Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-28-1994AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 28, 1994 - 7 p.m. Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held November 9, 1994, and the regular meeting held November 14, 1994. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. 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. 4. Citizen comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. b. Public hearing for modification of the redevelopment plan and boundaries for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and modification of TIF Plan for District #1-9 (Tappers). 6. Public hearing for adoption of TIF Plan for TIF District #1-18 (River Mill). 7. Consideration of resolutions supporting annexation of the Robert Krautbauer and Joe Abbot properties in corpunction with final plat of the River Mill subdivision. 7 8. Consideration of recommendations from recycling committee in regard to garbage containers. 9. Consideration of adopting an ordinance regulating skateboarding/ rollerblading in certain areas of the city. 10. Consideration of funding a portion of a comprehensive sower study. 11. Consideration of bills for the month of November. 12, Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 14, 1894 - 7 p m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen, Warren Smith. Shirley Anderson was present from 9:30 p.m. to adjournment. Members Absent: None 2. Auoroval of minutes of the regular meetine held October 24. 1994. A motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the minutes of the meeting held October 24, 1994, as presented. Motion carried unanimously, with Shirley Anderson absent. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Citizen comments/netitions. requests, and comnlaints. None. 5. Cqnsideration of alternatives for addressing oWestrian/vehicle conflicts on 71h Street. Assistant Administrator O Neill stated that Council is asked to consider alternatives for addressing concerns raised at the previous Council meeting by the Marywood Apartment manager in regard to the parking ban on 7th Street. He reported that the parking ban was established to allow the shoulder of 7th Street to be used exclusively for pedestrian and bike traffic as identified in the pathway plan for the city for the following reasons: 1) On -street parking should not be needed, as the zoning ordinance parking requirements should have provided sufficient off-street parking for each apartment; 2) The controlled intersection at Highway 25 makes 7th Street the best alternative for the east/west pathway through this section of town; and 3) 7th Street is a major artery for pedestrian/bike traffic due to points of destination such as Burger King, Perkins, Kmart, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc., in close proximity to densely populated areas. O'Neill went on to report that since the last Council meeting, staff has heard concerns from the Hillside Apartment management and apartment residents regarding the parking ban. In response to these concerns, an inventory of parking stalls/unit on 7th Street was obtained, which shows that the Marywood Apartments have a surplus of six stalls; however, about one-third of the garage stalls are being used for storage, which results in a parking stall deficiency and consequent parking on 7th Street. The survey also showed that Hillside Terrace I has a deficiency of 31 parking stalls and Page 1 0 Council Minutes - 11/14/94 Hillside Terrace II has a surplus of 18 stalls, resulting in a net deficiency of 13 stalls for the complex. This deficiency was allowed by variance when the development was constructed. Roger Mack, Street Superintendent, reported that problems are created for the snowplows when cars are parked on the street and requested that Council maintain the no parking ban. Councilmember Herbst suggested that giving residents until January 1, 1995, should be a sufficient amount of time for residents to free up garage space on site. After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Clint Herbst to delay enforcement of the no parking ban on 7th Street until January 1, 1995, to allow residents time to free up garage parking space on site, with the current winter parking ordinance remaining in effect. Motion carried unanimously, with Shirley Anderson absent. Consideration of amendments to ciearette licensine ordinance. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that at the previous meeting Council agreed to consider amendments to the recently -adopted cigarette licensing ordinance that would allow self-service sales of cigarettes, provided the tobacco products are located within the plain view of a responsible employee. In addition, it was also suggested that the ordinance contain language that would require every retailer requesting a cigarette license to certify on the annual application that it has trained its employees on the laws of tobacco sales. Wolfsteller noted that training will be required for all retailers requesting a license; however, this will be difficult to enforce. Dorothy Ritze of Total Mart stated that the training video used by her company is called "Support the Law" and is available from the R.J. Reynolds Company at no charge. Counalmember Herbst suggested that the City obtain the video to distribute with each tobacco license application. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the ordinance amendment as proposed allowing self- service of tobacco products provided they are 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. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Absent: Shirley Anderson. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT N0, 282. Pago 2 (1) Council Minutes - 11/14/94 Consideration to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing for the modification of the Redevelopment Plan and Boundaries for Redevelopment Proiect No. 1. modification of the TIF Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-1 to 1- 17, soecifical1v TIF District No. 1.9, and the adontion of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-18. Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak asked that Council consider adopting a resolution calling for a public hearing to be held on November 28, 1994, at which time the following three items will be considered: 1) The Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 boundaries must be modified to include the 72 acres owned by Krautbauer, 2) Consider modifying TIF District 1.9 to assist with the site improvements associated with the proposed expansion of Genereux Fine Wood Products. 3) Consider adopting the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-18, which is being created to assist with costs associated with the reclamation of the gravel pit in conjunction with the River Mill subdivision. Councilmember Blonigen expressed his concerns regarding holding a public hearing on land that is not located in the city limits, and he stated he is opposed to the use of TIF to restore the gravel pit. It was noted by staff that this resolution calls for a public hearing only and does not obligate Council to automatically approve the modifications at the public hearing. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Brad Fyle to adopt the resolution setting a public hearing for November 28, 1994, for consideration of modification of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 boundaries, modification of TIF Plans, and adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-18. Motion carried unanimously, with Shirley Anderson absent. SEE RESOLUTION 94-34. Consideration of adopting a resolution supporting annexation of the Robert Krpptbauer property in coniunction with approval of the River i�il�l subdivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that at the previous Council meeting, Joe Abbot, owner of Hawks Bar, withdrew his request for annexation due to concerns regarding future access restrictions to Hawks Bar that could result from residential development in the area. The item was tabled to provide an opportunity for the developer, Joe Abbot, and the County to discuss the access plan. He also noted that under the proposed zoning plan, Hawks Bar would be annexed as a conforming grandfathered use; however, if the property is annexed at a later date, there is no guarantee that Hawks will be granted zoning approvals favorable to his business. Pago 3 0 Council Minutes - 1V14194 Joe Abbot noted that he might consider annexing at this time if the area can be made as safe as possible with turn lanes now rather than waiting until problems occur, requiring a median to be installed in the future. It was noted by Rick Murray, developer of the River Mill subdivision, that the entrance to the subdivision will be approximately 100 ft east of the Hawks Bar entrance. A bypass turn lane going east on Highway 75 will be installed so that traffic waiting to turn into River Mill can be bypassed. The possibility of installation of a concrete left turn lane to help protect turning vehicles was also discussed At this point in the meeting, Joe Abbot reinstated his petition for annexation to the city. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that any motion to approve annexation is subject to approval of the final plat. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Brad Fyle to adopt the resolutions supporting annexation of the Robert Krautbauer property and the Hawks Bar property. Councilmembers Herbst and Blonigen noted their objection to the use of TIF for restoration of the gravel pit. It was their view that the gravel pit area should have been brought up to code prior to petition for annexation to the city. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Dan Blonigen, Clint Herbst. Absent: Shirley Anderson. Motion failed. Applicants Rick Murray and Joe Abbot requested that this item again be considered by Council at their next meeting when all Council members are present. Considerptiop of authorizing use of eminent domain nmwedings to acquire Dundas Road right -of --way. City Administrator Wolfsteller explained that for more than 10 years, the City has planned to extend Dundas Road in a westerly direction to connect to Highway 25. He noted that Dundas Road currently ends at Cedar Street, adjacent to Highway 25, and it has been the City's plan to extend the road to Highway 25 and eliminate the Cedar Street access to Highway 25. Wolfsteller went on to explain that in order to complete this extension, the City needs to acquire a small triangular piece of property lying between Cedar Street and Highway 25. Acquisition has been difficult because it is not clear who owns the land. The property was originally owned by Olga Swanson, who sold approximately 20 acres lying west of Highway 25 to Mel Wolters. After review of the real estate documents by the City Attorney, there is still a question as to whether this strip of land is a remnant parcel still owned by the family members of the Swanson estate or whether it is Page 4 0 Council Minutes - 11/14/94 owned by Mr. Wolters, who made the last purchase from the family. As a result, it is the recommendation of the City Attorney that the City pursue eminent domain proceedings to acquire this strip of land. This procedure would involve the City depositing with the Court system the market value amount of the property in order to obtain title. The Court system would then decide who is the owner of the property and disburse the money appropriately. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to 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. Motion carried unanimously, with Shirley Anderson absent. 10. Consideration of a resolution acceohnq feasibilitv studv, orderine public hearing. and ordering orenaration of plans and specifications for sewer and water utilitv extensions to the southwest area. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that a feasibility study was prepared by the City Engineer in 1992 at the request of Stuart Hoglund and John Michaelis for a project that proposes development of a lift station and other trunk sanitary sewer improvements necessary to provide sanitary sewer access to a large area referred to as the Southwest Area. The study proposed two preliminary alternatives for providing sewer and water service to this area. Subsequent to completion of the study, a third alternative was proposed which allows lateral extension of sewer and water to be run on property lines rather than on the Oakwood Drive right of --way. O'Neill stated that the area benefited directly by the project includes parcels owned by Gehardt Everson, Milton Olson, Stuart Hoglund, Dean Carlson, and John Michaelis. The general area that the lift station will be capable of serving is bounded on the north by I-94, on the east by Sandberg Road and Highway 25, on the south by Fjellberg West Mobile Home Park, and on the west by Oakwood Drive as it turns south. The John Michaelis, Stuart Hoglund, and Dean Carlson properties are located in Monticello Township. Petitions for the improvement have not yet been received from Stuart Hoglund and Milton Olson; however, they have expressed an interest in obtaining access to city sewer and water. O'Neill went on to report that Gould Brothers Chevrolet has received approval from the OAA to expand their facility; however, John Michaelis has indicated that he prefers to develop his facility with access to city water and sewer. He has also stated, however, that in the event the city project does not proceed, he will build a private sewer and water system to serve his needs, O'Neill also noted that D & D Bus has also indicated a need to access city utilities in order to be in compliance with EPA regulations. Page 5 6) Council Minutes - 11/14/94 O'Neill then reviewed the preliminary finance plan for the project and noted that the figures are subject to the assessment hearing process. He noted the lift station and force main cost is $101,000 and is proposed to be paid through the trunk sanitary sewer fee. It is proposed that the trunk sanitary sewer fee he assessed at the time of development, which results in a higher up -front cost for the City but will be recovered over time as the Southwest Area develops. The total proposed trunk fee assessment from the five parcels amounts to $54,625, with the City's share at $46,375. O'Neill went on to review the lateral sewer expense at a total of $28,500. This cost is proposed to be divided evenly among the five properties. O'Neill noted that access to city water is immediately available to the area; however, in the future, it will be necessary to construct a trunk water main to serve the area at a cost of $120,000. Council went on to discuss trunk water fees. Public Works Director John Simola noted that in the past, the City has picked up some looping and oversizing cost. He noted that this project is small enough that it may be easier for the City to absorb the cost of the trunk water expense. It was noted that the City has an established trunk sewer fee and trunk water fee of $1,250 per acre; however, the trunk water fee has not been charged in the past due to the fact that many developers have been paying the entire cost of extending water service to their development Simola also stated that the City has used excess funds from water access fees to fund oversizing in the past. Councilmember Herbst expressed his concerns regarding the City paying for utility extensions to new developments. It was his view that the developers should be paying their share of the cost associated with obtaining services. He also noted that there are unique circumstances in this case that may justify a reduction in the trunk water main charge. Perhaps the fee should be lowered to half of the present $1,250 per acre charge. The City Engineer suggested that the trunk water fee be charged to the property owners at the time they tie into the trunk water service in order to build up funds necessary for future projects, as it would be very difficult to collect the fees once properties are tied in to the system. He also suggested that the trunk water fee be lowered to approximately $625 per acre, and Council could review and raise the fee in the future as needed. Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested guidance from Council on establishing a policy for charging the trunk water fee for developed and undeveloped township parcels that petition to be annexed, and also for developed parcels currently located in the city and now requesting access to services. He suggested that the trunk water fee charged could be phased in with phase I of this project. Council could consider increasing the fee at such time that now development occurs. Page 6 v Council Minutes - 11/14/94 After discussion, it was the consensus of Council that the Milton Olson property should not be charged the trunk water fee, as he has been paying city taxes for many years and yet has no access to utility services. Lastly, ONeill noted that the lateral water expense estimated at $30,000 is also proposed to be split evenly between the five property owners. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that it is his understanding that John Michaelis is agreeable to paying a deposit of $10,000 for the plans and specifications in anticipation of the project moving forward; however, ONeill noted that he will need to verify this with Michaelis. After further discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst to adopt a resolution accepting the feasibility study, ordering a public hearing, and ordering preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water utility extensions to the southwest area, with City staff implementing a trunk water fee of $625, excluding the Milton Olson property. Motion is contingent upon receipt of a $10,000 deposit from Michaelis to cover the cost of preparation of plans and specifications. Motion was seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried, with Shirley Anderson absent. SEE RESOLUTION 94-35. 11. Consideration of entering into sul aereement with Ji -Window ComAanv concerning futgre aceuuisition of Lots 1. 2. and 3. Block 1. Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the right of first refusal agreement between H -Window Company and the City for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition, expired in January 1994. Although no further extensions have been requested by H -Window, at the time the sale of Lot 4 to Miley Cijertsen was considered by Council, H - Window indicated a continued interest in ensuring the availability of Lots 1, 2, and 3 for future expansion of their company but did not want to commit to an immediate purchase of these three lots. Wolfsteller went on to report that he informed Mr. Steve Lemme of H - Window Company that the following four alternatives, and any suggestions presented by H -Window, would be considered by Council on November 14: Council could enter into an option agreement with the H -Window Company on the sale of Lots 1, 2, and 3 at the current asking price $17,500 per acre, with the annual option fee to be calculated at a percentage rate agreed to by Council. Council could establish an option agreement with an annual fee noted in option 01 but also request an additional annual fee to cover the estimated property taxes that would be lost until the sale occurred. Pago 7 0 Council Minutes - 1 V14/94 Council could offer to sell the property to H -Window with terms such as no down payment, 20 -year contract for deed at 6% interest, etc. Council could decide to continue with the right of first refusal on all three lots and direct staff to continue marketing efforts to sell the property to other industrial users. Wolfsteller noted that no comments or offers have been received from H - Window at this time. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council that since City staff has notified H -Window that Council would consider options for securing the availability of Lots 1, 2, and 3 as requested by H -Window but no response has been received from them, the lots should be placed on the open market. Staff was also directed to notify H -Window that if a purchase offer is received from another company for any of these lots, H -Window will no longer be notified and given first chance to purchase the property. 12. Cgnsideration of authorizatign of narticinatine in soil investieation near West 5th Street and Locust Street. Public Works Director John Simola noted that City staff has been working with Burlington Northern, JM Oil, and Riverside Oil for the past two years to have a soil investigation performed to determine whether or not soil and/or ground water contamination exists beneath the bulk oil plant located at West 5th Street and Locust Street north of the City's existing fire hall. Simols reported that soil investigation quotes have been received from American Engineering, Braun Engineering, and B.A. Liesch Associates ranging from $4,500 to $11,500. The quotes are based upon three separate approaches to the investigation and include five sites: The Nelson Oil site, the JM Oil site, Riverside Oil, the City's fire hall site, and the Sunny Fresh Foods site near the existing well. Simola went on to note that on Wednesday, November 9, staff met with all involved parties in an attempt to perform a joint voluntary soil investigation. It was suggested that the City order the investigation work from Braun Engineering at a cost of $4,500, with each party reimbursing the City their $900 share of the project. All parties agreed that this seemed to be a logical approach to the problem; however, Burlington Northern had some concerns about paying for the investigative work on the Nelson Oil site since the last owner is bankrupt. Simola reported that since the meeting on November 8, he has been notified that Sunny Fresh, JM Oil, and Riverside Oil will participate in the voluntary investigation. Burlington Northern will be investigating on their own in the area of the Sunny Fresh wells, as they didn't feel they should participate in testing of the Nelson Oil site since the last owner is still Pago 8 9) Council Minutes - 11/14/94 considered a solvent company, which would result in the City's share of the investigation cost being increased to $1,800. They have agreed, however, tc allow the City access to the site should we decide to investigate it. Simola reported that since this site is the oldest bulk plant in Monticello, knowing whether or not this area is contaminated for an additional $900 would be money well spent by the City. Councilmember Herbst asked who would be responsible for cleaning up the Nelson Oil site should the City find the area to be severely contaminated. Simola responded that the findings would be sent to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and they would handle the situation. After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Clint Herbst to authorize the soil investigation by Braun Engineering at a cost of $4,500, with the City paying the $900 cost for the fire hall site and the $900 for the Nelson Oil site. Motion carried unanimously, with Shirley Anderson absent. Staff was directed to notify Burlington Northern that the City would like to be reimbursed for the soil investigation at the Nelson Oil site. Shirley Anderson arrived at this point in the meeting. 13. Consideration of reviewine third ouarter liouor store financial reports. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that overall sales for the first nine months are up $46,000 over the same period last year, but the cost of goods sold is also rising, which resulted in the gross profit actually being lowered by $1,300 compared to last year. However, Wolfsteller explained that expenses of operation have also decreased, which resulted in an operating income increase of approximately $2,600 for a total of $117,391 for the first nine months. He noted that this operating income amounts to approximately a 10.3% return on total sales, which is very acceptable for an o11 sale store. Wolfsteller also noted that total expenses so far this year are approximately $4,000 lower than last year due to a change in the City's dram shop liability insurance, which has saved the City over $6,000 annually. Joe Hartman, Hi -Way Liquors Manager, stated that he is pleased with the third quarter reports and will continue to watch the gross profits. He also noted that prices have continued to stay competitive with the surrounding area. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to approve the third quarter liquor store financial report as presented. Page 9 Council Minutes - 11/14/94 14. Consideration of authorizing appraisals of land for bio -solids application. Public Works Director Simola reported that for the past several years, staff has been investigating sites within a 6 -mile radius of the wastewater treatment plant for the purpose of future bio -solids applications. He noted that staff has considered leasing as well as purchasing property, and Council is asked to authorize staff to obtain appraisals for one or two sites at a cost of approximately $700 per site, which would give staff a basis on which to make an offer. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to authorize an appraisal on one or two sites at a cost of $700 per site. Motion carried unanimously. lb. Consideration of workshop or public hearing on the wastewater facilities Wan. John Simola stated that Council previously authorized OSM and RCM to jointly prepare a facilities plan for the expansion of the City's wastewater treatment facilities or the addition of another facility at an alternate location. He noted that the plan addresses four alternatives for expansion or an additional treatment plant at costs ranging from $9.9 million to $13.1 million and also outlines phased construction at costs ranging from $6.6 million to $8 million. Incremental improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant in the area of $126,000 are also being considered. At this time, Council is asked to either hold a workshop session to discuss the plan and then schedule a public hearing or discuss the plan at a public hearing. Simola noted that a public hearing is recommended before final acceptance of the plan in order to lay the groundwork for participation from the State of Minnesota such as a low interest construction loan. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to wait until the newly - elected Council members take office in 1996 and a public hearing will be scheduled at that time. 16. Consideration of amending building permit and utility access fee structure. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that City staff has surveyed a number of communities and found that Monticello's fees are well below the average charged by other communities. He noted that fees have not been increased since 1988, which results in the need for a relatively large increase at this time. O'Neill went on to review the building permit fee survey, which was based on the hypothetical construction of a 1300 sq ft rambler. He noted that Monticello's current inspection fee for this type of construction is $642, Page 10 0 Council Minutes - 11/14/94 which is 90% of the rate recommended under the Uniform Building Code. Staff proposes that the City increase the fee by charging 100% of the rate recommended under the UBC, or $602 in this case, as do the majority of the cities surveyed. Similarly, the City charges only 10% of the building permit fee for plan review, and it is proposed that we adjust the plan review fee to equal 50% of the building permit fee. ONeill noted that in the past the plan review fee remained low due to the additional $200 expense of the survey requirement. This allowed Monticello to stay competitive with surrounding cities. O'Neill continued by proposing that the water access fee be increased from $300 to $500, as the current $300 fee is well below the average of $632. In addition, the increase as proposed would also result in a 66% increase in the hookup fees associated with commercial and industrial users. It is also proposed that the sewer access fee be increased from $300 to $1,200 to help fund improvements to our sewer system and a portion of the design cost or expansion for the wastewater treatment plant. This increase would again result in a concurrent increase in fees charged to industrial and commercial users. The new fee would place Monticello below what Rogers and Elk River charge but higher than fees charged by Buffalo. O'Neill noted that the Industrial Development Committee reviewed the proposed changes to the sewer and water access fees and voted to request that Council maintain the current fees for industrial users; however, if Council feels an increase is necessary, the IDC requests that it not exceed the amount Buffalo charges. 011ie Koropchak also reviewed the IDC recommendation and its basis. Public Works Director Simola added that for those companies who create jobs, the City can reimburse companies through methods such as tax increment financing, low interest loans, cash incentives, etc., yet keep the present formula intact to ensure that industries pay their fair share. Lastly, O'Neill explained that the City Attorney is currently working on completing the details for the storm sewer access fee, and the total projected building permit fee noted on the fee survey does not include the estimated $600 storm sewer access fee per lot. Mayor Fyle commented that Rogers and Elk River's fees are at the top of the survey and do not appear to be affecting development in that area. It was his view the fees proposed were fair to industry and residential development and would place Monticello closer to fees charged by surrounding communities. Tom Holthaus of Value Plus Homes stated that he disagrees with the proposed plan review fee. He noted that the cost of having the plans drawn is substantially less than the proposed plan review fee. Page 11 011- Council Minutes - 11/14/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan Blonigen to adopt the proposed fee structure changes as follows: Building permit fee 100% of 1988 Uniform Building Code Water access fee 1" line 1-1/4" 1-1/2" 2" 3" 4" 8" 8" $ 500 + material cost (incl. meter) $ 710 + material cost (incl. meter) $ 920 + material cost (incl. meter) $1,170 + material cost (incl. meter) $1,500 + material cost (incl. meter) $2,000 + material cost (incl. meter) $2,500 + material cost (incl. meter) $3,335 + material cost (incl. meter) It was the consensus of the Council that the new fee schedule will take effect January 1, 1995. Any building permit applications received after January 1, 1995, will be charged according to the new fee schedule; in addition, anyone who paid for a building permit in 1994 but is not hooked up to sewer and water by January 1, 1995, will be billed an additional amount equaling the new access rates. Motion carried unanimously. 17. QnLideotion of adopting it uolicv on water service disconnectiong. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that during the past few years when the Council considers adoption of the delinquent assessment roll for non-payment of utility bills, concerns have been expressed over allowing individual properties to accumulate such large unpaid bills without disconnecting their water service. He noted that the current sewer and water ordinance does allow for disconnection for non-payment of quarterly bills; however, because of the large number of delinquent accounts, a large amount of the sewer and water department's time would be spent attempting to disconnect service to homes and businesses. Consequently, the City has been certifying delinquent accounts as special assessments Page 12 0 recommended rate Mechanical residential - $30 base + $2 per future commercial - $50 base + $2 per fixture Plan review 50% of the building permit fee Plumbing Residential - $20 + $2 per fixture Commercial - $40 + $2 per fixture Sewer access fee Residential - $1,200 All others - $1,200 per unit Storm sewer access Pending Water access fee 1" line 1-1/4" 1-1/2" 2" 3" 4" 8" 8" $ 500 + material cost (incl. meter) $ 710 + material cost (incl. meter) $ 920 + material cost (incl. meter) $1,170 + material cost (incl. meter) $1,500 + material cost (incl. meter) $2,000 + material cost (incl. meter) $2,500 + material cost (incl. meter) $3,335 + material cost (incl. meter) It was the consensus of the Council that the new fee schedule will take effect January 1, 1995. Any building permit applications received after January 1, 1995, will be charged according to the new fee schedule; in addition, anyone who paid for a building permit in 1994 but is not hooked up to sewer and water by January 1, 1995, will be billed an additional amount equaling the new access rates. Motion carried unanimously. 17. QnLideotion of adopting it uolicv on water service disconnectiong. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that during the past few years when the Council considers adoption of the delinquent assessment roll for non-payment of utility bills, concerns have been expressed over allowing individual properties to accumulate such large unpaid bills without disconnecting their water service. He noted that the current sewer and water ordinance does allow for disconnection for non-payment of quarterly bills; however, because of the large number of delinquent accounts, a large amount of the sewer and water department's time would be spent attempting to disconnect service to homes and businesses. Consequently, the City has been certifying delinquent accounts as special assessments Page 12 0 Council Minutes - 11/14/94 against individual properties, including an additional $25 administrative fee, rather than disconnecting service. Wolfsteller went on to explain that Council could adopt a disconnection policy for larger delinquent utility accounts with a $500 limit. Any delinquent account of this size would result in disconnection of service. Accounts smaller than $500 would continue to be certified to the property taxes. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to adopt the proposed disconnection policy establishing $500 as the amount allowed to accrue on utility accounts before the Public Works Department disconnects service. Motion carried unanimously. 18. Consideration pf final navment to Rvan Contracting. Inc.. for Proiect 93- 02C. Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to make final payment to Ryan Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $44,145.14 pending delivery of the required warranty and documentation. Motion carried unanimously. 19. Review of bids and consideration of award of contract for nurchase of 125 kw emergency generator for the water department. The Public Works Director Simola reported that on November 9 three bids were received for purchase of a 125 kw emergency generator for the water department as follows: Flaherty Equipment Corp. $40,648 Interstate Detroit Diesel, Inc. $36,450 Ziegler Power Systems $28,435 Simola noted that it has been verified that the generator proposed by the low bidder, Ziegler Power Systems, does meet specifications. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to award the contract for purchase of the 125 kw emergency generator to Ziegler Power Systems in the amount of $28,435. Motion carried unanimously. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 13 0 Council Agenda - 11/28/94 3A. Consideration of entering into an ap 4wment with H•Windog Comnanv concerning i6ture acquisition of Lots 1, 2. and & Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Second Addition. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting, this item was on the Council's agenda for consideration; and since no one from H -Window was in attendance at the meeting, it was decided that the lots in question would be put on the market and become available to anyone. After informing Mr. Steve Lemme of H -Window of the Council's action, Mr. Lemme indicated that the reason no one was attending the Council meeting was that they thought there were going to be additional discussions and options considered before the Council considered this subject. Although I believe I was fairly clear in my letters to Mr. Lemme and through phone conversations with him that the Council was going to consider the future status of these lots at our Council meeting November 14, Mr. Lemme did request that this item again be placed on the agenda at our next Council meeting in that he or a representative of the company will be in attendance to discuss this with the Council. Based on my recent conversation with Mr. Lemme, it appears they are not happy with the options that are available, as in their mind, there is really only one option being presented, and that is to purchase the property. I again indicated that if H -Window had any type of proposal they wish to submit concerning these lots, they should do so at this meeting, as I did not have any other ideas other than the four that have been previously presented. In an effort to avoid further duplication, we are enclosing the agenda item from the last meeting outlining the four options that I could think of for Council consideration. Unless additional information or background is provided by a representative of H -Window, I know of no other options for the Council to consider at this time. Copy of previous Council agenda item. gOV-20--34 M O N 12 :07F T H E N W I N D O W C O P 0 1 tMt rGr00�ArrtmuP P.O. Box 208 .1324 Fit Oakwood Drto • Mom, MN SW Phone' (612) 29563M • Fere (612) 2954856 Novep+ber 23, 1994 Rick :oolfsteller City Mministrator City of Monticello 2$0 Root Broadway P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 RB1 Lots 1, 2 and 3 Bleak 1 Oakwood Second Addition Dear Rick$ In regard to your letter dated November 15 and per our discussion on the phone today, I am Writing to confirm the following. 1). The H Window Company is very interested in purchasing the three (3) lots adjacent to our existing land. 2). We Will make a proposal on MondeNovember 28th for consideration at the City Council Mooting. 3). The proposal will likely be based on OPTION 1 and OPTION 2 identified in your letter of November 15, 1994. An option agreement between the H window Company and the City of Monticello with an annual option tee (beeed on an agreed upon purchaae price and a reaaoneblo annual interest rate) and an additional annual payment for estimated property taxes. 4). We would obviously desire to have you agree that these lots bo protected from any other potential buyer until we con finalise a purchase option that is mutually agreeable to both parties involved. 5). please use this letter as a firm letter of intent to ilnaliss a forthcoming purchase agroement. SInC sly ' Steven Lome cc& xnut Plakk (Chairmn) Prom Idont /Genera l Nama-jet Bra4 Pyle (Mayor) C'0�� Council Agenda - 11/14/94 i . Consideration of gnte-rina into an agreement with H-Winlioly Comoanv concernina fixture acauisitiongf Lots 1.2 and 3. Bloch 1. Oakwood Industrial Parks Second Addition (R.W.) A. 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, 6, 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 Gjertsen 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. Stove Lemme, President of H -Window Company, indicated that the company would not be in a position to purchase Lot 4 at this time. However, Mr. Lemme 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. Lemme noted that if these three lots were not available in the future, it could have an effect on their future expansion plans 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 lots to be purchased at reasonable terms by H -Window Company, 3!i 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 $17,600 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 $79,360 until such time as H -Window Company would desire to complete the purchase. 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) lots, the annual real estate taxes payable would be estimated at $1,160, which would increase the total operation cost to H -Window Company to approximately $6,911. 0 Council Agenda - 11/14/94 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 terms 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 say 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, l 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 I noted earlier, another small company looking for expansion in the next couple years has already requested the same treatment for one of these lots. 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 0 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 to 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 industry 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, I 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. Copy of an option agreement; Copy of a right of first refusal agreement. e 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, Bloch 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 liens 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 (1/2) of the real estate tax payment ($575) shall be payable to the CITY OF H-WINDOW.CON: 1114/94 Page le MONTICELLO on or before May 15, 1995, and the balance ($675) 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 Admimetrator, and Brad Fyle, Mayor, on behalf of the CITY OF MONTICELLO. Notary Public H•WINDOW.CON; 11/4194 Pogo 2 (OA 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 INDO W.0 ON: 11/4194 Page 3 3 A 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. 1. 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: 11/4/94 Page 1 0 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 11:89 p.m. on DATED: DATED: f 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: 11/4194 Page 2 �14 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. 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 Bo: 1147 Monticello, MN 88382 H-WINDOWAGR: 11/4/84 Page 3�A err "A" 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-WINDOWAOR: 11/4/94 Paged 0 Council Agenda - 11128/94 Public Hearing and consideration of adopting a resolution relatbw to the modification of thg Redevelopment Plan fgr Redevelgoment Proiect No. 1. the modification of the Plans relating to TIF District Nos. 1-1 throutrh 1-17. snegificaltv TIF District No. 1.9. all located within Redevelopment Prosect No. 1, $nd the approval and ado on of the TIF Plans relating thereto (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing may be opened for comments and questions relating to the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the plans relating to all existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts, specifically TIF District No. 1-9. On October 28, 1994, the modification of the plans for approval and adoption were distributed to the Wright County, School District No. 882, and Hospital District taxing jurisdictions satisfying the Minne to Statutory 30 -day notice requirement. On November 9, 1994, the HRA adopted a resolution modifying the existing plana, specifically the plan for TIF District No. 1-9. On November 14, the City Council called for the said public hearing. The public hearing notice appeared in the Monticello Times, November 17 and November 24, 1994, satisfying the Minnesota Statutory public hearing notate requirement, MODIFICATION OF THE PLANS RELATING TO THE EXISTING TIF DISTRICTS AND SPECIFICALLY THE PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-9. Normally when Council adopts a resolution approving the modification of the plans for existing TIF Districts, the district budgets remain as originally adopted; however, with the adoption of the enclosed resolution, the budget for TIF District No. 1-9 will increase by $30,000. This 10 -year Economic District was certified in February 1990 for Bill and Barbara Tapper, dba Genereux Fine Wood Products, Inc., 212 Chelsea Road. Legal description: Lot 4, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. Council Agenda - 11/28/94 The $30,000 up -front assistance for site improvements will be disbursed from the surplus funds of TIF District Nos. 1-3, Fulfillment Systems, Inc.; 1-5, Construction Five; and/or 1-6, Raindance. Since these districts and District 1-9 were certified before June 1, 1990, there is no HACA loss. It is anticipated that the surplus funds will be fully reimbursed by the tax increment generated from the expansion, the proposed expansion being 18,000 sq ft production area and a second -floor mezzanine. The expansion is projected to create lb new jobs. The TIF assistance will be used as equity for financing the $700,000 expansion. Other sources of funds will be the bank, $340,000; Small Business Administration (SBA), $280,000; and the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF), $50,000. Construction is anticipated to commence the middle of April 1995. An amendment to the existing Private Redevelopment Contract is being drafted by Holmes & Graven to include the $30,000 TIF assistance. Following public comments and Council discussion, the public hearing may be closed. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION The enclosed resolution for adoption affirms the above information and states the proposed project would not occur solely through private investment and the modified TIF Plan conforms with the general plan of the municipality. Additionally, it affirms that District No. 1-9 is modified in the public interest because the TIF assistance discourages the company flrom moving to another state, increases the state employment base, and preserves and enhances the state tax base. Lastly, the resolution authorizes City officials to implement the TIF Plan. Council is now requested to consider and take action of the following alternatives. 1. A motion to adopt the resolution relating to the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the Plans for TIF District Nos. 1.1 through 1.17, specifically the plan for TIF District No. 1-9, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the approval and adoption of the TIF Plans relating thereto. Council Agenda - 1V28/94 2. A motion to deny adoption of the said resolution. 3. A motion to table the agenda item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With the assumption of no negative comments from the public and a negotiated amendment to the Private Redevelopment Contract, stats' recommends Alternative #1. The project itself meets the community overall economic development objectives and the Minnesota Statutory requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the modified TIF District No. 1-9 budget; Public hearing notice; Resolution for adoption. It is anticipated that Phase I will proceed at the commencement of the lx�ir cs and Phase II will proceed as additional irc nt becomes available it-,: development. 1.36 6) (As modified August 13, 1990) BUDGET (As modified August 13. 1990) (As modified November 28. 19941 Land Acquisition $ 74,000.00 $ 74,000.00 Site Improvements 13.500.00 45500.00 Subtotal S 89,500.00 $119,500.00 Contingency 0.00 2,465.00 Administradon 14,000.00 14,000.00 Professional Services 6,900.00 9,400.00 Capitalized Interest 26,600.00 31,633.00 Discount 3.000.00 3.000.00 TOTAL Financing L14.9= District No. S180,000,00 Tax increment 1-10 (As adopted April 9. 1990) BUDGET PHASE I PHASE 1I Land Acquisition $120,000 $ 0 On -Site Utilities/Grading/Landscaping 65,000 . 0 Public Improvements 0 55,000 Soils corrections - 0 _Q Subtotal $185,000 555,000 Contingency 0 0 Administration 15,000 10,000 Professional Services 10"000 5.000 Subtotal 5210.000 $70,000 Capitalized Interest 47,000 14,000 Discount 3"000 1.000 TOTAL 5260,000 i85,000 It is anticipated that Phase I will proceed at the commencement of the lx�ir cs and Phase II will proceed as additional irc nt becomes available it-,: development. 1.36 6) W b N.wvad by RN Wa COe.la/Iby k, I MaN4bSY BWICa10 Tynet Lab Tk Mlurty PBW m. 11MaEly. DK. 1.. IYW to raLmned Rte wY wld ftww ISM Nb— Yr tM —Alp d b16r. b d of Ora.kr. ter wwYW A veld dawaln M b. Mamcaao-ft Lak.0 Aft howl O do COMmbw 16.1 406peer I OI D .NA BW. Mwbt.b. MN Am oro— Ile.0 m N).a wry w .1 ON. ane IMr BmRdo, W W313 TOO: 6124162.2662 PkN. 10.17 6 24, Imm) artw.srr W mW AIM • m . 10 .welder wtl drier- As /Mneed A mW d M M.dbd ROMapw.b Rin brWitt✓owewe Rived ND T artE e Barr Br..b.Y, bat. 6.nk PN.6—W In ft Ta W.—Ed Ph -Cb V Peru 1. Tu k —.W Flrl-0 DIMW Ili 1.1 trwryl 1 -ib, ■ gmgp b beSWW09.00. cl M Clb A.eYibe.r a1 La NO mA Low M/1mft 1R.piQa, I..a1a0 n Ru d4'dCam AXw*dwodatlm COY � „ M dt� 7 f Tlr pripwq OwrpYMb Ta Inatwe No. 1-16 Y w Iibwn: wa n Re d lAkwve.. I1d. d PID Nnmaer: 161600162200 aN, aaY d MrrreotR YrpwN MWH.da; Merry.tle Err tw. Pm Number: 2134M 02304 FrOler YwwmYwiraoer 4armIpo br lwrldfywt of a prcel b W 6.kW d w T. kmwlere d Fkwrmdno Dubh td 1.11.Iq�T. awakrd wern M .641. w V. City Aaekwedw. Carew vite Ad ft vd. Wan wry Mw -m- O A&N.11db.41mey e{Oeerdhl—1 AW Views blew Nowawmra M i.6na Ol MMMdpw 11 I66a ' fweMw9 fes M wneeRwWR b m 6. M tlN MfeAm �. N Bcad E. lagan. RwW.n :E OF APPLICATION UA a" G~ VIA OddwlV MWAAW., Outa d hCtwwKV on Odobw 27,104, W pn*W-m wan a.". W.Q.dR.IlwiY. Ndimal Aeaodlln.' her b maw m Cie Cernpa.aw of M C—", BUY Uom. 6.106, b mrMpe b .wei.date Yarquoto H.W. hb . . Mwppee a" lb.W laN, lk..k" .ktyn Pwk, &oWdyn Vwk. M—sati, UmoAfe Bw* M."U B.M Ibftknawl, N.0 d Ataad"W, u k L.IW", Lek*A%. U~awa, MmgwU Bank mita bw Mm.atd. M -W. LIM— tk Merpww Bank a.ea. Cies+ Nam PraP., eve. R MwawWR ne AaeeCNe.n, 61tak.pN. MNMaOf1 �Irdar Ib name .n Ad — rw0Wn Va.M. WIaY.de. ah.M MW baltka M C.rtl.k. t0 Wwde. U s c ICgCJ w OW Faders D.D.GI ywwn Aa wN W re Curwiry. Tle rlpba r6 •{par O.w Onw d 30 -day p.ed b.9" Nwiernbar 0, 1204 wd or d q N .Ppkr— mry dp N by eLftd" atl6ert tdmyrrtlN 4=01, ICw11n d atb n G E or C.mw.bw. Mwadwn Via 0 7. Bumf 100, 2]/b 0." Arwra Nww� da.l. I mt.tlort Y rm a6a duY10 rapuw bNNw M WQL,M Ower Labvlft laln46., Mm..da M. WAAm s.* M.b.wi Mnecwp, Mewrads Merpvdlt berik Mpetd Mmarrtd, Mmuwa :><wean MrOuab 6rwt Nw Rapes Nam Ftpw, klYnweta MwOtreO. W ClrwtO.a. Nwww ANIMISM r \ DlldrdpFF WllflaWa Safe. Secure. full un'ke hankim ,. BY ORDER OF THE CT' COUNGL -Fed Wom".. car Adieritrdw Pb 1762•, tWQ , � � Iwevlunw w 11r nmla aa. / Ny G)- 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. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-17, SPECIFICALLY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 9, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOP'T'ION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING THERETO. BE rr RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Rtes. 1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City that the Authority modify, by increased Project costs, Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the 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 approve the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. 1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council has investigated the facts with respect thereto, a proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan (The "Modified Redevelopment Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely the increased Project costs to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1- 1 through 1-17, specifically Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 (collectively referred to as the "Plans"). 1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, specifically Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdiction over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1, and to modify Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through I- 17, specifically Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 and approve the Plans relating thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper. 2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, specifically Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, is intended and, in the judgement of the Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-17. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 does meet the requirements of an Economic Development District pursuant to section 469.174, subdivision 12, in that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which the Authority and City finds to be in the public interest because: (a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or (b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or (c) it will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. 2.05. The Council further finds, determines and declares that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 0 2.06. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby modified, and that Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, specifically Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 are hereby modified, contingent upon the execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper. Section 3. Action of Respective Plans. 3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date are hereby approved, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper shall be placed on file in the office of the City Administrator. Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financina Plans. 4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advisor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator. Dated: November 28. 1994 Attest: City Administrator (SEAL) Mayor EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 as required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: 1) Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 is an "Economic Development District" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 consists of one parcel which does not meet the requirements of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district or soils condition district. The Authority and the City find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 to be in the public interest because: (a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or (b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or (c) it will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2) Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the costs for this development. Due to the cost of site preparation and lender requirements for subordination, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. 3) Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, consists of an 18,000 square foot expansion of the company's 26,650 square foot office/manufacturing facility. This project is expected to begin in 1995 and be substantially completed by January 2, 1996. 