light of this time table, the Council then adopted a resolution agreeing to hold lots 1, 2, and 3 (the lots closest to H -Window Company) until May 31, 1993, and to also provide a first right of refusal for Lots 4, b, and 6 for the same time period. Lots 4, b and 6 were those lots on the east side of the cul-de-sac. When the June deadline came and went without H -Window Company purchasing any of the property, the City Council again agreed in August of 1993 to hold Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, for an additional time period expiring January 31, 1994, and to again provide a first right of refusal for the other three (3) lots until January, 1994. No further extensions were requested by H -Window Company, nor did the Council review this subject until the City staff had received an offer for the purchase of Lot 4 in the amount of $36,000 from Miley Qertsen for his underground sprinkler irrigation business facility. At that time it came to our attention that the previous right of first refusal agreements with H -Window Company had expired in January, but the staff felt that we owed H -Window Company the opportunity to exercise their right of first refusal anyway. The City Council agreed with this assumption and allowed H -Window Company the opportunity to match the offer if they so desired. After considering the feasibility of matching the purchase offer, Mr. Steve Lemma, President of H -Window Company, indicated that the company would not be in a position to purchase Lot 4 at this time. However, Mr. Lemma did note that H -Window Company executives were very concerned about being able to ensure the availability of Lots 1, 2, and 3 on the west side of the cul-de-sac for their future expansion needs. Mr. Lemma noted that if these three lots were not available in the future, it could have an effect on their future expansion plane for H - Window Company at that site. When I indicated that I was confident that the City of Monticello would make every attempt to allow these Iota to be purchased at reasonable terms by H -Window Company, Council Agenda - 11/14/94 Mr. Lemme did not want to commit to an immediate purchase of the property but would like to see the City continuing to hold the property in some manner for H -Window Company expansion potential. When the City Council accepted the offer for the sale of Lot 4 to Mr. Gjertsen, the Council asked that some options be presented at a future Council meeting and what the Council would consider regarding H - Window Company's interest in Lots 1, 2, and 3. The previous Council discussion centered on whether the City could continue to provide H - Window Company with a no cost option agreement when there were other industrial business that would like the same treatment. As a matter of fact, the City was recently contacted by another existing small industrial company that sees the need for expansion in the next couple of years and is interested in purchasing one of these lots from the City. Likewise, they would prefer to have the City hold the property until they are ready to expand, as they do have cash flow problems. Continuing to hold the property for one business may be a precedent that the Council will have to deal with in the future concerning other businesses. I recently informed H -Window Company of four possible alternatives the Council would be considering. The options are as follows: The Council could enter into an option agreement with H -Window Company on the sale of Lots 1, 2, and 3 at the current asking price of $17,500 per acre or $79,360 with the annual option fee to be calculated at 6% per year, or at whatever percentage rate the Council was agreeable with. A 6% fee would amount to an annual option charge of $4,761 per year, which would hold the three lots in question at the established price of $79,350 until such time as H -Window Company would desire to complete the purchase. 2) The Council could establish an option agreement with the annual fee noted in Item 1 above, and also request an additional annual fee to cover the estimated property taxes that would be lost until the sale occurred. Based on current county assessed market values for these three (3) Iota, the annual real estate taxes payable would be estimated at $1,150, which would increase the total operation coat to H -Window Company to approximately $6,911. Council Agenda - 11/14/94 3) The Council could offer to sell the property to H -Window Company at attractive terms such as no down payment, 20 year contract for deed at 6% interest, etc. This type of low cost arrangement would probably be more favorable than the City would consider for selling the property to other interested properties, but would allow H -Window Company the ability to minimize their cash investment at this time. The favorable terms would certainly be appropriate in this case, as we would be providing the terns to a business for potential expansion and would not likely offer the same as no down payment, long-term contract if we were just selling the property to a speculative buyer. 4) Council could decide to continue with the right of first refusal on all three lots and direct the staff to continue marketing efforts to sell the property to other industrial users. Under this option, H - Window Company would still have the right of first refusal but they could very well be faced with making a decision on the purchase of one or all of the lots in a very short period of time. I presented the four options that I thought the Council may want to consider to Mr. Lemme for his review and response. At this time, I have not received any firm preference from H -Window Company concerning the options other than their desire to work out something with the City to continue to make these lots available, nor was it indicated that if they were not available when needed, they may have to look at other sites. One of the possible disadvantages for H -Window Company in an outright purchase of the property at this time concerns the use of tax increment financing in the future. If H -Window Company owns the property now, it would not be eligible for tax increment financing when it did expand in the future. That is not to any that tax increment financing will even be available years down the road, but it would probably eliminate this incentive from being usable at that time. From the City's standpoint, I would think that either the establishment of an option fee or the outright sale under favorable long-term contract for deed terms should be acceptable to us. Continuing to hold the property without any option fee will likely be construed by other industrial businesses as playing favoritism to one business and others may ask for the same treatment. As 1 noted earlier, another small company looking for expansion in the next couple years has already requested the same treatment for one of these Iota. No matter what the option fee is, I believe the past history of providing the option guarantee at no additional cost should be eliminated and some other method of Council Agenda - 11/14/94 assuring H -Window Company's ability to acquire these lots be established. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1) Council could agree to enter into an option agreement with H - Window Company on Lots 1, 2, and 3 at the current asking price of $79,350 with the annual option fee to be established at whatever percentage rate the Council is comfortable with. 2) Enter into an option agreement similar to that proposed in Option 1, but also require an additional $1,150 to cover the estimated real estate taxes that would be lost by not being owned by H -Window Company. 3) Council could offer to sell the property to H -Window Company at attractive terms such as no down payment, 20 -year contract for deed at a low interest rate, etc. 4) Council could continue with the right of first refusal agreement on all three (3) lots but direct the staff W continue marketing efforts to sell the property in the meantime. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While the staff believes it is important to encourage availability of land for future expansion by current industries, the staff does have concerns on continuing to hold property for one indust, when we may not be able to do the same for others. I do feel if H -Window Company is concerned about having enough land available for their future needs, they do need to make some effort themselves to protect their interest; and as a result, 1 feel they should enter into an option agreement and pay an annual fee or accept the purchase at favorable terms provided by the City. I had previously asked Mr. Steve Lemme to present any other ideas he had for Council consideration regarding these lots, and it is possible he may have some other suggestions at the Council meeting for your review. It was noted by the Industrial Development Committee that they hoped the City and H -Window Company could work out an agreement that was favorable to both parties, but they did not support the continued holding of the property at no cost. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of an option agreement; Copy of a right of first refusal agreement. 19 OPTION CONTRACT H -Window Company For and in consideration of the sum of in hand paid to the CITY OF MONTICELLO, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, said CITY OF MONTICELLO does hereby grant unto H -WINDOW COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, an exclusive option for a period of one (1) year from and after the date hereof, to purchase, for the sum of Seventy-nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($79,350.00) the following -described lands situated in the city of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, to wit: Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, City of Monticello Lot 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, City of Monticello Lot 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, City of Monticello Upon the following terms and conditions: That if this option is exercised, the said City shall convey said premises free and clear of any lions and encumbrances and shall furnish an Abstract of Title continued to date, showing the same. The H -WINDOW COMPANY shall, in addition to the Option Contract payment, be responsible for payment to the CITY OF MONTICELLO the annual sum of One Thousand One Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($1,160.00) to cover real estate taxes that would be payable on this property just as if the H -WINDOW COMPANY owned it during the option period. One-half (L2) of the real estate tax payment ($575) shall be payable to the CITY OF H-WINDOW.CON: 11/4/94 Page 1 0 MONTICELLO on or before May 15, 1995, and the balance ($575) shall be payable on or before November 15, 1995. The H -WINDOW COMPANY may exercise its option at any time during the time specified above by providing written notice to said CITY OF MONTICELLO, and failure to provide such notice within the time specified shall terminate this option without further action. Time being the essence of this Agreement. In case such notice shall be provided with said time, then thirty (30) days shall be given in which to examine the abstract, make deeds, and close the sale. If this option is exercised before the end of option time period specified, the price paid for this option shall not be applied to the purchase price except that per month for each full month remaining on the option term shall be applied against the purchase price. H -WINDOW COMPANY CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) as COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) By: Brad Fyle, Mayor By: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1994, by Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, and Brad Fyle, Mayor, on behalf of the CITY OF MONTICELLO. a Notary Public H-WINDOW.CON: 111094 Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) as COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1994, by on behalf of H. WINDOW COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation. Notary Public H- W INDOW.CON: 11/1/94 Pago 3 1� RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL For and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, CITY OF MONTICELLO hereby grants to H -WINDOW COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, a right of first refusal to purchase the following -described property or any part(s) thereof: See attached Exhibit"A" Upon receipt by CITY OF MONTICELLO of any bona fide written offer of purchase, CITY OF MONTICELLO shall, by written notice, notify H -WINDOW COMPANY of said offer by sending said notice first class U.S. mail, postage paid, to 1324 East Oakwood, Monticello, MN 55362. H -WINDOW COMPANY shall then have 10 days from the date of said mailing in which to purchase said real property at a price and terms at least as favorable as those in the original bona fide written offer of purchase. H -WINDOW COMPANY shall execute their right of first refusal by presenting to CITY OF MONTICELLO within 10 days of the mailing of the notice of offer of purchase, a written agreement to purchase said property specifying the same or more favorable price and term as called for in the original bona fide written offer of purchase, together with earnest money in an amount at least equal to that called for under the original bona fide written offer of purchase. Said written agreement shall conform substantially to that attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and shall be executed by authorized offers of H - WINDOW COMPANY. H-WINDOW.AGR: 1114/94 Page 1 E If H -WINDOW COMPANY does not timely respond to the notice of offer of purchase, this right of first refusal shall lapse and be of no force and effect. H - WINDOW COMPANY, their successors or assigns shall, if required, subsequent to the lapse of this agreement, execute a Quit -Claim Deed to CITY OF MONTICELLO for the above real property. H -WINDOW COMPANY shall not assign this agreement without the written consent of CITY OF MONTICELLO. This right of first refusal shall expire, if not otherwise exercised, at 11:59 p.m. on DATED: DATED: CITY OF MONTICELLO H -WINDOW COMPANY A Minnesota corporation STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) as. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,1994, by Rick Wolfsteller on behalf of the CITY OF MONTICELLO. Notary Public H-WINDOWAGR: 11/4/94 Page 2 ' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) as. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1994, by on behalf of H - WINDOW COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: City of Monticello 250 East Broadway PO Boz 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 H-WINDOWAGR: 1114/94 Page 3 I �IBIT "W Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. Lot 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. Lot 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, city of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. H•WINDOW.AGR: 11/4/94 Page 4 0 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 12. Consideration of authorization of nartiicioaypna in soil investigation near West 5th Street and Locust Street. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As stated at the previous Council meeting, City staff has been working with Burlington Northern, JM Oil, and Riverside Oil for the past two years in regard to having a soil investigation done to determine whether or not soil and/or ground water contamination exists beneath the bulk oil plant located in the area of West 5th Street and Locust Street north of the City's existing fire hall. Burlington Northern is involved, as they are the property owner beneath the JM Oil site and the Riverside Oil site. In addition, the old Nelson Oil site located further to the west near Maple Street is also owned by them. Augusta Oil, the last owner of the Nelson Oil bulk plant, filed bankruptcy and went out of business in 1991. Consequently, since that time, that site has also been abandoned. The current sites of JM Oil and Riverside Oil have been bulk plants in excess of 50 years. The Nelson Oil or Augusta Oil site near Maple Street has been a bulk oil plant since the turn of the century. The City cleaned up an existing bulk oil plant on the old fire hall site in 1985. We have performed no testing after we cleaned up the site. Jeff Michaelis's request for a variance to put a building on the site has helped move the soil investigation along. Further investigation showed us that a 109' 12" diameter drilled well existed on the now Sunny Fresh property to the northeast of the bulk plants. A recent investigation performed by Sunny Fresh found an 8 -ft diameter well full of debris and the 12 -inch casing unsealed but filled with sand at an elevation within a few inches of the ground water table (approximately 9.10 ft below the surface). This has given us additional cause for concern if there is ground water or soil pollution in the area. Burlington Northern is also concerned, as they stated when they sold the property to Sunny Fresh that no wells existed on the site, and we have found these two wells. As discussed at the previous Council meeting, we have updated a quote on i soil investigation from American Engineering and have obtained two additional quotes, one from Braun Engineering and one from B.A. Liesch Associates. The soil investigation proposals range from a low of $4,500 to a high of $11,600 and Are based upon three separate approaches to the preliminary investigation for possible contamination and include actually five sites: The Nelson Oil site, the Riverside Oil site, the JM Oil site, the City's fire hall site, and the Sunny Fresh Foods site near the existing well. 20 Council Agenda - 11/14/84 On Wednesday, November 9, we met with all involved parties at Sunny Fresh Foods in an attempt to do a joint voluntary soil investigation with each of the parties paying $900. The City of Monticello would order the investigation work from Braun Engineering at a cost of $4,500 and be reimbursed by each of the individual parties, so the City's total outlay would only be $900. All parties were asked to respond to City staff no later than Monday afternoon, November 14. All parties agreed that this was a very logical approach to the problem and would be the least costly first step. Burlington Northern had some concerns about stepping forward and paying for the investigative work on the Nelson Oil or Augusta Oil site that has gone bankrupt. But since they are the underlying property owner, it may be proper for them to participate at this time, as it is in everyone's best interest to determine whether or not contamination exists. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative is to authorize contracting with Braun Engineering to perform a soil investigation of the five sites as previously mentioned at an estimated cost of $4,500, with each of the five parties contributing $900. The second alternative would be to authorize the soil investigation with Braun Engineering at a cost of $4,500 with the City picking up the $900 cost for the fire hall site but also the $900 cost for the abandoned Nelson/Augusta Oil site should Burlington Northern not wish to participate in the soil investigation for that site at this time. We would need their authorization to perform one of the soil borings on the site. But the second soil boring or probe to be performed would be done on our existing 5th Street right-of-way next to the bulk plant. We present this alternative as a "just in case" measure, as we fully expect Burlington Northern to offer to pay the $900. The rationale for going ahead, oven if Burlington Northern does not wish to pay for this, is that the information is needed for us to determine whether a risk exists to our municipal water supply or not, and it would provide additional information as to the need for cleanup or not. Remember, this is the oldest bulk plant in the city of Monticello and existed prior to the turn of the century; consequently, there is a great poAaihility that some type of contamination does exist at that site. The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time. Council Agenda - 11114/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director, City Administrator, and Assistant Administrator that the Council proceed under alternatives #1 or #2. This information is needed in order for us to take a proactive approach to protecting our ground water and municipal water supply in Monticello. It is also needed so that the City can also weigh the possibility of the need for relocating the bulk plants and determining the extent of any cleanup operations that need to be done in the area. We've been working closely with the Minnesota Department of Health and have been in contact with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Above -Ground Tanks and Spill Section, to move this investigation forward and determine the risk to our water supply. A. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Burlington Northern right-of-way map of the area; Copy of soil survey cost summary; Copy of 1901 plat map of the area. Due their bulk, the individual proposals from Braun, Liesch, and American are not included with your agenda packet. They are available, however, at city hall for your review. In addition, we have photos dating back to 1900 and 1946 of the area that can be reviewed at city hall. Please feel free to investigate the sites prior to Monday evening's meeting. 22 SOIL SURVEY/COST SUMMARY BRAUN A. 4 Probes - JM & Riverside B. 2 Probes - Nelson C. 1 Probe @ City Fire Hall D. 1 Probe @ Sunny Fresh TOTAL $4,500 (Includes groundwater Now by flume shape) LIESCH A. 4 Borings - JM & Riverside B. 1 Boring - City Fire Hall C. 1 Boring - Sunny Fresh $6,874 D. 1 Boring - Nelson 500 TOTAL $7,374 (Includes groundwater Now using overnight wells) AMERICAN A. 6 Borings/Probes - JM & Riverside $ 5,400 B. 4 Borings/Probes - Nelson 4,000 C. 1 Boring - City Fire Hall 1,050 D. 1 Boring - Sunny Fresh 1,050 TOTAL $11,500 (groundwater Now 1) Less Nelson (4,000) TOTAL $7,500 9 AL t r, ?, 3 ryt // J 7r r t tt " Ol IAJ 1>' -` I i I ]� N �w ♦. I ` o MONMLL1. Looe )I I I '71 Im :� l': - d Le LArLev 1fSN. til I i •,; _` 40i - c -o- " � _ !~91♦ PCZ' ? I I- ♦!�•s _ CA[:AMERV o rf. x'w. M. \Sete C..,P SPur -_c 6. f G : a .h it ;-=� T• M.tiI _ ,.... 1 1 m t S T M I n BM o "D-- 170 T•M-dii ' e O - �� K ' o }t 0 7 •_ I- I w � - .p_ RY on _�,ninl'elibn� � -� - .. ._ _ � +q�7 . _ _ :7�L'(9.I F. �• 1- =,�t•urrel'fi••r•ING i j- it fit I iii-.rWr. a='—=...,u °.I• 4V.C• I •� AG9. (fi)� -r-I E .G� ..-••,s.; s�- I ' _ � •' �� _a..�M•tk� —' � - ..- 111 ,� � i°•i,._.' �It«��{nt .It�.1 r, i „_ ' r` ' I �L•n,.rt irn • L'Y•ra,Y (• ^ ili ItLN.��7! �• 1 . Y-12 ^ • _ _ m W'nLLI• .. cra..e.,.;J._... rr• _rG_ ... _Ir«(-rl•:.a' ` - £�-®f.]st.d • . >r w-.. I �� � _ ._ a 1I3/'tarj—�-fkru. _ � I � �, �JI •�i sw.l...a .r - �S r ••tr♦Yt.a.•-� - i I � ; i ®e®�• I � T ---I T�-IT— i �--I�1 �r--Y '1 T ,'•r-- S� ' G 1 1 o C �� � I � � 2' I i , � I�. I � , -I�, � �bL7 tZT'Iw L i �,� 1 i I � I � i � • � i � .. I `i Yf�'-�'- ! � I f'- 78�--ate I L. I I � I �� � , 1 I r n � i ji) l I 1 I �� '� lM 5•. i i nf�.w t � Y � I _ ' 2_ �_ _ Vie;_ _25. _ { 2 I _ _ I in ! 11• n _ ' K 1 ae•- e - �3---- 7tw --- 3� —- -a=�---- -�)1(---4--------------------- --'- -- S yle•7415. 11 A ellu H tb.14-- • _ 1' Z'i• G/d Y�� .•/eOdO� {I CuGeGnl nY�lu•s 1.r R«e+•( r- 1 ( t_ _i._ _ s\Lr-7111: I/�f�.pI'LL" •14. __ --.--------�_ ___. =-----------�^bq'L•rrrl.rlil( -_ -,T. �Z45 .. t S , S S -•�, G d� \ S �� ' I-' S �s7>rt S ;s �;; �� 1 .:� I\�,;, 't- ( 6 _ DAG ' i'ti •oti i N Om a IE i� e4M rR D •Teo ♦p I ip - � / ",' �' CSV "we It N .. . 8G' 66 I .. - Vii'- GG' �'0r w GG' N V . . N • . w - im n v •�� I v ST. S! . Case.w°wi, G N.Oy, le SIGN e( Minn. • i - `�'� S.CIy 11' IN C IIG: IG t N.I1I lO• lo} IO Iles IrMOn defed Mm 1.1111. Cbrtlon •} M61wY1 let Y•1;1W1, S- SIM A , (O. M)rig Vr} 1.1. M.IS (•r hl{hwey, llynle iq•D: H1 1 N .. / M.w.•«w.s.ro Yws fl.s..•. nG rveFll, tri LS eb s75 .• - i / �� Nuwa.ALy.Ne.N)! b.i,IW9 � F (J�IC.I.L)rr,�l4l•:?Pi1 sl 4ranh}len h Wad ri S$100 St 3 - Z prenb 6.N.RY.riQh}MtenG}.YttZ.1 W Q Z U end rweiw}ein spur lrGtll&,"is _Z linnSI. &o* AAF /5!l.18f!1 7 • Council Agenda - 1 V14/94 13. Review of 3rd aaarW liquor store financial statement. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Liquor Store Manager Joe Hartman will he in attendance at the Council meeting to review with the Council the nine-month financial statement for the liquor store operation. While the statement should be fairly self-explanatory, the following are some brief comments concerning the report. Overall sales for the first nine months are up $46,000 over the same period last year, but our cost of goods sold is also rising, resulting in a gross profit being actually lower by $1,300 compared to last year. Although our gross profit is slightly lower, our expenses of operation have also decreased that results in an operating income increase of approximately $2,500 to a total of $117,391 for the first nine months. This operating income amounts to approximately a 10.3% return on total sales, which is very acceptable for an off -sale store. Total expenses so far this year are approximately $4,000 lower than last year with the primary reason being lower insurance cost. The main insurance coverage that has changed is our dram shop liability insurance, where we were able to save over $5,000 annually. This is reflected in the lower general and administrative expenses for the first nine months, which helped us show a slight increase in operating income over last year's first nine months. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: After review, Council can accept the report as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None other than review and acceptance of the report. Copy of 3rd quarter report. 23 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 30Sep94 Current Assets: Cash Change Fund Investments Accounts Receivable A/R - NSF Checks Inventory Prepaid Insurance TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS Fixed Assets Land & Parking Lot Buildings Furniture & Equipment less: Accumulated Depreciation I 4OTAL FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to EDA Fund sales Tax Payable Salaries Payable Accrued vacation/Sick Leave Other Accrued Expenses TOTAL LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 116,651.63 1,600.00 432,127.75 99.82 161,048.33 6,836.36 ------------ 718,363.89 46,591.03 199,285.65 75,993.73 (209,047.42) ------------ 112,822.99 ------------ 831,186.88 aaooeeaneeen 53,087.14 40,000.00 12,013.82 14,246.06 110.09 ------------ 119,457.11 711,729.77 ------------ 831,186.68 ewesweusste 'V W�/ MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING SEP 30, 1993 AND 1994 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Liquor Sales 298,272 299,242 Discounts Cost of Sales 215,127 222,706 GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR 83,145 27.9% 76,536 25.6% Beer Sales 645,005 691,290 Cost of Sales 509,399 --_------- 543,847 GROSS PROFIT - BEER 135,606 21.0% ---------- 147,443 21.3% Nine Sales 105,284 108,916 Cost of Sales 68,515 j,.V)a GROSS PROFIT - MINE 36,769 34.9% &9-,1JV-3-1j.4/'33.0% ;261 I sc Sales 40,648 35,556 `.