4) Finding regarding the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if applicable. The Council does = elect the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b). 5) Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 was originally established on February 26, 1990 with a ten year duration. Therefore, the Tax Increment Financing District will expire on February 26, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for current expenditures. Council Agenda - l LW94 Public Hearing and consideration of adoutino a resolution relating to the modification of thg Redevelonmgnt Plan for Redeyelopment Prolect No. 1, the modification of the Plans relating to TIF Districts Nos. 1.1 thropgh 1-17, and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-18, all located pvithin Redevelonment Prosect No. 1, and the annroval and adoption of the TIF Plan relating thereto. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing may be opened for comments and questions relating to the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the plans of the existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts, and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-18 and the approval of its plan. On October 28, 1994, the modification of the existing plans and the approval of the plan relating to TIF District No. 1-18 were distributed to the county, school, and hospital taxing jurisdictions satisfying the Minnesota Statutory 30 - day notice requirement. On November 9, 1994, the HRA adopted a resolution modifying the plan and boundaries of the Redevelopment Project No. 1, modifying the plans of the existing districts, and approving the plan for TIF District No. 1-18. On November 14, 1994, the City Council called for the said public hearing. The public hearing notice appeared in the Monello Times, November 17 and November 24, 1994, satisfying the Minnesota Statutory public hearing notice requirement. ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT NO. 1.18 AND APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE PLAN. TIF District No. 1.18, a 12 -year Soils Condition District, is being established to assist with costs associated with the reclamation of a mined gravel project. The soils corrections of $102,000 and the administrative cost of $11,333 are shown in the budget of the TIF District No. 1.18 Plan. Although a Soils Condition District has a maximum life of 12 years, it is anticipated that District No. 1.18 will be decertified in 1999 or upon collection of tax increment sufficient to cover the $102,000. Council Agenda - 11/28/94 The developers, Rick and Bob Murray of Residential Development, Inc., have indicated the development is not economically feasible without the assistance of TIF, as the total grading costs associated with the site are approximately $411,000. Of the $411,000, $132,000 are costs directly associated with reclamation of the mined gravel pit. Of the $46,700 HACA Penalty, which is the Net Present Value (NPV) at 5.5% interest, is a loss to the City. The HRA by Minnesota Statutory can transfer the $13,000 administrative costs (NPV) to the City. In other words, the net loss to the City is approximately $33,000. The Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Value of $218,240 shown in the TIF Plan is based on the estimated market value of single -homes, twin -homes, and two commercial developments completed for taxes payable in the year 2000. TIF District No. 1-18 boundaries will encompass the 72 -acre Kraubauer property. It is necessary to excavate, grade, spread, and respread the topsoils of the entire area in order to restore the mined gravel pit as referenced in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Braun Intertec. The entire development consists of the reclamation of the mined gravel pit and the construction of 64 single -homes, 48 twin -homes (96 unite), 2 commercial developments, and a 7 - acre park. The entire development is scheduled for completion in 1999. The mined gravel pit, in itself, is located within the 35 -acre Monticello Township parcel of the Krautbauer property. The first draft of the Private Redevelopment Contract between the HRA and Residential Development, Inc., was completed by Holmes & Graven. The HRA understood and approved TIF assistance in an amount not -to -exceed $102,000, not the Net Present Value (NPV) of $102,000. Additionally, the contract outlines commencement and completion dates for construction of the minimum improvements in three phases. Additionally, each phase outlines the number of unite for construction and the estimated market value per unit. The TIF payments to the developer shall be paid in February and August of each year as per a payment schedule or 90% of the generated tax increment. The contract has not been executed. MODIFICATION OF THE PLANS RELATING T D TIF DISTRICTS NOS. 1.1 THROUGH 1.17. With the modification of the plans for all existing districts, the individual district budgets remain as originally approved or as previously modified. The existing districts are modified each time a new district is established. Council Agenda - 11/28/94 MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN NO. 1. In order to approve and adopt the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-18, the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Plan must be modified for enlargement of the geographic area to include the 72 acres of the Krautbauer property. However, approval of this modification is subject to the effective date relating to the orderly annexation of the 35 -acre Monticello Township parcel currently owned by Krautbauer. The orderly annexation becomes effective upon ratification by the Minnesota Municipal Board. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION The enclosed resolution for adoption affirms the above information and states the proposed project would not occur solely through private investment and the TIF Plan conforms with the general plan of the municipality. Additionally, it affirms that District No. 1-18 meets the requirements of a Soils Condition District and is established in the public interest. The district consists of unusual terrain and soil deficiencies for 80 percent of the acreage in the district, which requires substantial filling, grading, removal, or remedial action, or other physical preparation for use. Lastly, the resolution authorizes City officials to implement the TIF Plan and allows the option to issue a bond. It is anticipated that a representative(s) from Residential Development, Inc., will be present at the meeting to address Council questions. Upon hearing comments from the general public, the public hearing may be closed. Council members are then requested to consider and take action of the following alternatives. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion to adopt the resolution relating to the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modification of the Plans for TIF District Nos. 1.1 through 1-17, and the approval and adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1.18. 2. A motion to deny adoption of the said resolution. 3. A motion to table action for adoption of the resolution until the December 12, 1994, Council meeting. Council Agenda - 11/28/84 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #3 because the Redevelopment Project No. 1 geographic area cannot be enlarged until the Minnesota Municipal Board ratifies the Krautbauer orderly annexation, and this has not occurred. Secondly, the Private Redevelopment Contract between the HRA and Residential Development, Inc., has not been executed. However, the project itself does meet the Minnesota Statutory TIF requirements. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of TIF District No. 1-18 Plan; Public hearing notice; Resolution for adoption; Site grading costs and comments by the City Engineer relating to the site grading. (As adopted November 28, 1994) Soil Corrections $102.000.00 Subtotal $102,000.00 Administration 11333.00 TOTAL $113,333.00 (As adopted November, 1982) Subsection 1.11. Lmad.Me. All new and/or existing development on land identified on Exhibits I -C through I -F as 'property to be acquired' or 'possible acquisition' will be subject to the following uses and requirements: 1. Uses Permitted in Designated Areas. a. Iasl—All permitted, accessory and conditional uses as specified in Chapters 15 and 16, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, relating to I-1(Light Industry) and I-2 (Heavy Industry) zones. Planned Unit Developments, where applicable, will be considered. b. W__ousina/Residential All permitted, accessory and conditional uses as specified in Chapters 8 and 10, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, relating to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and R -B (Residential -Business) zones. Planned Unit Developments, where feasible, will be encouraged. C. Downtown/Commercial--All permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in accordance with the provisions governing all W zones and including R -B, providing however that any commercial development in an R -B zone shall be coordinated with the goals and objectives of the Housing Plan. Planned Unit Developments, especially in the B-3 zone (Highway Business), will be encouraged. 2. Additional Provisions. a. Sa mmia¢—Because the overall appearance of a community contributes to the ability to attract development, more restrictive screening requirements may be implemented if the name of the development would yield visual pollution/blight. 1.40 V SECTION XIX TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-18 Subsection 19.1. Statement of Obiectives. See Subsection 1.4 of the Redevelopment Plan. Subsection 19.2. The Redevelov_ment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.1 through 1.20. Subsection 19.3. Description of the Project. The project, located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, consists of the development of 83 single- family homes, 96 twin -family homes and 2 commercial lots. This project is expected to begin in 1996 and be completed by 1998. Subsection 19.4. Panels to be included in Tax Increment Fna_ncina District No. 1-18. The following property is located in the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota PID Number: 155-500-182200 2134000-182304 Subsection 19.5. Parcels in Acau's_ ice. The Authority may acquire the property listed in Subsection 19.4, which property is located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. Properties identified for acquisition may be acquired either by the City or the Authority in order to accomplish public improvements listed in Subsection 1.11 of the Redevelopment Plan hereof. Subsection 19.6. Development Activity in Tax increment Financing District No. 1-19 for Which Contracts will be Signed. The following contract(s) will be entered into by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the person(s) named below: J r Prior to the certification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, a Development and Assessment Agreement will be executed between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello and Residential Development, Inc. Subsection 19.7. Other Specific Development Ea=ed to Occur within Redevelopment Project No. 1. (As specific development is expected to occur, it will be inserted into this Subsection.) Subsection 19.8. Estimated Public lm2mvement Costs and Supportive Data. See Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan for estimated costs associated with Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 19.9. Sources of Revenue. Land acquisition costs, and other costs outlined in Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments. Subsection 19.10. Original Tax CaMcity. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd. 1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the original tax capacity value for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 is estimated to be S 1,090, based on the tax capacity value of all taxable real property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 4, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the County Auditor of Wright County (the 'County Auditor") shall certify in each year the amount by which the original tax capacity value has increased or decreased as a result in a change in tax-exempt property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, reduction or enlargement of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. la any year in which the current tax capacity value of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 declines below the original tax capacity value, no tax capacity value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Authority. Subsectionl9.11. Estimated Captured Tax Capacill Value. Pursuant to Section 469.173, Subd. 1, and Section 469.177, Subd. 2, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the estimated captured tax capacity value in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 at final completion will approximate $218,240. This estimated annual captured capacity value is determined in the following manner: Estimated Tax Capacity Value at Final Completion $219,330 Original Tax Capacity 1.090 Captured Tax Capacity Value S218,240 XiX-2 Subsection 19.12. Type of Ta:_ Increment Financing stria. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, is pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 19, a Soils Condition District as described below: 'Soils Condition Disnict' means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that the following conditions exist: (a) Unusual terrain, the presence of hazardous substances, pollution or contaminants, or soil deficiencies for 80 percent of the acreage in the district require substantial filling, grading, removal, or remedial action, or other physical preparation for use; or (b) The estimated cost of the physical preparation under clause (1), but excluding costs directly related to roads as defined in section 160.01 and local improvements as described in sections 429.021, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (7), (11), and (12), and 430.01, exceeds the fair market value of the land before completion of the preparation. Subsection 19.13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -IS. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 will be twelve (12) years from the approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Subsection 19.14. Proposed Development Analysis. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.173, Subd. 1(7), specific findings and analysis have been completed relating to the proposed development in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. Additional relevant documentation relating to the findings and analysis will be on file and available for review in the City Administrator's office. Subsection 19.13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. Test No. 1: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. If the construction is a result of Tax Increment Financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. XIX -3 ( Test No. 2: Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is SO due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 would be as follows if Test No. I (the "but for" test) was not met: Entity Wright County City of Monticello I.S.D. No. 882 I Hospital District Tax Base Payable 1994 548,638,744 $15,583,604 $19,344,524 %23,874,025 Entity Wright County City of Monticello I.S.D. No. 882 Hospital District TOTALS IIHPACT ON TAX BASE Original Net Future Net Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Payable 1994 Payable 1994 $1,090 5219,330 $1,090 5219,330 $ 1,090 $219,330 $ 1,090 $219,330 IMPACT ON TAX CAPACITY MML RATES Gross Tax Rate 1994 31.965 17.530 60.634 2.744 112.873 Potential Taxes 569,760 38,257 132,328 5.989 $246.334 The impacts were based upon the tax capacity value obtained in the year 2000 per the proposed buildout schedule. It is anticipated that, at this level, the bonds would be repaid and the district decertified. Subsection 19.16. Cash Flow Assumptions and Analysis. A. Future Tax_ Capacity. The estimated future tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 at final completion as determined by the City Assessor is 5219,330, payable in the year 2000. XIX -4 G) Captured Nei. Tax Capacity., District % Payable 1994 of Entity 5218,240 .449'% 5218,240 1.400% 5218,240 1.128% %218,240 .914% l Potential Taxes 569,760 38,257 132,328 5.989 $246.334 The impacts were based upon the tax capacity value obtained in the year 2000 per the proposed buildout schedule. It is anticipated that, at this level, the bonds would be repaid and the district decertified. Subsection 19.16. Cash Flow Assumptions and Analysis. A. Future Tax_ Capacity. The estimated future tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 at final completion as determined by the City Assessor is 5219,330, payable in the year 2000. XIX -4 G) B. Projected Timing. The payment of the first tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 will be received by the Authority in 1998. C. Original Tax Canacity. The County Assessor's records show the original tax capacity of Tax Inurement Financing District No. 1-18 to be $1,090 for taxes in 1993 and payable in 1994. D. Gross Tax C=city Rate. The original local tax nate is 112.873 percent. This tate is estimated for taxes payable in 1994, although the actual rate to be certified will be for taxes payable in 1995. E. Tax Increment. Total tax increment at the completion of all redevelopment activity has been calculated assuming a static gross tax capacity rate and a valuation increased by zero percent (0%) compounded aataially. F. C=iW PMCnditure,q, Capital expenditures are a summary of the items associated with the public improvement costs set forth in Subsection 10.8 and are to be financed from the proceeds of the Bonds and tax increment revenue. Subsection 19.17. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated that 5113.333 of bonded indebtedness will be incurred with respect to this portion of the Redevelopment Project. Subsection 19.19. Tax Increment Financing Account for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19. The tax increment received with respect to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 will be submitted by the Authority to the City and segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the 'Tax Increment Account') on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the City to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the Bonds. Subsection 19.19. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-IIt. As of November 28, 1994, there have been no modifications made to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. oo,u.uou bey ltl. Comml..ry No.plr P O Boy 1•b. 611062 20.2 �cmaa swZo Ti-, n -.m,. COC 1, 1W/. (Nor t0, 12 A 24. l90) --v-1 or• este rW l-, kited •.a. b h r.a0 d 014•. e1010R A l.•rd of Dr•clm b M*lb A Iml dKWM WC M NOTICE OF I vem IRMM Mon6C..o 019 ULC C--- NnpW paOW, do CRY Of O. MRIONf-STAT/ OF MWUMTA Cavnnry /bapr, 101] N.n BIM • Yor.CMo, UN NDTICE 19 OF COMM MI M City C-2 (eY • ---W) b /Id rr M CGP r meer 1 s, t Llor•bMo. Cou•y a str. a w.b+pY, .B hM . oltic 1yrYp N -..0r 20. . D1o1d r•aor•p7 h IIGN b r•).c1 •tM. d Oie• .M BN.. r •PProOm.M/ 700 p m , r Coy WB. 250 Ew 6G.4rry. Yr�L•Bo. MmM.. rrr. OV b M Popood mMCAMm. Oy.o.rW p4W a.te .IW rbB.4 pwpr.pW .A., h gum Nouµp rd R.dtrv.lW.M Au0wGr'r RWrrbbpnr. H.Od Ib. 1 rW h �1�pprwovrr rW .dnpow of M rAor9W Rodmkpttwd Plrr, I O1rro: h p.PUOI rtbdMc•.orL W Ina..W po)rd .b rW wWD.4 pp..00p�tlp.o .M. d h MMftd To tm•nr• Fhrorb TOE SAHs Y0N/10ELL0 Pt- b iV Inttrn•tll CkiblCte No 1.1 7rolfyfl 1.17 •p.dOc.p9typ pTMo �YIr F11r1CYtp Cl..bt No 9, bcr•4 kyr Pro�.p rlo 1: rW M W f.W depbn r.nda•ri YMibly a To Iro.rtl•t. P1.n rrMYq b TY Mrnr. Fh.WI'V Pl.l No I.1B, rN btr.d tur a nA JiOcbN.. Cp•ar maa•Iy d h Warbler• .gtll1 R•M•roplsr• Ib 1, ■ pr.u.t b •M h .Cmhlt• .OI w r m o.*.g nM• r 140 PY. r -b b M city' of Bryn. 469 001 b 40 017. IMNM. o rnrWd, .W BWpIE Mp 17• b 1 G•�. 0 -w 2. 1M. a 970 • m„ b Casal. rW WOO- M •r w1 d A aWy a h Lbr9M RW.n10PtMM PYn b RMwroplr. Pr.).a No 1 WW +utlWr• h Or. W W BrM &oaLdr., bul To Ir o.tn•r. Fklrldp P1.. o. To Y1erMr4 Fb•Wtq O101d• No T-1 9•atdl 1.10, LI•rt••o1•, Md.s.. BAM &glln PrY, bCYW h M or.POE•d b M •d0p1.0 r M OIGn d I:= Wy MoYMra r CM IY n01 Ylw hn fb.rrlpr LW B.rtL Won Rtbki., IOCAYO h =.,I Coony IGPC I.IL Oddrl vY•r. bcrM In 1M Cqy dInMe ..•y. Tho pr.Prp mr,bb To i -;i FbwKkg CbL'ICB No 1.19 Y r fts- WClon.orl, Nrlon.l A..rlrlon, bCrW h M tlM a w_ VESCREM N I. 0.i L Oit r, N 0 M d Lr�..Y, r.l. a PID N r b. 163700 1621 1W h h C•y a YovW, 0r• OI MYn•E.Y, I, .- pm fir: E17-0OO�I�.Bp2.]M� 1 Nw Hop., . W. d IAW-W.; LI.r.I.tte B.J Nw FV9tM Ydotltl.0pn 1 M 14.r199CYon a M p.er b M rltft4.d h To tmrnr. .tr. d LAY..1d•: •rW YrGu.W BrA 61r.olw F.I.I1dn0 OIMW No 1.11 ttsy M I101rY1•4 torn M aec. d h AW.r.Or.. .1 Gh kop•..tio d Lir.na.. Irt4.1 M poM.b. OI A9 k. toOd p ooO mry 1pq.l r M f1•.rY0 rW p•Mil Ww arl/ a h surly t6W rW tonlltmW..1. b.sM IN- .M rnr mm.. D.W: N.-" 7•, / W I M bntl•WOr. A=. -,'ft . Awddh BY ORDER OF THECITY COUNCIL wimq r. M -aft Wg6fB.. Ch A**&MO i, AI CC.. E. Lr9.l. Aredr. Pit,, 17 9 24. INq W. :9 OF ArRICAROR e• Brit OO,$- V. Od0v1 Va0ry LMWY. 9.1 • A, d h Gn.r1cT m 0a7o.r 27, IN. b prl.bslon b _ L - IIN z, wt IIIA• . m Con ,0 W d 9t• G.t Mw BIC. �� ( . • • •>• : • _ L....al e.od. b corown w raspM.N IA.a.o• e•r. L/MP.L,wf4. Vro , Yrpu•o eW Brn.Lar., BoWlm 1 t •`: t. .�i''-'�- - - Mlyn oaL/yn P L, LLIrMsp1., Yrpo.G• Brr - •-� .5(; p ._� } Y.I.aO. B O11Ndrtli N .MAQW119,..e- rnL L.L•Mte• Lr.vI1N, Ylrsv.o4. YnplMn.- iM• Br+ 1buW. Y.uW, M1m•Wu; Yrlrv... ..M B.. N.. A . M -M -Pt L•r.rMY: rW ... _ �.. _ % ^-may �:. A.EOcl.11on, sn.hop.•,. Ylnn•E.1. Yner V1. n•A• �' M I..1 04• . 0,Wn V.bY &A -OA •J .If •e: - - ;y .n o..n.n.awm.amuv:+b.prr• ;:t;•' rte BC 1076(0) dh FMrr 0W0.G Ilwrlq M.W `��•� _ ' ,: d h Gnalry Rtb naa WY •pp..l 9rAl G-. r �•r w'r �( •• >D aq t.rbo G.dtA+v IA11rm0r . 2, 1pW tW rmq --' r. ' ' I `•'r �: n f. , n wVnrur w Lt •rrrigYtp w0wr wa�+L �'�` J�'•-r`•• q� 7 - rrbnr+..:mirWW DWyc.mpro9r,L.e...1.nI m Yves If A.I I.' dlU'f•J _ . h r y, Oli. 700. 11A6 6.r1e Msr.. 1tnM 1U.IIICLrIM t>r .m9•aarN0R rm. p•cibl h 91r d11u s•Y1p r.pl.. behpl -. ..Grtcr .L/. l nA. AP •pp.M.lp9 M.Ir.M e.rl lAL•� • .r s .rr M...Ir B.. Motek.b LAor AW hb-,itA l LAr•W,1NWb � - I I - rr � '• - M.P.7. 0.. rA•r Ibp - ni lE --. ...I I: -'._l 1 - Nw Ibp•. YMsp.l• r - / .ubon A/.IIF.C. e.. N.. R.Ip. =1 •. wEEII.p.Y9I Nmr Ao +ra ' i'�'" .I. , .li J L tarl.Lr0.•, 1.n1.oa. TII mnICT M. t•O . Safe. Secure. bbl) xlrh a NuMni. -- VI . "rie.Niuns M It u.mcr N. t Le 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. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-17, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-18, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING THERETO. BE rr RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City that the Authority modify, by increased Project costs and enlarged geographic area, Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Sautes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1- 1 through 1-17, and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and approve the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. 1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council has investigated the facts with respect thereto, a proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan (The "Modified Redevelopment Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely the increased Project costs and enlarged geographic area to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, and the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Financing Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 (collectively referred to as the "Plans"). 1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdiction over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1, to modify Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, and to establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 and approve the Plans relating thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Residential Development Inc. M v. ,-l7T:.. -7TTTW-T&riMG��TT'.TOC =' 2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, is intended and, in the judgement of the Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-18. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 does meet the requirements of a Soils Condition District in that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which the Authority and City finds to be in the public interest because: (a) Unusual terrain, the presence of hazardous substances, pollution or contaminants, or soil deficiencies for 80 percent of the acreage in the district require substantial filling, grading, removal, or remedial action, or other physical preparation for use; or (b) The estimated cost of the physical preparation under clause (1), but excluding costs directly related to roads as defined in section 160.01 and local improvements as described in sections 429.021, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (7), (11), and (12), and 430.01, exceeds the fair market value of the land before completion of the preparation. 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. 2.05. The Council further finds, determines and declares that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. (o 2.06. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-17, are hereby modified and that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 is hereby adopted, contingent upon the execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Residential Development, Inc. Section 3. Adoption of Respcctive Plans. 3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date are hereby approved, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Residential Development, Inc. and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Administrator. Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment FinancinggPlans. 4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advisor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator. Dated: November 28. 1994 Attest: City Administrator (SEAL) Mayor EXEMIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 as required, pursuant to Minnesota Statulo, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: 1) Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 is a "Soils Condition District" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 19. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 consists of two parcels which do not meet the requirements of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district or economic development district. The Authority and the City find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 to be in the public interest because: (a) Unusual terrain, the presence of hazardous substances, pollution or contaminants, or soil deficiencies for 80 percent of the acreage in the district require substantial filling, grading, removal, or remedial action, or other physical preparation for use; or (b) The estimated cost of the physical preparation under clause (1), but excluding costs directly related to roads as defined in section 160.01 and local improvements as described in sections 429.021, subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (7), (11), and (12), and 430.01, exceeds the fair market value of the land before completion of the preparation. 2) Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the costs for this development. Due to the high cost of soil correction and site preparation, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. -6- 9 3) Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18, consists of the development of 83 single-family homes, 96 twin -family homes and, 2 commercial lots. This project is expected to begin in 1996 and be substantially completed by January 2, 1999. 4) Finding regarding the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if applicable. The Council does = elect the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b). S) Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-18 will be twelve (12) years from the original approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for current expenditures. Council Agenda - l lJM8/94 7. Consideration of resolutions supoortin¢ Annexation of she Krautbauer qnd Abbot arouerties in coniunetion with final slat of the River Mill subdivision. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the previous meeting there was lenthy discussion regarding the design of the road access leading into the development/Hawks Bar area from CSAR 76, and there was additional discussion regarding the zoning plan for the area. After reviewing the situation further, Joe Abbot determined that it is in his best interest to rejoin the annexation process. The vote on the matter was 2-2. The petitioners have requested that this item be again considered by the full body of the City Council. 11-�A19"AAMINOhl 1. Motion to adopt resolutions supporting annexations as requested. Under this alternative, the joint resolution will be signed by both the City and Township, then submitted to the Municipal Board for ratification. Please note that under the resolution, the annexation is not official until the final plat and the development agreement have also been approved by Council. Consideration of these items is scheduled for the Council meeting on December 12, 1994. Motion to deny adoption of resolutions supporting annexations as requested. Under this alternative, Council must offer an appropriate finding in support of denial of the annexation request. As per the City Attorney's letter of November 10, 1994 (attached), denial of annexation should be based on findings that the Municipal Board utilizes when determining whether or not annexation is appropriate (see attached). In the event that you believe any of the criteria are not present so as to justify denial, you may make a motion for denial based on such shortcoming. Council Agenda - 11/28/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The preliminary plat and the zoning plan have been approved, and the Township has also approved the development plan. It is difficult to find a Municipal Board criteria not present so as to justify denial; therefore, it follows that the annexation should be approved subject to approval of the final plat. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Resolutions accepting petition for annexation; Summary of building and development design requirements for the River Mill subdivision; Summary of building and site design standards for twinhome builder - CIR Homes, Inc.; Council meeting minutes of 8/26/94 and 10/24/94; Letter from City Attorney and associated Municipal Board annexation criteria; Letter from Dan Gassler updating A Glorious Church participation in the platting process; Additional detailed development landscaping plans will be presented at the meeting. IN RESOLUTION 84. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION FOR ANNEXATION WHEREAS, Joe Abbot and Theresa Abbot, owners of territory described on Exhibit A, currently known as Hawk's Bar, request that the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, annex this territory to the city and to extend the city boundaries to include the same; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed consists of 2 acres more or less, all of this land entirely within the county of Wright, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the territory described above abuts directly upon the city limits at the northeast boundary thereof, and none of it is presently included within the corporate limits of any incorporated city; and WHEREAS, annexation of this parcel is consistent with the land use guide plan adopted by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the urban service area which identifies land that is presently urban or suburban in nature or about to become urban or suburban; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area; and WHEREAS, a development plan is in place showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; and WHEREAS, the development plan meets standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, and comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for use within two years from the date of annexation; and WHEREAS, Monticello Township has reviewed the associated River Mill development plan and deemed it to be consistent with the Joint City/Township Urbanization Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Monticello accepts said petition for annexation contingent on final plat approval of the River Mill subdivision. Adopted this 28th day of November, 1994. Mayor City Administrator 0 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 414.0428, SUED. 1 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board 168 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 - Hawks Bar property legal description Approved by the City of Monticello this 28th day of November, 1994. City Administrator Mayor Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of 1994. Town Chair Town Clerk 0 RESOLUTION 94 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION FOR ANNEXATION WHEREAS, Robert Krautbauer and Betty Krautbauer, owners of territory described on Exhibit A, request that the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, annex this territory to the city and to extend the city boundaries to include the same; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed consists of 31 acres more or less, all of this land entirely within the county of Wright, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the territory described above abuts directly upon the city limits at the northeast boundary thereof, and none of it is presently included within the corporate limits of any incorporated city; and WHEREAS, annexation of this parcel is consistent with the land use guide plan adopted by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the urban service area which identifies land that is presently urban or suburban in nature or about to become urban or suburban; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area; and WHEREAS, a development plan is in place showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; and WHEREAS, the development plan meets standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use plan, and comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for use within two years from the date of annexation; and WHEREAS, Monticello Township has reviewed the associated River Mill development plan and deemed it to be consistent with the Joint City/Township Urbanization Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Monticello accepts said petition for annexation contingent on final plat approval of the River MiU subdivision. Adopted this 28th day of November, 1994. Mayor City Administrator 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 TO: 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. 7 Exhibit A • Krautbauer property legal description Approved by the City of Monticello this 28th day of November, 1994. City Administrator Mayor Approved by the Town of Monticello this _ day of 1994. Town Chair Town Clerk 6) NIONi MLO - •, t2c 1 • r 250 East Broadway �, L P. 0. Box 1147 Mondcello, MN 55362.9245 MEMO Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 Fax., (612) 295-4404 November 8, 1994 TO: Steve Grittman, Rick Murray, Bob Murray and Howard Lepidas FROM: Jeff OTieill CV) r /Cum RE: Summary of buil `ding and development design requirements for the River Mill subdivision On Monday, November 7, 1994 a meeting was held to discuss design requirements 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 78 access point and at west access to East County Rd 39. 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. River Mall 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 -ft 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 fluther. e. A party wall agreement governing application of maintenance &W siding and requiring common color. f. Mailboxes shall be established in groups of four as designed by Murray. l0 g. Storage buildings s per strictly regulated. No storage building shall exceed square feet and siding must match residence. No fish houses allowed. -07 River Mill memo CNovember 8, 1994 Page 3 r 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 budder would recommend placement of TV antennas in the garage rafter area The recommendation would be made to potential buyer in conjunction with the sales process. CIR HOMES Inc. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 785 Mpls. MN. 55416 (612)-546-6168 21, 1994 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN. 55362 Atte Jeff O'Neil Dear Jeff: Below you will find a summary of our plans for our proposed twinhome project in Monticello. FINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE Our twinhome units have the following finished square footage: Level finished square feet 911 Level finished square feet (optional) 825 As soon as we are able to obtain a building permit we will build out a model that will have both finished upper and lower levels. This model will be fully furnished t' and decorated and will remain open until the last unit in the development is sold out. Based on our sales and market research, we exiled to sell a good number of our ,units with both finished upper and lower levels. This will provide over 1700 square feet per unit. BUILDING DESIGN Per our discussions along with Rick Murray and your site planner, we will be building 5 units with divider wing walls for those units viewed from the freeway and from the park in order to break up the long horizontal span on the backwall. tir In order to avoid repetition in the development, we have provided 3 different front elevations that will make the buildings look interesting and unique. These different elevations will be staggered throughout the development so that no two of the same building designs will be built next to each other. From the perspective of long term maintenance, all siding Is maintenance free and will be color controlled by our company. There are S earth tone colors that can be selected and all are tasteful and neutral. 0 LANDSCAPING in accordance with city codes we will be planting 4 trees per bulldIng ( 2 trees per unit). One tall tree on each side yard of each unit, one taller shrub in between the garages, and one medium height shrub centered on the 6 foot wide grass strip in between the driveways. This plan will ensure adequate green space and aesthetically pleasing starter landscaping for the development Finally, we are most certain that all of these units will remain owner occupied. It is highly unlikely that any unit will be rented out due to current tax laws. Maintaining a nearly 100% owner occupied status in the development will greatly help in securing the integrity of this development Please contact me if you have any further questions. cerely, oward Lapid CIR HOMES Inc. 01 Council Minutes - 9126/94 6. Consideration of amendments to the gfficial zoning man chaneiU zoning district desienation!kfioa3 a, tom inn 'on of R•1 and Aicultural to a combination of R-1, R-2, 13-3. and PLM zoning district designation§,, Applicant. Robert Krautbauer, Rick Murrav, and Joe Abbot. AND 7. Consideration of an amendmegt to Chanter 13 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would establish restaurants, taverns. cafes. tea rooms, and off -sale liauor as a conditional use in a &I zone if located within 30fi_ft of a residentiaf district. Annlicant, Monticello Planning Commission, AND 8. Con§ideratipg of approval of nrgliminary plat oLthLRiver ;211 subdivision. Applicant. Robert Krautbauer. hick Murray. Joe Abbot. AND 9. Consideration of conpEot @pproo gtilize tax yncSement financing in conjunction with reclamation, of gravel pit and develapment of the Giver Mill Sesidential subc6sion, Am>licant. Rick Murray. Residential Develogment, Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the two ordinance amendment requests and noted that they are proposed in conjunction with development of the River Mill subdivision. The current zoning of the property within city limits is R-1 (single family residential), and the property located in Monticello Township is zoned Agricultural. Proposed is a zoning map amendment changing the R-1 and Agricultural areas to a combination of R-1 (single family residential), R-2 (single and two-family), B-3 (highway business), and PLM (performance zone mixed) zoning districts, which would be contingent on annexation of the township area to the city. O'Neill went on to explain that the second ordinance amendment Council is asked to consider would add a provision allowing restaurantshaveras as a conditional use in a 3-3 zone if located within 300 R of a residential district. Currently, taverns are allowed as a permitted use at any location in the B-3 zone. The reason for the amendment is to provide additional site control over Hawks Bar, which, when it is annexed to the city under the &3 zoning district designation, will be located near the proposed residential area Couacilmember Herbst asked if the ordinance amendment allowing a tavern in the &3 zone required a distance of 300 R from the property or a residential building. Assistant Administrator ONeill stated that the tavern use must be 300 R from the property to be a permitted use, and would need to obtain a conditional use permit if it is located within 300 ft. Rick Murray, developer of the River Mill subdivision, reported that Joe Abbot, owner of Hawks Bar, recently told Murray that he would lice to move the existing Hawks Bar kitchen and add on to the building in a northerly direction; however. Abbot would like to know if a parking lot would be allowed in the PLM zone. Assistant Administrator O'Neill responded by stating that he would talk to the City Planner and get back to Murray regarding parking lot development in a PZM zone. Council Minutes • 9/26/94 Assistant Administrator 0 -Neill went on to review the zoning plan and proposed preliminary plat of the River Mill subdivision. A PZM zone is proposed to surround the 3-3 area where Hawks Bar is located. Forty-eight (48) twin home lots are proposed for the R-2 area surrounding the P&M zone, and 70 single family (R-1) dwellings are proposed to be constructed next to the R-2 zone and adjacent to the gravel pit area Due to extreme grade separation, Outlot D is proposed to be developed when the Norell property develops. Street access to Outlot D will be gained through the Norell property and will remain undevelopable until the Norell property is developed O'Neill noted that a study completed by the developer and reviewed by the City Engineer indicates that it is acceptable to provide full access to CSAR 75 as proposed; however, a median will need to be installed to limit access to right turn in and right turn out at such time that the frontage road (Bart Boulevard) is extended westerly to connect the River No area to County Road 39, or the median would be installed if five or more accidents occur at this location in one year. Assistant Administrator O'Neill also informed Council that Lot 6, Block 2, would need a variance or the plat would have to be adjusted to meet conformity, as the plan as proposed shows only 25 ft of right -of --way frontage, and the ordinance requires 54 & of right-of-way frontage. It was noted by the developer that this lot contains 22,000 sq ft, which is almost the size of 2 lots. He stated that he could adjust the road design to meet code and not lose any lots; however, doing so would require building a longer road, which would result in the home pad areas shifting into the wooded hillside area. He preferred to preserve the wooded hillside if possible. O'Neill then reviewed the proposed park area for the River SO subdivision. The park as proposed by the developer is a total of 7 aces, with olmost 2 acres being relatively flat. There is a slight grade change separating the park from homes on the north. A storm water pond is located on the east aide of the park but is not included in the park dedication requirement. A trail system is also proposed to lead from the cul-de-sac area in the R-2 zone to the park area and to the Norell property. O'Neill noted that the Parks Commission reviewed the park plan and recommended that some of the sloped trail area be combined with abutting lots, as the trail system would not require the amount of unusable sloped area as proposed. Parks Commission also recommended that Lots 18-21 located north of the park be converted to park area to allow for 510 ft of right-of-way access to the park. They felt this change would reduce the sense of the park being "private." This configuration would also provide land area that would allow development of both a soccer and baseball field. Council Minutes - 9126/94 Council -ember Smith stated that he didn't believe that converting the four residential lots to park area would change the perception of the park from a neighborhood park only to a city park available to all residents. Councilmember Anderson noted that a sign should be installed stating ",Monticello City Park," which would help make it known that everyone is welcome to use the park. Ray Erickson, resident at 401 Riverview Drive, stated his concerns regarding the number of driveways this development will create on County Road 39, who will pay for installation of larger sewer and water lines if necessary, and the fact that one of the proposed roads accessing County Road 39 is directly across from his residence, which will result in headlights aimed directly at his house. Erickson was informed that only two streets will access County Road 39, the developer would be required to pay any additional cost relating to larger sewer and water lines, and that the proposed roadway across from Erickson's residence was designed to line up with the lot line in order to avoid headlights being aimed directly at homes. At this point, it was the consensus of Council to discuss item Y9 of the agenda prior to voting on items 6.8. Administrator Wolfsteller explained that in conjunction with the River ,fill residential preliminary plat approval. Council is being asked to consider providing conceptual approxal for the use of tax increment financing to assist in the soil correction cost for reclamation of the gravel pit area prior to the developer continuing with the project. He noted that the developer has estimated the additional grading cost associated with the gravel pit at an additional $132,000; however, the previous landowner (Krautbauer) has agreed to lower his price of the land by 530,000 to cover some of the general grading cost, which would bring the total TIF request to $102,000. Wolfsteller went on to note that the requested tax increment assistance would be a pay-as-you-go plan whereby payments to the developer would only occur if the homes are actually built; however, Council was also informed that tax increment assistance to the developer will result in a loss of City HACA aid equal to approximately 25% of TIF assistance given the developer. In this case, the general Eitnd of the City would lose an anticipated $25,000 in state aid. Wolfsteller also informed Council that this information has been presented to the HRA, and the HRA has given preliminary approval for use of TIF to help defray the additional cost of reclamation of the gravel pit. Developer Rick Murray noted that correcting the soils in the gravel pit area would be an amenity for the city rather than a distraction. He stated that Krauthauer had offered to correct the area but agreed instead to a 530,000 reduction in the purchase price. The developer would then correct the gravel pit area. Murray noted that the purchase price of the land is approximately $4,200/ace. 0 Council Minutes - 9126/94 Councilmembers Herbst and Blonigen stated that they didn't agree with using TIF for this type of project, as it was their view that Krauthauer is obligated by the permit issued by Wright County to return the area to usable land after excavation is complete. It was also noted that the City is not obligated to annex the gravel pit area until it has been restored. Murray responded by saying any grading done to create a 3-1 slope at the gravel pit per the restoration plan will actually add to the eventual cost of developing the plat for residential use. Mayor Fyle noted that after reviewing the information provided with the agenda, he felt the development, including reclamation of the gravel pit, would be good for the city. He noted that the park and homes constructed in the gravel pit area would improve the image of the city from the freeway and would generate tax revenue, and it could cost the City more if reclamation of the pit occurs later. Public Works Director John Simola reported that he supports TIF assistance to regrade the gravel pit and noted that the City was involved with this type of project when the area at the end of Lauring Lane was developed. TIF was used to install utilities and regrade the area so that apartments could be constructed. Simola also stated that there would be an approximate 526,000 loss to the developer if Lots 18.21 are given fiu additional park land as requested by the Parks Commission, and the City would lose approximately $25,000 if the soils correction TIF distrid is established. James Casserly, Economic Development Consultant representing the developer, noted that the soils correction district was created to assist with substantial filling or grading of an area with unusual terrain, which is what this project entails. City Engineer Bret Weiss noted that it may not be easy to develop only the property located in the city limita, as soils from other areas of the site would be used to correct the gravel pit area. Councilmember Anderson asked the developer to explain what year each phase would be developed. Rick Murray responded by saying that the first phase, which would include 30 single family homes, the access onto CSAH 75, and 48 twinhomes, would begin in November 1994 and be completed in early 1996. The second phase would include continuation of the road system. completion of the R-2 area, and continued construction of single family homes. Grading would begin in late 1995 with utilities construction in 1996, and construction would continue into 1997. Rick Sathre, engineer for the developer, added that much or all of the park grading would be done with phase I but wouldn't include street aomss to the park 7 Council Minutes - 9/26/94 Cou=lmember Anderson asked if any restrictions could be placed on the quality of the housing constructed in this development Assistant Administrator OWeffI noted that in order to obtain TIF pay-as-you-go finds, the developer const build homes to a pre -determined value. O'Neill also noted that the City now has a trunk access fee for city services, which would more than likely be charged to the township parcel once it is annexed If this property is eligible for this fee at $1,250/acre, it would amount to approximately $42.000. After further discussion, Mayor tyle asked for motions to be made on each of items 6.9 separately. m O Council Minutes - 10/24/94 16. Consideration of resolutions annrovine annexation of Krautbauer/Hawks Bar ormerties. G � 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 NO 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 touted 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 medinn Bret Weiss, 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. 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 chhnge in position and may result in consequences for the Council. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the item be tabled. VOTE ON THE MOTION TO DENY ANNE`{ATION: 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 Krauthauer property as requested by the developer until the Brat Council meeting in November. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Motion passed. NOV. -10'94(THU) IS: 26 OLSON/USSET P. A. _ _ TEL:612 925 5879 _ — — P. UO2 — OLSON, USSET, AGAN & WEINGARDEN • ATTOSNRTS AT LAW are aware, the City has engaged in extensive negotiations with sunm S11 the owners of the above parcels and the Township concerning the PAUL A. IN'EDMOASO®P "M FRANCS AVORM SOUTH LOMAL ASMTANTS CgLLb T. ADAM WD0CL lOM WX SMS room L AGA" DAVID L MW amoa /. ALL= THOMAS d 01 01 TBXPMM om ns-wa DURA L RAS$ DESOSa L DAM VAX SOL MSM MIST A. S009RAIm A�,��15 M SON OMS aw l W.W *.&b 1143144E TaD1g1TJ commaMn 7975(69) November 10, 1994 RGObam aFrom In"Mm 0= 4"�Snd Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Monticello 1S0 East Broadway Monticello, W 35]6] Re: Annexation of Hawk's Bar and Krautbauer property Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: I an in receipt of the staff report concerning the above– entitled matter, which was tabled from the last 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 annaxation. At the last hearing, Hawk's Bar indicated they desired to withdraw their petition for Annexation. Therefore, if the Rrautbauer property is annexed, there will be a A lc.+jr' small island that will be completely surrounded by property owned by the City. It is my understanding that the Township does not A�,��15 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 annex the xrautbauer 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 Rrautbauar parcel, you can simply annex Bavk'a Bar by ordinance without the necessity of a lengthy annexation proceeding pursuant to Minn. Stet. S414.033, Subd. 7(2). I an aware that Mayor Tyle may be concerned about the appropriate of this ordinance. The purpose of this letter is primarily to address the in �o A+ tip•, appropriate grounds for denial the event the Council wish" to deny the annexation request. My concern in this respect is that f e you present an adequate basis for the denial. ler example, it is APPI`G 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 the • and capricious decision In avant the motion passed. NOV. -10' 94(THU) 15:26 OLSON/USSET P. A. 7 November 10, 1994 Page 2 TEL:612 925 5819 P. 003 If you are going to deny the annexation, you should eith deny it based upon the statutory criteria P&-by•wLttus ad-tbs. AP��ts In regards to the former, I have attached a copy of the findings that the municipal board utilizes when determining whether or not annexation is appropriate. In the avant that you A 1�5 believe any of the criteria are not present so as to justify rr dial, •may make a notion for denial based on such 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 Bar. This motion incorporates the following factual findings: 1. The City intended and desires to annex the Hawk's Har and HYautbauar property together. 