-ost of Sales 25,743 25,328 GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE 14,905 36.7% 10,228 28.8% Misc Non-taxable Sales 1,410 1,758 Cost of Sales 501 Hoer 97; GROSS PROFIT - MISC NOH -TAXA --_--__--- 908 64.4% ;8•/113 16.9% U4S • TOTAL SALES 11090,618 1,136,761 TOTAL COST OF SALES 819,285 866,284 TOTAL FREIGHT COST 4,440 4,967 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 266,893 00e00s0uc0 24.5% 265,510 00202e00es 23.4% GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE ,.arsonal Services Salaries MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR PERA 2,890 REVENUE AND EXPENSES 5,946 Insurance COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR Unemployment Benefits 5,719 .5% ENDING SEP 30, 1993 AND 1994 95,630 8.8% 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT SALES Liquor 298,272 299,242 Beer 645,005 691,290 Wine 105,284 108,916 Other Merchandise 40,648 35,556 Misc Non -Taxable Sales 1,410 1,758 Discounts ---------- ---------- TOTAL SALES 1,090,618 1,136,761 COST OF GOODS SOLD (823,725) ---------- (871,251) ---------- GROSS PROFIT 266,893 24.5% caevaanaeo 265,510 23.45 aeneana�ae GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE ,.arsonal Services Salaries 78,538 PERA 2,890 FICA 5,946 Insurance 8,256 Unemployment Benefits 5,719 .5% TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 95,630 8.8% Supplies Office Supplies 439 General Operating Supplie 5,145 Other Supplies 135 TOTAL SUPPLIES 5,719 .5% 77,950 3,670 5,945 7,304 94,927 8.41 328 4,512 74 4,913 .4% VO4, MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING SEP 30, 1993 AND 1994 1993 1994 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Other Services & Charges Professional Services 2,500 3,255 Maintenance Agreements Communication 854 1,246 Travel -Conference -Schools 58 132 Advertising 3,383 4,978 Insurance 15,790 10,481 Utilities, Electric 8,780 8,837 Utilities, Heating 889 1,035 Utilities, Sewer & Water 135 633 Utilities, Refuse Maintenance, Equipment 1,731 1,263 Maintenance, Building 1,617 2,085 Maintenance, Other 74 74 Depreciation --Acquired As 13,930 12,020 Other Misc Expenses 825 ---------- 2,083 ---------- TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH 50,731 4.75 48,279 4.25 TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS 152,079 ---------- 13.95 148,119 ---------- 13.05 TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 114,814 0002200800 10.55 117,391 8000sa0a00 10.35 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 10,138 8,223 Cash Long/Short (55) 186 sale of Property ---------- ---------- TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) 10,083 •9% 8,409 .75 NET INCOME (EXPENSE) 125,044 00a2000200 11.55 125,800 0*0000*800 11.15 Transfers In/Out ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE 125,044 11.51 125,800 11.15 t2800222220 o a02a0000 0 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 14. Consideration of authorizina anuraisals of land for bio -solids aanlication. O.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the past several years, under the direction of the City Council, staff has been investigating sites in and about Monticello for the purpose of future bio -solids applications from the City's wastewater treatment plant. The site study area was limited to a 6 -mile radius from the City's wastewater treatment plant south of the Mississippi River. The primary criteria for sites included 120 to 150 acres with a proposed continued agricultural use of the site for at least 20 years due to the investment needed by the City. Site selection criteria included those sites located with access from a state or county highway and soils applicable for bio -solids application and an adequate distance to ground water so as to meet all applicable MPCA and EPA codes. As per Council authorization, we have considered the possibility of leasing as well as purchasing. At this point in time, we would like City Council authorization to have appraisals done on at least one or possibly two sites. A phase I appraisal would cost about $700 per site and would give us a basis to make an offer on a property. A phase 11 appraisal would cost almost $2,000 per site and would give us a more detailed appraisal looking at all possible values to a property that could be used in Court should the City use condemnation procedures to obtain a piece of land. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 111J 1. The first alternative is to authorize a phase I appraisal on one or two sites at an estimated cost of $700 per site. k H 2. The second alternative would be not to authorize appraisals of any sites. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the City Council authorize an appraisal or appraisals as outlined in alternative •1. 1). SUPPORTING D&U: Copy of appraisal estimate. 24 R.A. Field & Associates APPRAISERS 520 Nonheast 218th Avenue Cednr, Minnescta 55011 (612) 434-3316 Fax (612) 434-4898 Licensed Certified November 4, 1994 Insured Mr, Rick Wolfsteller Richwd A. Field City Administrator (61:)434-3316 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Br,dley R. Field Monticello, MN 55362 (612)434.3316 CWcnee R Eull RE t Appraisal (612) 497.2596 FrdCwLm SW Dear Mr. Wolfsteller (612) 698-7910 John Furlong (612)754-7M This will confirm our quotation for appraisal services on the referenced property. As we discussed, we can provide Mart Swab a wide range of services commensurate with your needs. The (612)786-4938 short report can be upgraded to a comprehensive one. All Th=n J Chink reports will contain an analysis of the highest and best use (612)949.6848 of the land. .m, w.Holmsuom Short report $ 700 `7012)441.9986 Comprehensive report (subject as ag land) $2,000 Comprehensive report (subject as res land) $3,000 Our turnaround time would be about three weeks for the short report and about five weeks for the comprehensive ones. Trusting that this will be of use to you, I remain Respectfully, Richard A. Field RAFt jaf 9 Council Agenda - 11/14194 s. Consitieration of workshop or public hearing on the wastewater facilities plan. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council previously authorized OSM and RCM to jointly prepare a facilities plan for the expansion of the City of Monticello's wastewater treatment facilities. The plan was to center around the expansion of the existing facility or the addition of another facility at an alternate location. The draft copy of the facilities plan will be delivered to you at Monday evening's meeting. City staff would like the Council to take the facilities plan under advisement and review it for at least a couple of weeks, then hold either a workshop session to discuss its content and then a public hearing, or discuss the content of the facilities plan at a public hearing prior to approval. A public hearing is recommended before final acceptance of the plan in order to lay the groundwork for any participation from the State of Minnesota such as a low interest construction loan. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to hold a workshop session on the proposed facilities plan during the last week of November and order a public hearing on the plan for the regularly scheduled meeting of December 12. 2. The second alternative would be to hold the workshop at a regularly scheduled meeting, followed by the public hearing. Both items could be handled nn December 12. 3. The third alternative would be to delay the workshop and/or public hearing until next year when the now members of the City Council are on board. C. STAFF RECOMMENDS Off[: City staff feels that the workshop and public hearing could be delayed until next year; however, the current City Council must approve the 1995 final budget, and the facilities plan will have an effect on the 1995 budget in that money should be set aside for at least the development of plans for the now facility, whether it be an enlarged fbcility at the existing site or an alternate facility. Consequendy, there should be some review by the City Council prior to the setting of the final budget. You may wish to actually hold the workshop this year, invite the new Council members to the workshop, but 25 Council Agenda - IVIV94 then actually hold the public hearing next year. This would satisfy both of the needs in regard to the 1995 budget and getting participation from the new Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the draft facilities plan will be delivered to you at Monday evening's meeting. Council Agenda - lVl4t94 16. Consideration of amending[ building hermit and utility access fee structure. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the sake of efficiency, I am providing you a copy of a portion of the previous agenda item relating to fees along with the recently -mailed letter to builders notifying them of the meeting. 27 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 Consideration of reviewing building inspection process procedures and amending bnildina aermit fee schedules. (i.O.) 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. FEES 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, the City is facing the need to develop a wastewater treatment plant at some point in the next 6-6 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. 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 36 new houses were being built per year. Now that development pressure has greatly intensified (100 homeslyear), it may no longer make sense to keep fees low to encourage development. lnaaectian and Plan Review Fes The Monticello inspection fee ($642) 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 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 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 Waoonia 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 50% of the inspection fee. Currently, the City only charges 10% of the inspection fee for plan review. Monticello charges a lesser amount because, 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 ($632). 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 Access 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 ©ties not anticipating major wastewater plant expansion. When compared to Buffalo, Elk River, and Rogers, the average of those cities is $1,200. It is 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 sower 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 dose to the average. Council Agenda - 11/14/94 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 charges. 