2. City policy is not to annex property if it creates a ty r)�e5 pocket of Township property which is surrounded by Ciar property which would occur if only the Krautbaunr parcel van annexed. 3. Although the City has the statutory means in order to force annexation of Hawks Har, the City policy is never to force anyone to annex into the City if they do not wish to do so. 1. 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 dozens of property owners wish to be annexed into the City in order to obtain adequato sever and water facilities but one or twoDarCies necessary for the annexation objeatt would you extend the same policy to condemnation procoedirege when the person whose property you desire does not wish to *all? In conclusion, if you reject the annexation on this basis, I believe that it would be legally sustainable. From a public policy standpoint, however, it may have the effect of tying your hands in future proceedings unless there are compelling factual I NOV. -10' 94 (THU) 15:26 OLSON/USSET P. IL _ TEL:612 925 5819 _ _ _ P. 004 — 1t Hover to, 1994 Page 7 inconsistencies. It is an unfortunate fact of life that on occasion you asst "Lorca' reluctant property owners to accept annexation (or sell their property to you) when it is in the beat interests of the City. I vile be available for consultation on this Lamm at the meeting. very truly yours, Pa PAWS 114 • C 0 OLSOVUSSET F. A. U:612 925 5819 P. 006 INCORPbjW10N, E C - institutional land thea; the t transportation oetunwk and poteatiil'�ipsporisaaa ban4 tttrind{ng ptap«ad l�we7 ?ndoPment: ,:oc ._(e)Ind trss.maWis and plandog Pr-ffftWy bd4 ,rM—d b the.anie�MUDldpahty ad.We•pmperty. PTsPoaed for annenatle4 - `* Pew. for der -pot -1 in the srts'.and plans, and.polldss of the, metroyog—, ooaadl . U. there; b, ac tiomnaiatency hetrem tLa pmpoeed.derebpmeat eod:W laod,ar p)aordog ordlaance Ia:ftata, the teseoo far R.�n rnlm ` Ie �..... . d and the Mehi bdo(•Ptorfded aaunxieg al W'psrty' InPossd tbr-. ae-mdax lmlodloe.. wa0- and ea.v eodtey Env :ntloi and )vetmabn. Patles and maintenance, -'—L.&C nit" ere NUM and recreational ... ,..c .. � :r_• ' (W Existing{ or pfd pmbl®s.of en.lr umzn t pothttion and the nod for addltlonal a•rvim to reeohe ® tbese ptohla; .. "(4) Pliaa`�aE'progpme bj t9i aimait4 i6� for pror(diog ne'`did gorarn rental .eaviae to the property proposed for armeratlon; (I) PLea) dao of the annexing -'A mldpdity and -the property proposed for. annexation. tnelydlog au_tu capacity and the present bonded Indebtednese, and the local to rata of the county; pcbno).d(itr and tower&hip; (� r-tetlo��Ip erect effed of the propcwd anaaadoo on aonu mttlar adjacent to the area end oaeehod.d)etrietinith(aind.adlaaent.to the ane; ...•..• (k)'Adctry--p cf tamerMarrttat' w'daUvcr wrslma to the Aaaljds.of.'vbather,o.aaearj, gr.unmanW".ierrim-con beat bi pioo(d•d through Incorporation or snesatfoa to ea saijaeent,manldpa tar, and. �.• '..i_r--. '. (m) If only a part of a tawcahIp'te anaend. the ability of the revedader of the WwUWp to continue or the fe-Affity'of it being incorporated separately or beizij emceed to another auaicipalty• .. Based upon three f—ars the board may order the ansaxsdai (a)_ if It Gods that the . Property pmpo•ed for an -s— oc is nae•, at Is -bad to Wage. cabin ar suburban in rhandci, or (b) if it Gads that manidpd gemmment in thew prop«ed for annexation it ragwM to protect the pub➢+ health, aaaty, and weft% or (a) If It We that the amaaGon would be In the best intervt.of the property propos-d (hr aanexation, If.ody a part of a tavdhip Is to be annexed. the boire +hail toodder whether the }emiloder of the totrraNp can coetteu• to carry on the fuections of governmenten without due hardhe ship. Tboard Shall deny 1Z amastloe If it, Gods- that the tacrear to revenues for the annexing municipality b— no masoaxbis'[dation to the monetary .atree of benaGu conferred upon th• rowed saea'16 bPsrd mo danl.ths snnej f" W UJI'appean that aaaeaatlon of all or a put d the,propod to an adf-cegt•mtmidpahty vtiuld batter move the Interests of Na raddents of the property or (b) If the temaalider of the ta.eshlp abdd suffer endue hardship .board m0 alter the boundaries of tbe.atea to be -nosed by Weseaaing or decreasing . the area to as to tnclnde any that property which is caw or Is about to became urban of suburban in character the as�u amanaoo in order m erprvv- impro« gmmetry of ta add property d'auch character� or to exdad property that mAy buten W sired by aaotbar emit of govanuts" It the board deannLas that pari of thel— kod would be. hylar a an M saitthar mother the la awiti rod apprerrs esnmtlia an tta'b.o'ma�tld0 b1.' Sea. ptaataat to etrbdMtde-s 4�a, sad 6... Lk" 02a m- beard ah" «t forth the aim. ,.ytb'ne eb. b.ai..tha tb. d.daloo`. ^• ..7 1p,' .a ,. %Sr .a&I.�m(raaa ebr adJ Subd. & Sepmled by Lam IPM a 664 f' Ili*" Subd L Cttecdoe dna of aoearatlaa ?1be aoeaatloe shag be effeetlw as of the And to the emaa11 a endo' or,on each Ater data as b mad to the amastfae oder. copy the atneatlee order must be d6l v@d bmmadLtaJy by the aeattl« &red,. of as ,NO'! 10* 94 1 THU) 15: 2 7 OLSON/USSET P. d. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 005 ("INCORPOILATION, EM JNCORPORATION...ETV_ § 414.031 xoju not ten than thm mor more thea sem in n=bar, whore Wnila am prtsaikd in the board for U. kvied in 1991. Payable, in order upon a finding that arms rmpresentsdon is reqmkvd to accord prow representation in the proposed incorporated rtes. b*cmm of uneven pcpalz� density in diffamt parts loor"the Umr-fter.. But. ame IM lmswimWa thereof Maltance of agriewtural two" the rei which an lathe path of :Aburbm daysloPmdnt, but &A= four teen &Om the effective date of in incorporation the eotcmcil of the muddpWW may by resolution adopted by a fmkLfthe vote mWish the ward vptm and 47,.-,,Wd Lemve 10 mbars at lap is in Other-mmidpalitim - provide for the oJectica:,of &11 - m 9P.- Z to *-We to Pat 1111A 4"lipW11. 2AAD MIS to 34 RZ The board's order for fnmrporsHm &W provide for the election of munkftal officarm in .40_424_ for tam The plan afgavarmumstaluill ba'Optional Pfau A. provided that a! altimata'plan,my be adopted purguant to emcdo 412.661, at any flora:' The odinance9of the Wwmddp 1a wbkb the now, ummucipalicy-i. located ahall. coadme In effta and repelled by the governing body of the new municipality. he board abil tomida the Mowing Amended by Lan u8n:719 ori s.1 ser Leve Ism c. $8. at It 1 20. dE June 9.'1999C Lwv* 1999 hat ip L `dco- tor- the inti Metarical and Statudary Notes thi;�Qlk, - ci to" L.Wimistleo, .Wft ftm Its wime them of hsnmtl I -tq ' W - �_M, a. Le,,, tom & 719. vL g, I K dhoded -the ta &camus mamded by LiremIM i. Z9. mlaw of mummy won lamund I , Lsei'm lot S9 C. L SMA to " rc, C, dLW iidd,,tid; IndultriAl, ", or 'easewed nlaad.* tm a: th.W sp. 9m that to tie 4n -tm- i( 5-- pox !n A4leamte 11"'a ver -ld'f Ivey tlffv n A- Zbat`t th. .1m m. um -boli as and bat us cap -AW -R Mis-mu Bunt. IM Sppimmove and tabescapedty rus' or' - u -n or is =t edition, a the gtannee caurpt i EM.011. phmm how a R Laine to tbr rate d i" R0116d tie the worde 'm0 w'besove they' 'to the t9i'CvpmC4 if Wpitj.wftbb i� lor'l unit 111— there 1, ,n'dlaarra is spear to !Romeoto U17 capadty of coieror"a or to the cam of the rumi of tarof rata' in and subsurugut WW goveummstL In SL 1990. vae &dW oUm smumi,—mi4 I ad t= 1"I WA- n =Dada 1. f�"J"m, sad 9 tan LAgssdomhe, tmp�*&grm imnteni"m'eAmdkloz Laes 10% & 3M at M I 21X --Jed Lave LOW LIT19, UL 41. &L A IIM* le,00CLICE6 ter =Uom'ind thi need for -AAN'--Ll ..Now ofDocialcom. N EW 4 e;,� TO" ci V We hanoclots ,adluml., d t* Presumption, OW btodee 641eef. 4,1 Hun, YmAd W. nvim des ,nest, pr4aly'-162d. the proment ,L�pty,l iikb661,ahaW im;d- township, !,'kvW-d" sm' eI pr.W.. the1 Dodd Burden d prod af.eb.W,;ahft m�'� t a Dais' -6f ppeetltlttiimee ftL tDourparsom. ems RIP. :;= totem, town petiu.6" I.R.- � - , to tba e!I� and Paw Lbid town, ZVU a44 to Forest !Ahm W. Nkmommu'llhu. =_"" of —idlq U_W� Bd-4WgM 4W tented. .ie.can-bost be prodded through — .. . .1 ... ., 414.0.7L' Awvexallm at artj to a mmicipall '-ftl booted cedar r"V!cojt,4 pgop Incorporatim,Wit && that W the memis &*&=a far I to 81 a. urban or advarbso in character, or the Public beallh. Nal best'lat.resm'd ibe at It, ded" the boas shall confider the Mowing Inoorporsum it the ares, or a part (6) l?resant k4ladom, past population growth and OoJected 'poptduio, ofthoipropat, latent muaidpaLtty. MTPGW far amexadom ad the Lunallng makwamr. -Quaft'd tomwAzing or i (b) Lend within the pupajq. Pafor =.#I ot� =,* -Wy that �mperty wWcb is aiw.'or Le municip"tr, and natural b7min indudins of Iddo pii�*Uiat may be better conditions and cock n-buyl han. ..Ivan, = and .4. he Ward &W "t ffirth Uc betas (c) Dogras of comagulty at the b..duto be. the anoedng np,Jqjp,lfty !Ad the plopesqt, ... ad forannerimon. Tary relating to the number a Wases j,6ja ­ - An"Lation the property" -NA ��. (,.Gmd d..b. by-mrdm, We. -606dn muckipift hhj all horth— P.O. Box 119 • Monticello. MN 55362 Novemher 16, 1994 Residential Development, Inc. 15 txu�ctow Circle Chnnitassen, MN 55517 Attention: Pick U. Murrey Dent Rick, We have given rnreful consideration co the land -soup proposal dud have decidnd ngainst it. In the spirit of cooperatimt, and In the hope that A Glorious Church and RUI could both benefit from this joint venrnre, we have invested the time mud effort to give the idea full consideratLon. Keeping in mind our original plan when we purchased the land, we would be gaining lend of more limited usefulness and giving up land more useable for our purpose. The other uo.lut irsuc is Lite drainage corridor on the south side of our property, which nnrnrnlly paesen close to the exial.ing boundary. Rich the new proposed bound- n:y the flew would traverse nor priy.?rty, probably requiting na entsement. The cc•nstr.l.:Lion of Gill- pond could certuiuly -je beneficial, but overdll in our judgement, thin in 1101. the best plan far its. TTtnnk yvu for your cooperation and all thu lnformicivn you p.ovided. I hope yo:t have a very proti=able project. Sincerely, 141"Iek raster Ikm Gussler Building Cuwatltee of A Gloriuun Churn` cc: Jeff O'Neill - City of Monticello Council Agenda - 11/28/94 e. Consideration of recommendations 5rom reeveline committee in regard to aarbaae containers. W.S.1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The recycling committee met on November 15, 1994, to discuss several items relating to recycling and garbage services. One of the items discussed was the results of Waste Awareness Month. Recycling weights increased by 6.22% in October to 88,120 pounds. During the first week of October, 75 individual homes and 5 apartment buildings had their garbage left behind due to recyclables found in the trash. During the last week of October, only 5 families had their garbage cans left behind because of recyclables, a very good improvement. The amount of waste going to the compost facility, however, did not drop significantly in October. We hauled out 142.63 tons, which is up from our October average of the past 2 years of 125.71 tons. It appears that some of this material was garden and yard waste, as well as remnants from demolition or construction projects. The recycling committee also thought that there is a possibility of rainwater still entering our garbage. There are many containers in the city without lids, and not everyone bags their garbage. The committee would like to request that the City Council set a requirement that all new homes constructed in Monticello use the garbage cart program, the 65 -gallon and 90 -gallon roll-arounds. The majority of new homes do request these when they move in. We currently have approximately 25% of the residents on the cart program. Some of you may recall that the carts are set up for universal use. They can be picked up with a mechanical arm mounted on the side of a truck, which we ultimately feel will be the type of garbage service in the future. The more homes that we get on this cart program, the easier it will be to make the switch in the future. New homes occupied after December 1, 1994, would be required to use the carts. In addition to the cart program being mandatory for new homes, the recycling committee recommended that the Council also require all garbage cans to have lids unless the garbage is bagged. In September we had 11 rain days for a total of 4 inches of rain. In October we had 12 rain days for a total of slightly over 3 inches of rain, We don't really need to be hauling and disposing of rainwater. The notice of the new policy on garbage can lids could be in the December recycling newsletter. And to allow residents time to gear up, we could make it effective April 1, 1995. Council Agenda - 11/28/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to adopt a policy to require all new homes in Monticello to use the cart program effective December 1, 1994. The 90 -gallon carts rent for $1.25 per month, the 6&jp1lon for $1 per month. In addition, effective April 1, 1995, all garbage can in Monticello would be required to have lids unless the garbage is securely placed in plastic bags. Garbage not in plastic bags or under cover will not be picked up. This would not include waste picked up by Vasko at additional cost (easy chairs, sofas, demolition, etc.). 2. The second alternative would be to either adopt the first or second part of alternative •1 but not both. 3. The third alternative would be not to adopt either of the garbage container recommendations. C. STAFF RECOMMENDAT OM. It is the recommendation of the recycling committee that the Council adopt the policy as recommended in alternative #1. The recycling committee consists of Councilmember Shirley Anderson, John Simola, Rick Wolfsteller, Gary Anderson, and Cathy Shuman, with input Brom Karen Doty and Pat Kovich. It should be noted that Shirley was unable to attend the November 15 recycling meeting. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. C Council Agenda - 11/28/94 9. Consideration of adovdnu an ordinance regulating skateboarding/ rollerblading in certain areas of the city (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, skateboarding and especially rollerblading have become very popular with the younger population. With this popularity has come the need for the youth to find suitable areas for rollerblading and skateboarding, which has most often been done in public or private parking lots, sidewalks, and even streets. Although city hall has not received many complaints directly from business owners, we are aware that rollerblading and skateboarding within business parking lots has been increasing and becoming a problem for some business owners. In light of this, the Police Commission has recently been discussing the merits of recommending the City establish an ordinance to regulate skateboarding and rollerblading activities within the city. One of the first steps the Police Commission looked at was to obtain copies of ordinances from other cities. The primary intent of most ordinances regulating these activities was to indicate where rollerblading or skateboarding would be allowed and where it would be prohibited within each community so that it could be used as a tool by local law enforcement agencies if it became a problem. In almost all sample ordinances, the communities were primarily concerned about prohibiting skateboarding or rollerblading, etc., in a central business district area along sidewalks or public streets because of the greater pedestrian traffic and/or vehicle traffic that usually occurs in these areas. In addition, many communities would prohibit these activities along a major road such as a state highway because of the inherent dangers involved in these areas. While I don't think it is the intent of the ordinance to regulate activities on private property, many ordinances also include language that prohibits these activities on private property without the express permission of the owner. This language is probably inserted in most ordinances so that if a private property owner has difficulty in getting youngsters to vacate their premises, they could always request assistance Brom local police enforcement agencies by citing this ordinance in addition to typical trespassing statutes. The Police Commission also discussed whether any ordinance should regulate or prohibit skateboarding or rollerblading on any existing pathway system within our parks or the soon -to -bo -completed path/trailway system we will be constructing. It was recommended by the Parks Commission that the City pgl, consider prohibiting rollerblading, etc., on the now pathway system at this time, as this may very well be an appropriate area for these activities to take 13 Council Agenda - I V28/94 place. Until there are problems, both the Parks Commission and the Police Commission do not recommend the ordinance prohibit rollerblading, etc., on pathways at this time. The ordinance as proposed and recommended by the Police Commission primarily regulates skateboarding and rollerblading as follows: f ^ 1) Eliminates skateboarding and similar like activities from defined central t) business district on any sidewalk, street, or other public parking lot located in the central business district. For our purposes, central U S business district was recommended to be simply any B-3 (highway business) or B-4 (regional business) zoning area. This would primarily encompass the downtown area and also along Highway 25, out to the Mall and south of I-94 along Highway 25. 2) The ordinance would also prohibit skateboarding, etc., on private property without the express permission of the property owner. 