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 from new industry and to existing taxoavers because it will result in one less 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. Plumbine. Mechanical. Electrical Fees The proposed fee schedule proposes a plumbing and mechanical fee increase to a level approximately equal with the current average. Summnry The existing fee structure results in a total cost 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 note that the fees charged by a number of communities listed will likely be increased soon, which will likely result in Monticello'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 usefal to determine to what extent sewer/ water fees should be raised. Council Agenda - 1U14/94 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 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 new 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 14, 1994, or another date as determined by City Council. As a modification of this alternative, Council may wish to tentatively adopt the 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 plans. 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, now forms, etc., for improving efficiencies and effectiveness. Staff looks forward to City Council's comments with regard to recommendations on procedures and foes. No further specific recommendations are provided other than those that are mentioned in the body of the report. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Building permit fee survey table; Commercial/Industrial access charge comparison; Proposed water access fees; Sower and water hookup survey, IDC recommendation from 10/20/84 meeting. BUILDING PEP' r 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 SQUARE FEET BUILDING - 1300 MonticelloI Monticello I Albertville IButlalo Big Lake Elk River Rockford Watertown Belle Plaine Hutchinson Norwood Waconia Average Pr000sed Current ai ri Inspection Fee $602 $542 $388 $422 $602 $604 $604 $602 $602 $602 $602 $602 $563 a a Plan Review 5301 $54 $252 $275 $100 $392 $392 $301 $391 $391 $301 $301 $310 rd %18t0 x$46 Surcharge $46 $46 $461 $46 $46 $46 $48 $46 $46 $46 $46 $46 (Water Access Fee $500 $300 $200 $600 $450 $1,070 $1,000 $400 $750 $500 $600 $655 $623 IMeter/Other $100 $100 $100 $70 $1001 $0 $60 $60 $65 $90 $65 $98 $71 ISewer Access Fee $300 $1,500 $1,100 $450 $1,300 $850 $300 $750 $1.200 $300 $500 $200 $480 $743 IStorm Sewer Access 156081 fig $100 $0 $100 $671 Plumbing $45 $24 $251 $30 $0 $100 $45 $45 $84 $50 $45 $45 $47 IMechanlcal $381 $o1 $251 $50 $0 $100 $38 $3e $0 550 $38 $38 $381 1Electric $451 $451 Sol $0 $o $45 $45 $45 $45 545 $45 $45 $321 IDEPST $o1 $01 $01 $0 So So $0 155001 f0 [Other (Strt Dpst) 1 1 I (Prk DedG LOTAL P,8771 61.4111 $2,63QJ¢2,5_ _ 1 74"3 6.57 f3.QWL—tL$ _-62�M --A2.R74 $!M2-Lb2 41 2 538 Information taken from survey conducted by Paul Waldron Associates - 1992 ry Represent% 100% of base building permit lee 69 defined by 1988 Urllform BuOdHrg Code m Represents 50% of the Inspection tee m Represents 9096 of base building permll foe as defined by 1988 Uniform BuOding Coda w Represents 10% of the inspection toe km Pordlrtp; not Included In total BLDPRM94.WK1: 10/20/94 DEFINITIONS: WAC-Watar access charge SAC -Sewer access charge GPD -Gallons per day Lu SEWER & WATER HOOK UP SURVEY OCTOBER, 1894 BASE RESIDENTIAL FEES Gallons/Day City Water Sewer Unit Basis Monticello 300 + Meter 300 250 Big Lake 375 + Meter 400 Currently considering increase & 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 unite and 80% ager eight units. B. Elk River uses the metro table based upon 274 GPD (per unit) x $1,300 per unit C. Rogers increases residential base WAC & SAC charges by 100% for commercial and uses 774 GPD (per unit) SAC (e g., $300 : 2 0 $800 + $1,000 0 $1,800 for each unit). D. Monticello uses 250 GPD (per unit) x $300 per unit for commercial and industrial. DEFINITIONS: WAC-Watar access charge SAC -Sewer access charge GPD -Gallons per day Lu PROPOSED WATER ACCESS FEES Water Line Size: 1" $ 500 + material cost 1-1/4" 710 + material cost 1-1/2" 920 + material cost 2" 1,170 + material cost 3" 1,500 + material cost 4" 2,000 + material cost 6" 2,500 + material cost 8" 3,336 + material cost O COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SEWER ACCESS CHARGE AND WATER ACCESS CHARGE COMPARISONS (Excluding (Neter Cost) October 19, 1994 TD sewer access charge T, WAC waxer access charge Standard Iron (=1,670,000) Aroplax ($700,000) Custom Canopy (:377,075) m m w m w m SAC WAC TOTAL I 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 Rogers $17,600 $8,800 $26,400 $6,400 $3,200 $9,600 $3,200 $1,600 $4,800 a Elk River $14,300 $11,000 $25.300 a $5,200 $4,000 $9,200 $2.600 $2,000 a $4,600 Proposed 1 Monticello $13.200 $2.500 $15,700 $4,800 $3,325 $8,125 $2,400 $500 $2,900 NOTES: 1. Based on i t units and 6' water service. 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 1' water service. 7. Land and building estimated probed costs (excludes equipment or furnishings). TD sewer access charge T, WAC waxer access charge IDC RECOMMENDATION Thursday, October 20, 1994 Based on the IDC's 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 costs 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 coats incurred by industrial businesses. Some members felt the pro-buelnees message sent by the City of Monticello to prospective industrial businesses far-outweighled the small amount of revenue anticipated from the proposed industrial access charge increases. The motion passed eight to four. I r Recorded by 011ie Koropchak, IDC Executive Director 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN November 2,19% 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 Fax: (612) 295-4404 Dear Monticello Builders: Building activity in Monticello has increased dramatically in the last few years. In 1994, there have been over 300 permits issued already. This is very positive for the area; however, the increase in workload has required that new processes be established that will help the building department keep up with the demand. Enclosed is a copy of the building department procedure, new application (new areas are highlighted) and inspection card that have been adopted by the city council. Please note that garage floors (unless detached) and driveway inspections will no longer be necessary. In a related matter the council will be reviewing the building fees at their next meeting on Monday, November 14th. A copy of the building fee survey which includes proposed changes to Monticello s fee structure is provided for your review. As you will see, the proposed fee structure will place Monticello fees at a level closer to the average for cities in the west metro area. If you would like to provide input on this matter, please attend the council meeting at 7:00 pm on Monday, November 14th or send your comments to city hall before the meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, ?f 6PA ..W Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator cc: Gary Anderson/Building Official File 0 11,09,199. 12142 FROM MOUES PLUS INC HOMES P• L• U•S DESIGNERS 5 U I L C E R s November 9, 1994 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway P.O. Bow 1147 Monticello, ME 55762-9255 Attention$ Jeff O'Neill RE$ Building permit Flea Gentlemen$ 1111 IU 16122954404 P.W1 The increase in building permit fees you arepropoain ie over a 100• increase. The proposed fees would also place Monticello at the top and for the vast metro area; not the average. I can speak from experience when I say high permit fees E� keep buyore away from particular areas. I understand and agree with the need for increased fees, but in the 30• to 40% rangel not the 100• that io being proposed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, eZ Tim G. Pi President 5730 Guam Ave. N.E. Ropers, Mkn uft 55774 (812) 4288200 Fax (812) 42 �(0 tote •. Council Agenda - 11/14/94 17 • Consideration of adontine a oollcv on water service disconnections. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND During the past few years when the Council has been considering adoption of the delinquent assessment roll for non-payment of utility bills, concerns have been expressed by some Council members over allowing individual properties to accumulate such large unpaid bills without disconnecting their water service. In light of these concerns, the Council may want to consider adopting a policy the staff can use for when the Public Works Department will automatically proceed with water service disconnection on delinquent accounts. The current sewer and water ordinances do allow for delinquent utility accounts to be shut off for non-payment of their quarterly utility bills. The problem we've had in the past is the large number of accounts that do become delinquent, the water and sewer personnel would be spending a large amount of time attempting to shut off the water to individual homes and businesses. This has especially become cumbersome in the winter when the ground is frozen and the water shut offs are not as accessible. Due to the fact that the City has the authority to certify all unpaid accounts as special assessments against the individual properties, we have been taking that direction in collecting our bills rather than shutting off each individual home for a delinquent bill. This has been the method of choice for most communities in that we are almost guaranteed collection including interest by placing it as a special assessment against the property taxes. While certifying delinquent accounts as special assessments may be the easiest procedure in most cases, the question becomes whether large delinquent accounts should be handled in the same manner. In many cases the larger accounts do come IMm commercial establishments which aro operating businesses that should be able to be responsible for their bills on a quarterly basis. In reviewing the previous delinquent list that was certified at the last meeting, we did have four (4) large utility bills in the $M and over category. The large bills typically will pertain to commercial enterprises such as Laundromats or retail centers, and the Council may want to consider a policy that establishes a cut off dollar amount that would trigger the Public Works Department to shutting off the water rather than waiting for the account to be certified on taxes. Council Agenda - I V14/94 With the staff preparing a delinquent list on a quarterly basis, it is not anticipated that individual residential properties will accumulate unpaid accounts over $500; therefore, a $500 limit may be appropriate to cover those large water users that should be able to pay their bills quarterly rather than using the City as a finance conduit. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1) Council could adopt a policy establishing a dollar limit that will be allowed to accrue before the Public Works Department shuts off a delinquent utility accounts service. If a $500 limit is established as part of the policy, City personnel should only be dealing with a small number of individual shut offs on a quarterly basis and most likely would be from a commerciaUndustrial customer. 2) Council could decide not to adopt the specific dollar limit for shut offs and continue with our quarterly certification of all delinquent accounts as special assessments regardless of the amount owing. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION With the recent addition of a $25 service charge for each delinquent account, and our ability to always place delinquent accounts as assessments against properties, the certification of delinquent accounts seems to be an appropriate method for guaranteeing collection of our utility bills. Likewise, I do think we see a number of accounts continually using this method for payment of their utility bills and some accounts can become quite high, especially the commercial accounts. As Administrator, I would certainly support the $500 limit as a reasonable amount, and all accounts above this dollar figure more than 60 days past duo should be notified that their water will be shut off for non- payment. This policy should eliminate the larger commercial accounts from becoming delinquent on our certification list once the word gets out that the City will no longer tolerate large delinquent accounts. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of proposed policy. CITY OF MONTICELLO POLICY FOR DISCONNECTION OF WATER SERVICES FOR LARGER DELINQUENT UTHXrY ACCOUNTS While it is recognized that delinquent sewer and water utility bills 60 days or more past due can be certified as special assessments against the respective properties, the City is concerned with properties being allowed to accumulate excessive outstanding assessment balances and with the potential reserve shortfall that exists by allowing larger delinquencies to remain unpaid. As a result: The Public Works Department shall, after proper procedural requirements have been complied with, discontinue service to any delinquent water customer whose delinquent sewer and water account is more than 60 days past due and exceeds $500. 2) When a water service has been discontinued, services shall not be restored except upon payment of all subsequent amounts due plus a fee for reconnection as established by the City Council. Adopted by the City Council November 14, 1994. DISCONN2.POL: 1 InI94 0 Council Agenda - IV14194 1e. Cqnsideratigg of final navment 0 Ren Contr t;tina. Inc.. for Prosect 83.02C. Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition. U.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to consider making final payment to Ryan Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $44,145.14 for completion of Project 93-02C, Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition. The project has been constructed in compliance with the plans and specifications, and the City Engineer has recommended acceptance by the City of Monticello. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The fust alternative is to make final payment to Ryan Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $44,145.14 pending delivery of the required warranty and documentation. 2. 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 Ryan Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $44,145.14 as outlined in alternative ill. D. SUPPORTING DM: Copy of request for final payment. 34 November 9, 1994 Palk Ptam Ryan Contracting. Inc 5776 W ,zaU eEWa&%Wd 8700 13th Avenue East movespab aw6s l&lne 6�2.696bsr?s MN 55379 Shakopee, i-eoo-t;}sns FAX 6966rr4 Re: Grading, Streets, Utilities and Appurtenant Work Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition t UM= City of Monticello Project No. 93-02C Una) ra OSM Project No. 4892.20 Gentlemen: Enclosed are four (4) copies of Construction Pay Voucher No. 5 / Futal Payment for your signature, along with the transmittal letter to the City of Monticello for the amount indicated on the voucher. A copy is also enclosed for your file. Please submit the Minnesota Department of Revenue "Withholding Affidavit for Contractors' (Minnesota State Form IG134) for this project, to the City of Monticello. Upon acceptance of the project and approval of the final payment by the Monticello City Council, a fully -executed copy of the pay estimate will be returned to you with the final payment check. Paragraph No. 57 'Guarantee" of the Supplemental General Conditions of the Project Specifications require the contractor to provide a one-year warranty from the date of final acceptance of the project Pursuant to our professional opinion based upon observation, testing analysis and other sampling performed, the project has been constructed in compliance with the plans and specification, and we would recommend its acceptance by the City of Monticello. If you have any questions or need additional information in this matter, please contact me at 595.5705. Sincerely, ORR•SCHEEN•MAYERON At ASSOCIJA'��'IS,�I_NC� �� V L - Bret A. Weirs, PE. Project Manager, Associate Enclosures C City of Monticello cc nw+araw.co.urwwuran tui 4s�a Fawr• tj OS)&IL.LW- 300 Pmt pace eas ana WW .01M Boulevard Ubweapft MN 554161228 612-3516-5"s TAX W&5774 November 9, 19% SUNG) s Mayor and City Council Qty of Monticello 2% East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Grading. Streets, Utilities and Appurtenant Work Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition Qty of Monticello Project No. 93-02C OSM Project No. 4892.0 Dear Mayor and Qty Council Members: Enclosed are four (4) copies of Construction Pay Voucher No. 5 / Final Payment for the referenced project. Please make payment in the amount of $44,145.14 to Ryan Contracting, Inc. at your earliest convenience. Very truly your; ORR-SCHELEN•MAYERON 6t ASSOCIATE'S., INC Bret A Weiss, P.E. I Project Manager, Amodate am Enclosures C Ryan Contracting, Inc. &AdM^ClYLVWOw1M%VSC"T." KOW Oppmu" (9)— 14+� �^ '=1 !=. ll 0519 P�15• ITi F.= CONSTRUCTION PAY VOUCHER Estimate Voucher Number: 5 Date: November 14, 1994 OSM Project Number: 4892.20 Period Ending: October 31, 1994 Project: CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION / FniAL PAYMENT y CITY OF MONTICELLO 93-02C Contractor: RYAN CONTRACTING, INC 8700 13TH AVENUE EAST SHAKOPEE MN 55379 Contract Date: April 20, 1993 Work Started; Completion Date: Work Completed: Original Contract Amount 506,588.20 Total Additions 7,893.93 Total Deductions 0.00 Total Funds Encumbered 514,462.13 Total Work Certified to Date $02,696.81 Less Retained Percentage 0.00% 0.00 Less Previous Payments 458,551.67 Total Payments Incl This Voucher 502,696.81 Balance Carried Forward 11,785.32 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT, THIO VOUCHER 44*145.14 APPROVALS t- ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance with our contract, and based on our professional opinion, materials are satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plana and specifications and that the total work is: 100% completed as of September 300 1994. We herby recommend payment of this voucher. Signed: Signed; Construction Observer Pro ect Manager/Engln4or RYAN CONTRACTING, INC This is to certify that to the best ofmy knowledge, information, and belief, the Quantities and values of work certified herein is a fair approximate estimate for the period covered by this voucher. Contractor: Signed By Date: Title CITY OF KONTICELLO Chocked By: Approved for payment: Authorised Representative Date: Date: PAGE 1 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 19. Review of bide and consideration of Award of contract for ogrehase of 128 kw emer¢encv Generator for the water department. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As authorized by City Council, bids for the emergency generator were received at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 9. We received three bids. The following is a list of those bids: Bidder Price Delivery Flaherty Equipment Corp. $40,648 115 calendar days New Brighton, MN Interstate Detroit Diesel, Inc. $36,450 112 calendar days Minneapolis, MN Ziegler Power Systems $28,435• 85 calendar days Minneapolis, MN 'NOTE: $2,000 additional for factory -witness testing The apparent low bidder is Ziegler Power Systems of Minneapolis. They took one exception to a portion of the warranty for the unit and did not provide brochures or other preprinted information about the engine or generator. Between now and Monday evening's meeting, we will be verifying the suitability of Ziegler Power Systems and determining whether it adheres to the specifications or not. We are under the impression that Catepillar does not manufacture this unit but applies their name to a unit manufactured by another firm. We hope to have all of this information available for you to make a decision at Monday evening's meeting. All of the bids are within the proposed 1995 budget; consequently, if we are able to award it to Ziegler Power Systema or Interstate Detroit Diesel, we would realize significant savings over the budget. COUNCEL UPDATE November 10, 1894 Consideration of £undine a portion of a comnrehensive sanitary sewer studv. (J.O.) The City has been contacted by Orin Thompson Homes regarding the exciting potential of development of 80 to 120 acres for "step-up" homes in an area near the Oak Ridge development area. In addition, Tony Emmerich has indicated a strong interest in development of a 40 -acre site directly east of the Oak Ridge development. The housing proposed under both plans represents an opportunity for the City to counterbalance the rise in "startup" single family development. Unfortunately, although most of the total area proposed for development is within the Orderly Annexation Area, it is outside the sanitary sewer service area. A major purpose of the study would be to review the existing infrastructure and determine the best method and cost for providing sewer service to the proposed development area, as well as other desirable development areas. The study will examine other trunk sewer systems in an effort to determine where trunk improvements are needed to address projected growth, in addition to integrating plans for wastewater treatment plant expansion with necessary trunk sewer improvements. As the City develops, it is important to review the capacity of the existing systems versus the theoretical projections in order to fully maximize the in-place systems. Please see the attached letter from Bret Weiss which outlines in detail the scope of services provided by the study. The total cost of the study is $20,000. It has been proposed that the cost of the study be divided as follows: Orin Thompson Homes - $8,000; Tony Emmerich - $7,000; City - $5,000. Tony Emmerich has reviewed the scope of services provided by the City Engineer and has agreed to pay the proposed share prior to initiation of the study. Orrin Thompson is reviewing the proposal and will make a decision prior to the November 28, 1994, Council meeting. The study as proposed is in essence an extension of the wastewater treatment plant study with the added dimension of addressing specific issues relating to the Orin Thompson and Emmerich proposals, along with future development of the city. The study will provide information essential to the comprehensive planning process by providing us with an understanding of the limits of the existing system to serve outlying areas, which will allow us to plan for the use of land accordingly. By outlining short- and long-term alternatives for sanitary sewer service to the development regions in the city, we can reserve the large trunk capital expenditures until absolutely necessary, thereby collecting trunk funds to pay for the improvement prior to ordering that improvement. The information will be key to identifying where the City can "bank" sanitary sewer capacity for the types of land uses that are not in demand today but are needed for the long-term economic benefit of the city. We, therefore, strongly urge Council to authorize completion of the study as proposed. Attachments: Letter from Bret Weiss regarding scope of study; Maps showing development area. nsxt�am DRAFT s"swarm eokwrd November 8, 19% MkM"Gft M S%16.1ria 61:•59$3"9 1-eoo-is�sns W. Jeff O'Neill M% W"77' City of Monticello P.O. Bos 1147 250 East Broadway : Monticello, MN 55362-9245 1 • Re. Sanitary Sewer Study OSM Proposal No. 34294 Dear Mr. O'NeM I1 am writing this letter in response to a request from Orrice Thompson Development regarding their interest in development of a residential housing site south of County Road 118, across tirom the Oak Ridge Development. As you ate wware, we met with Mr. An, Pankon6r4 from Orrin Thompson, and expWwd that the site they are interested in is not aureatly able to be provided with sankM sewer servim. It was discussed that in order to evaluate the potential of serving the site. a sanitary saw study/feasilOW report would deed to undertaken by the City eagineer. - This study would need to investigate tipprmdmately 70% of the service area oirrently sawed by the Chy of Monticello to help determine how the edstia8 land uses impact the ability to expand the service area Considering that the City is eowempladag expansion of the waste water treatment plant in the Axture, with the size based on projections of land development, it would make sense to evaluate the currant sewer servtm boundaryr along with a potential service area wWlc outlining, the necessary capital i,... to serve those areas. the study should be completed in conjunction with a planning recommendation for the location of Mune development within the City of Monticello` Orderly Annexation Area (OAA) and outside the OAA. In essence, to re-evaluate the OAA based on where developers and iadusaies no interested in developing and the available sanitary sewer service capacity. The, sanitary sewer system for the City of Monticello has the wowing three ma* components: Original Mondcallo Plat Sanitary sewer service is provided to the downtown am and the area contained within the original Monticello plat, (essentially north of the railroad tracks, east of Chem is Street, and west of the wastewater treatment planta, by a series of small lateral pipes that discharge tato a 124ad to IS -inch clay trunk line located along River Street. Phis trunk Una was odgmally the primary trunk for carrying sewage to the original treatment plant. MCMUuonrMuruo CPO aw�o d.r• DRAFT Mr -!Jeff ONeill (Stp of Monti¢auo November 8. 1994 Page 2 I Misduippi Drive Sanitary seiner service to the can side of town. (east of the wastewater treatment plant and north of County State Aid Highway 73, including the Meadow Oaks developments as provided by the Masitdppi Drive system Thu system b limited by the capacity in the main located along Mississippi • Drive. Interceptor Sewer The primary sewage carrying facility in the City of Monticello is the interceptor newer lice located between Sth and 6th. Streets. tram CSAR 39 ' (Golf Course Mad) to the wastewater treattz►eat pleat 'Ibis interceptor provides sanituy == service to the prnperdea along is path. but primaru7y to area south of the 194 teeway, and wast of the Meadow Oak Subdivision ares` Three crossings of the -I94 fiesway ware arnielpated to service the southern City limits at Fallon Avenue (reservoir). Min to Street, and CSAH 39 (God Course Road). In gado toevaluate the possible collection locations for the proposed Orrin Tbouipson devel um both the Missies Drive and intetzoaptor qu= must be evabwed. We already know, without completing the study. that the two ssoitasy rawer syatfms were not designed to accommodate theOrin Tbompson development ares when ammucd= of these systems was eted edZbe:efnra� evahtaSon of prwldtog service to the proparry would inetnde an evaluation of both' systems for esisdog and proposed development as compared with adstfag developed eonditiom. In an effort to fi* i creatine au possible alte:aasives, we are proposing to input the noWor trunk fadides, along with the anent toning into a computer modeling program that can be adjusted to evaluate various development scenarios. As a side core. Tony Emmerich has purchased property adjzieeat to the City (both south and eau) this currently is not proposed to be served by the existing sanitary sewer system He has expressed as interest in ccow noting to -this study to determine how his property could be best served In the future. Tb I following tasks would be Included in the unitary sewer an* if authorized, Input trunk sewer ffacilities (10 inch and larger) and City toning into a computer modeling program for flow analysis." I Y\CVLLVMYNur10 . i • I DRAFT W. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello November g, 1994 Page 3 • Review proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion versus posatble expanded sanitary sewer service area. • Identify bottlenecb with cuing sanitary sewer rystem in relation, to the expanded existing service erne. • Evacuate existing developed areas with regard to future site expansion and • Calibrate the modal of the enduing development condition with actual flowmeter values and lift nation ptmrping records (This task will -require the Coordination of f awmeter measurement; by Qty stafL) • Identity short and long-term recommendations for sanitary sewer syueta trunk improvements. • Prepare specific alternatives for service. to Orrin Thompson and Emmerich land parcels eurremly located outside of the available service area • ' • This Wady will be e:uemely beae&W in identif/mg capital improvement cords for the Qty wzhM sewer system in areas that we have previously anticipated potential eoncmas, including the modtBeatIon of the reservoir belt station and the capacity of the Mississippi Drive syste= to name a couple. This sewer study is something that is valuable to the City of Monticello as development pressures increase. As you may resell, a smell analysis of the tank system serving the Mdn property was evaluated during the toning hearings. This study would identify the needs and goals of the Qty of Monticello and reaffirm or modify decisions identified when the original sanitary sewer system was developed It would be my suggestion to develop a coat -sharing approach for the study with each developer paying direNy for the kasibWry report pardon of their property with the remainder of the base study split equally between the. two developers and the City. U the entire =* is authorised to evaluate tonere possUldes, we would anticipate that Orrin Thompson would pay $3,000.00 for their feasibility report sad 5S,000.00 for their share of the overall study, Tory Emmerich would pay 57.000.00 for his feasibility report, $5,000.00 for the overall study, and the Qty, of Monticello would contribute 55,000.00 to the overall study, for a total feasibility report eon of 570.000.00. csa�5`°6 014 oc� clay 4aavi° c ca City Mita ord" Amexa" A:rea plamft sntwv- .......... Anr,e,xaticn Sitdy 'e - I gglCH City of IvIcnticello 'ffigm CJ V*' Ptartning Area 0 R I." Rp- COUNCIL UPDATE November 8, 1894 Undate on nark dedication fees for Cardinal Hills development area. W.O.) As you recall, Council acted some months ago to direct payment of park dedication fees for the Cardinal Hills development area to the School District to be used to assist in funding playground equipment at Little Mountain Elementary School. Prior to sending the funds to the School District ($13,300), we wanted to inform you of City expenses relating to the development of the two city parks in the Cardinal Hills area. As you can see on the attached budget worksheet, the cost to the City to develop the Cardinal Hills parks is almost equal to the amount of money that the City will be transferring to the School District for development of the playground. Unfortunately, at the time the decision was made to transfer funds, it was not recognized that the cost to develop the Cardinal Hills parka would amount to $14,000. This information should have been presented to you prior to your decision. City staff is not suggesting that you consider withdrawing the contribution to the School District because the School District is counting on funds from the City and has budgeted playground improvements accordingly. However, I do think that a portion of the total amount could be withheld to pay for some of the city park improvements without creating a hardship for the School District. If you would like a portion of the park dedication fee withheld, please take action accordingly. Attachments: Cardinal Hills Park Expenditures Pertinent meeting minutes CARDINAL HILIA PARS EXPENDITURES Main Park 1. Trees $2,200 2. BBQs (2) $320 3. Volleyball court $200 4. Proposed basketball $2,500 5. Benches(2) $400 6. Permanent picnic tables (2) $w TOTAL $6,480 Tot Lot Park Estimated cost of playground equipment $7.000 TOTAL CARDINAL HILLS PARK IMPROVEMENTS $13,480 Park Dedication Fee $13,385 School District Share ($95) 94-01c, Council Minutes - 5/9/94 Consideration of shooting development agreement and consideration of anoroval of final olat - Phase N. Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Assistant Administrator ONeill reviewed the development agreement and noted that it is very similar to the agreements approved in the past. (YNeill noted that there has been an increase in the value of the raw land for purposes of calculation of park dedication fees. The development agreement proposes $2,100 per acre versus $2,000 per acre under phases I through III. Clint Herbst noted that it probably would make sense to finalize the park dedication requirement for Phases N and V, that perhaps the development agreement should be changed to reconcile all park development fee expenses associated with the plat. Clint Herbst suggested that park dedication fees collected be provided to the school district to assist in development of neighborhood facilities used by the development ares Shelly Johnson indicated his appreciation and noted that the school district would happy to work with the Parks Commission in determining how the money should be spent for park facilities on school property. Value Plus developers indicated their support of this concept. Bret Weiss, City Engineer, stated that added erosion control measures will be required with the next phase. He stated that a silt fence will be required along curb lines and that a gravel ramp to each lot with a home under construction will be installed to provide a single access to each property. This measure will help prevent erosion of the souls onto the streets and into the storm sewer systems The gravel ramps will decrease congestion and traffic movement concerns by limiting access to one location at each developing site. It will also reduce the amount of damage that is done to curbs with vehicles passing over unprotected curbs at various locations. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty Olsen to the adopt development agreement and approve the final plat of phase N of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Final signing of the plat is contingent on the City being provided financial guarantees as outlined in the development agreement. Motion includes an amendment to the agreement calling for complete reconciliation of all park dedication requirements through phase V. Park dedication funds to be provided to the School District with input on fund use to be provided by the Parks Commission. Motion carried nnnnimously. COUNCIL UPDATE November 8, 1894 Uadate on requirement that all Plannine Commission members reside within city. (J.6.) Following is a letter from Planning Commission Chair Cindy Lemm requesting that the City Council reconsider its decision made early this year to require that all Planning Commission members reside within the city. Please review the letter and determine whether or not you would like to reconsider earlier Council action. If no action is taken to reverse the previous decision, staff will be advertising the opening immediately, along with the vacancy left by Brian Stumpf, so that we can have two new Planning Commission members on board in January when Lemm and Stumpf leave office. To: Cay Conoid Memb® From: Cindy L®. Pluming Commisaoma 1® asking you to teoasceida yourdedtiaa to rmm me @om the Pbwiz* Cass et the mid of 1994. I ofMr sevael neaaau: 1 have gved in MmvxeBo Township ft my attire OQme an the Cam>mssioa I can ung your declaim to amt only city reddma, atthougb I do not mtiuely agree with it I belmw that you ace mmsft out on a whole sectm ofcamaa who wmu to get involved, but fed the buil of a city government such a outs. g=lob of Sleepy Hollow. Tyla Etat and Monticello Townft ft sample. At any mte.1 fed that 1 should be gmrAbdmnd in and kfi seated an the PI Cameron 7be podtian of Cammi mma is ane that may asao easy a fiat gUmpae bort m &ct.ekes in me positim to be afiixtim I I my fiat two to mase years mm spent msialy studying the odha ............ ..—, and itwrr4book. mbgsfn►questions and doing measy>himpb1z oot modms made by Iha often Ask Bma SWW— I fomk he would echo my aentimaft Mattioeao 0 going ft a n*m growth spmt t *d n w. L it tittr to the say to appoint mother new eommadom mw whcn they omId I R' a®my 7 ye= of mtpezienoo7 Sevael olha oom=mma and hoods diet make deci6ms Ox the cityam saved by non -city tesI I W me Ltbmy Board. PdW Cmc and Ecatmm Dvwbpmad Authority. I ® merely you Ih t I do um wuh to give ap my position wW , aking you to rethink your ma wkS I vane m st y atrolved inMasao and 1 avoar to beep my pa dw , we member of fin Monticao Pb ming Cowan CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT MOeth o1 October, 1994 KRMTT9 s USES ' Rug Some MoNh Lags Year Thal Year PERMITS ISSUED Mann OCT. Lw Year To Date To Data _ RESIDENTIAL. ., Number 33 17 158 213 VaWatbn S989.7000D $753.300.00 $4.1175.70000 $7286.400.00 Fear $7.602,88 55.258.73 $37.002.05 £53,988.98 Surcharges $49600 $374.90 $2.172.50 53,621109 COMMERCIAL Number 3 2 34 27 VaFua,gn $101,500.00 $3,000.00 $,,700.2D400 $811,10000 Foes $844.00 $30.00 $12,019.03 18.190.03 Surcharges $50.50 S1.00 SWAT) $413.50 INDUSTRIAL Mrmbor 2 3 7 14 VakraOon $100.400.00 5760,000.00 $1.111,783.00 $1,788,00000 Feea $1,147,65 $5,922.01 $8.9,1.82 $12,919.64 Surcharges $5320 $38000 S555 BB $802.75 PLUMBING Number is 10 68 108 Foes $371.00 $246 OD $1,543 DD $2,800.00 SWCnarges $7.50 SS -00 531.00 $54.00 OTHERS Number 0 0 4 5 Valuetam $58.90000 $0.00 Fears $75902 SSO.00 Surcharaos $2920 $2.50 TOTAL 8 PERMITS 53 32 271 387 TOTAL VALUATION $1.1117,60000 -$4 516.30000 17.811.58300 $9.07230000 tOtALf0q_ 9.96553 i 1151 4 jj,381.82 177,949.65 TOTAL SURCHARGES $807.20 176090 $3.93408 $4801,14 CURRENT MMON - FEES - ! N1eRABER tDAt� PFRMIT NATURE IlurrDrn _Pyrm�t syphow !]@Muni r! This Yggn Leg,{ Y ipr Single Fainly 18 $6.42298 11447.00 W87.700AD 90 59 Duplow 0 0 MN14Faouy 12 CommIXcial 1 3 Inoua,rla, t $1.01805 $47.50 $95.00000 4 3 Rea Owarip" 4 $44640 $1880 $37,600.00 9 4 Swo 0 0 PtGaa ellop. 0 2 AL 1 EMT IOWREPAM tDwasmge 15 $70360 $292D $81.40000 91 71 Commercial 2 $81400 t50.60 $101300.OD 25 31 InWsbial 1 $12990 $5.70 $11,400.00 10 4 PLUMBING A0 Tym 15 $371.00 $7.60 100 88 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Swimming Pools 0 0 cracks 2 53000 $1.00 $3,00000 22 22 TEMPORARY PERMIT 0 0 .7.1. MONTNBLG WK,