3) The ordinance would also prohibit skateboarding, etc., on any state highway. For this purpose, the only state highway would be Highway 26. As I stated earlier, the Police Commission was aware of a few incidents where private property owners were having difficulty with youth using their parking lots for rollerblading and skateboarding. The City staff has received inquiries as to whether we had an ordinance prohibiting these activities in any areas of the community, which I assume was generally related to problems private business owners were having. Although private property owners have the right to prohibit these activities on their own property, it is sometimes easier for property owners to refer to a city ordinance to help in reducing this nuisance for them. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Council could adopt the ordinance amendment regulating skateboarding and rollerblading activities in certain areas of the community. The intent of this ordinance as proposed would primarily eliminate this activity from a business district, including sidewalks and streets, within a B-3 or B-4 zoning district and also from Highway 25. Under this ordinance, skateboarding andlor rollerblading would still be allowed in Council Agenda - 11/28/94 any other area of the community, on any sidewalk or street. It would still be allowed in our park system and our trails and pathway system until such time that is should become a problem. 2) Do not adopt an ordinance amendment at this time. Under this alternative, the Council would be indicating that skateboarding or rollerblading in the central business district is not yet a problem requiring regulation and that private property owners can sufficiently regulate their own property without city ordinance interference. Q, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While I believe there is certainly merit for prohibiting skateboarding or rollerblading in the downtown area, including sidewalks and streets because of the heavy pedestrian traffic and vehicle traffic, city hall hasn't received a large number of complaints other than from private property owners who have large blacktopped parking lots. Although this ordinance also prohibits skateboarding on private property without the owner's permission, a private owner can regulate or prohibit these activities without the City adopting an ordinance. With the ordinance adoption, I am sure it would be used only as a tool if problems did arise in the business area or for those obvious violators where there is no way to stop the activity without an ordinance. It is the Police Commission's recommendation that the ordinance be adopted as proposed so that a general guideline can be established and a tool is available for the sheriffs department if needed. Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. _ THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, BEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 8 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER RELATING TO SKATEBOARD AND ROLLERBLADE USE: CHAPTER 10 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SIDEWALKS AND STREETS, PROHIBITING THE USE OF DEVICES KNOWN AS SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATESJBLADES, AND SCOOTERS ON SIDEWALKS AND STREETS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO SECTION: 8-10.1: Definitions 8-10-2: ProWbited Areas 8-10-3: Observation of Rules of the Road 8-10-4: Violations 8-10-1: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, whenever they occur in this ordinance, are defined as follows: (A) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT means any area of the city within a B-3 (highway business) zoning district or B-4 (regional business) zoning district. (B) ROLLER SKATESIBLADES means a shoe with wheels attached or a device with wheels which is designated to be attached to a shoe. (C) SKATEBOARDS means a wheeled device designed to transport a rider in a standing position, which device is not otherwise secured to the rider's feet or shoes. (D) SCOOTER: A foot -operated vehicle consisting of a narrow board mounted between two wheels, tandem, with an upright steering handle attached to the front wheel, 10 Ordinance Amendment No. _ Page 2 (E) OPERATE means to ride on or control the operation of a skateboard, roller skates/blades, or scooter. (F) OPERATOR means every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a skateboard, roller skatestblades, or scooter. 8-10-2: PROHIBITED AREAS: No person shall ride or use a skateboard, roller akates/blades, or scooter. (A) On any public sidewalk, street, or any public parking lot situated in the Central Business District, or (B) On any other public or private property of another without the express permission to do so by the owner or occupant of said property, or (C) In any careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safety of any person or property of any other person, or (D) On any state highway in the city of Monticello. 8-10-3: OBSERVATION OF RULES OF THE ROAD: (A) The operator of a skateboard, roller skates/blades, or scooter emerging from any alley, driveway, or building upon approaching a sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across any alleyway, shall yield the right -of --way to all pedestrians approaching the sidewalk or sidewalk area and upon entering the roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway. (B) No person operating a skateboard, roller skateslblades, or scooter shall attach the same or the person of the operator to any vehicle upon a roadway. (C) Every person operating a skateboard, roller skateslblades, or scooter upon a roadway shall ride as close as possible to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. (D) No person shall use a skateboard, roller skatestblades, or scooter upon a public street, sidewalk, or other roadway after sunset and before sunrise. C] Ordinance Amendment No. Page 3 8-10-4: VIOLATIONS: Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. In addition, any peace officer who observes any person violate any provisions of this ordinance is authorized to seize the offender's roller skatestblades, skateboard, or scooter and to hold same at the Wright County Sheriffs Department or City Police Department. In the event of such seizure, the offender, if an adult, may secure the return of the article seized after twenty-four (24) hours have elapsed since the seizure. In the case of a minor, the article seized shall be returned only to the parent or guardian of such minor offender after twenty-four (24) hours have elapsed since the seizure. Adopted by the City Counal this 28th day of November, 1994. Mayor A I- City Administrator J Council Agenda - 11/28/94 10. Consideration of fpndina a portion of a comm+ehensive eanitary sewer studv.. (J.OJB.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City has been contacted by Orrin Thompson Homes regarding the 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 "start- up" 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: Orrin Thompson Homes - $8,000; Tony Emmerich - $7,000; City - $6,000. Roth Tony Emmerich and Orrin Thompson Homes have reviewed the scope of services provided by the City Engineer and have agreed to pay their proposed sham prior to initiation of the study. 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 Orrin 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 -tern alternatives for sanitary sewer service to the development regions in the city, we can reserve the large trunk capital Council Agenda - 11/28/34 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. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to authorize comprehensive sanitary sewer study as described by the City at a cost of $20,000 to be initiated contingent on developer payments of $15,000. 2. Motion to deny authorization to complete comprehensive sanitary sewer study. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative Al for reasons outlined above. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter from Bret Weiss regarding scope of study; Maps showing development area; Information packet on Orrin Thompson Homes, including letter from Bruce Pankonin of Orrin Thompson Homes. O NOV 23 '94 09:29 OSM MPLS. MN P.2 1101 w. Oatr� Ava November Br 1994 m�wl5470ia i 71aUlam 1 -coo -763477e j W. Jeff O'NCM rAxnseal�ss city of Monticello PA Baur 1117 sur,eyus 250 East Broadway Montfceno, MN SS362-M iia Sanitary Sewer Study . i. . OSM Proposal No. 342.94 Dear Mr. O'Neill: I am writing this lew in response to a request from Orcin 'Ibompsam Development regarding their interest in development of a residential hawing site south of County Road• iM across from the Oat Ridge Development. As you aro aware, we met with W. Bruce- Pankonin, from Oma Thompson, and e*ained that the site they are interested in is not! currently able to be provideA with unitary sewer servics, It wu discussed thu in order to evaluate the potential of serving sanitary sewer smdy/feesibiltry report would: need to uadataken by the city engineer. '[his study would need to investigate apprnadmateiy 70% of the service area currentlysawed by the City of Monticello to help . determine how the existing land uses Impact the ability to expand the service area Considering that the City is ctmteasplating eapandon of the waste water treatens plant In the Amm with the sin based on projects m of land development, it would mate seine to 1 evaluate the current sourer servlee boundary. along with a potato' service area while. outlining the necessary capital Improvemeats to serve those areas. The study should be completed in conjunction with a planning .,, j%,, for the location of future developm tet within the City of Monticello Orderly Aonendcn Area (OAA) and outside . the OAA Ice essence. to re4val ste the OAA based on whom developers sad iodttatries are interested in developing, acid the avWW6 in" sewer service capacity. The sanitary sewer system for the City of Mondceflo has the following three mkloi components: Origtoal Mostice" plat j Sanitary sewer service is provided to the downtown area and the area coatalalod within the original Moadeello pia; (essentially north od the maroad tracts. east of Cbesmu Streat, and wrest of the waatewater treatment plant), by a series of small Weral pipes that discharge pito a VA*cb to ISdocs day trunk une located along River Sweet. This trunk lice was originally the primary want for tsieying «sage to the orWioal treatment plant NOV 23 '94 09:29 OSM MPLS, MN P.3 Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Maurice" November S. 1994 Page 2 Mississippi Drive Sanitary sewer service to the east Side of town. (east of the wastewater aeatment plant and north!of Coag State Aid highway 75, iadumne the Meadow Oaks devdopmem), as provided by the Mitdssim Drive system This system is limited by the apadty in the main located along Mississippi Drive The primary sewage carrying fuUity in the City of Monticello is the interceptor sorer line loaf between Sth and 6th Saean. from CSAH 39 (Golf Course Road) to the wwwwata treatment plant This interceptor provides sanitary sewer service to the propada along its path, but prfmarily to area mouth of the 194 freeway. and moat of the Meadow Oat Subdivision area Three crossings of the 194 freeway were aotidpated to service the southern City limits at Fallon Avow (reservoir)6 Minnesota Street, and CSAH 39 (Golf Course Road). In order to adequately evaluate the po ihis mueetion loeatiom for the proposed Orrin Tbompson developmwt. both the MissWippi Drive and interceptor system must be evaluated. We already know. without c outpledog the study, that the two sanitary seater systems were not designed to accommodate the Orrin Mwmpson developmeat area when construction of those systems was c�Tbunfore, evaluation of providing cervica to the property would include an evaludon .of boil systems fm eu bft and proposed development as WzWW oft comment In an effart eall pms�ie alteraativea►sroe are toto the major trot f cUldes � with the eaWM zoning into a computer program that eat be agjusted to evaltm various development wwarios. As a side note. Tony Emmerich has purchased property adjaceu t to the City (both south and eau) tbst errantly bow proposed to be savedby the esdsting sanitary, sewer system. He has expressed an interest in contributing to this study to determine hew his property could be best served in the fntum The (allowing tasks would-be Included la the sanitarysewer study if atuborimd: Input trunk sewer facilities (10 inch and larger) and Ctry zonula into a computer modellag program for flow analyst. 0— NOV 23 '94 09:30 OSM r'PLS, MN Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Mosatcello November S. 1994 Page 3 PA • Review Proposed , ,.,,. , , .,, treannew VIM eVandon versus possible coanded sacutary revues servioe area • Identify botdened s with existing unhary sewer system in relation to the expanded exist� service area.' • Evaluate esisft developed areas wftb rcWd to Awe site awandon and increase in developmem • Callbrata the model of the codaing development condition with actual ftmwer values sad lift station pumping records funs task wal requim the ... %.. of flowmeter —.0 ,,, .,, .,., by Clry stWE) • Identify short and long-term madam for sanitary saw" system trw* • Prepare speaft alternatives for service to Orrin Ibompson and Emmerich land pawls currently located outride of the available service area Ibis sandy will be etaremely bwe& W in Wmdfy[t capital fmp czaem needs few the City sanitary rawer system in areas nkat vm have previm* amldpated potential concerns, iarinding the mwdifi-doa of abs resavoir lift statin and the capadty of.the Wssf&" Drive system. to name a couple. Thb sewer study is something that Is vahaahle to the City of Monticello as I., , . "..., presaares increase As you mqy recall, a tanall analyds of the unnk ayauam sewvlag the lUcin property wu evaluated daring the zoning bearlop Tbb UA* would identij� the needs and goals of the Chy of Monticello aad'reatRrm ca mw* deew— idendlled when the originat sanitary aawer system wu davamped. It would be a9' mostion to develop a cosashariog approach for the study with each developer paft dir+eeay for the teasmty report portion of abelr properry with the remainder of the base stuff split egnaly between the two developers sad the Cly. If the andre awdy b authorized to evabaate furore passMides, we would anticipate that Orrin Zbompsoa w oWd pay MOO= for their feasib ift report sad $SAo W for tbeir share of the ovemB study, Tony Emmarkh would pay $ZOOM for his tusaaity report $3,00000 for the overall study, and the City of blendcello world eoandbaata $3,000.00 to the avera0 study, for a total feaswty report cost of MOD 00� 0 NOV 23 194 09:30 OSM PFLS, M P.S city of: November $ M4: Pap 4 W. Pankow 6om Orrin 7bompm cad I base Ma seed that tb8 foam would be pfaad . an the November 14. 1994 couadl aaend% cad that be would be in attendance to discus bis potential needs and poWWW share oftbo saw. . PI 1 give me a call at 5954M it you have aay quesdoes or commons regardfop tM . lamer. Sincerely. O YERON & AWOaAIWL WC brei •A. Wcftt, P. F- nchy c Jobe Sfmofa. Cfty of Mamioe� Bruce PMJmnl4 Orrin 7bomgon Tony Emmak4 Tay Emmerich Camsmuetba CompaW Rkk WaMaller, City of ldomkoDo oe • a�oar.ea..w..o cov Lbdis Orderly Annexa on ken L.......... t! Annexation Study i- 7ERICH City of Mcnticello -ffigm Plarming Area a L O ftwo 8 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/25/94 11:17:53 Q WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37505 10/26/94 RWE ASSOCIATES 37514 10/26/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37515 10/26/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37516 10/26/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 37516 10/26/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 37517 10/26/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0 37517 10/26/94 JONES/WILLIAM 0 37518 10/25/94 DALE SAUER 37519 10/25/94 GOVERNMENT TRAINING 37520 10/25/94 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP C 37520 10/25/94 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP C 37520 10/25/94 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP C N r 37521 10/25/94 JACOBSON/DIANE 37521 10/25/94 JACOBSON/DIANE 37522 10/25/94 MIDWEST VISION DISTR 37523 10/25/94 MOBIL 37524 10/25/94 OMANN BROTHERS. INC. 37525 10/25/94 S & S INDUSTRIAL SUP 37526 10/25/94 SHUMAN/CATHY 37527 10/25/94 TRI-STATE PUMP & CON 37527 10/25/94 TRI-STATE PUMP & CON 37528 10/25/94 U.S. POSTMASTER 37529 10/25/94 UNOCAL GENERAL CHECKING c Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 344 CHECK VOIDED 132.59CR 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 32.00 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 523.00 210 POSTAGE/SEM-WAT BILLI 141.45 210 POSTAGE/SEM-WAT BILLI 141.45 282.90 •C 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 170.00 826 INFO CENTER SALARY 50.000R 120.00 aC 90368 REIMB/RECYCLING BINS 9.12 72 REG FEE/JEFF O'NEILL 150.00 89 BANQUET TICKETS 150.00 89 BANQUET TICKETS 75.00 89 BANQUET TICKETS 75.00 300.00 •C 92 MILEAGE REIMB 90.98 92 REIMB/NEW DEP REG BLD 45.13 136.11 al 279 GLASSES/STREET DEPT 99.86 131 GAS/WATER DEPT 2.78 334 SAND/STREET DEPT 132.59 845 SUPPLIL•S/WATER DEPT 149.10 191 MILEAGE REIMB/SEMINAR 21.00 832 CHANELL ALARM 41.75 832 CHANELL ALARM 41.75 83.50 210 PRESORT MAILING FEE 75.00 213 GAS/FIRE. DEPT 21.01 TOTAL 2,005.48 RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM y`11/01/94 17:14:55 AHRRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37530 10/31/94 BITUMINOUS CONSULTIN 37531 10/31/94 BITUMINOUS CONSULTIN 37532 10/31/94 DON ERICKSON 37533 10/31/94 R. P. UTILITIES ,7534 10/31/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37535 10/31/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37536 10/31/94 STEPIIENS-PECK, INC 37537 10/31/94 U.S. POCTMASTER 37538 10/31/94 D E K REFUSE RECYCLI GENERAL CHECKING c Disbursement Journal DEGCRIPTION AMOUNT CL, 776 STRM SEWER EXT/MONT 2,105.19 776 STRM SEWER EXT/MONT F 456.00 90369 TREE REPLACEMENT REIMB 20.00 821 CONST COSTS/C HILL 43,111.47 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 800.00 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 15.00 398 PECKS TITLE BOOK/DEF R 44.00 210 POSTAGE/02P REG OFFIC 174.00 611 RECYCLING CONTRACT 2,404.65 TOTAL 49,218.31 EIRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/07/94 18:02:23 Disbursement Journal (ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C GENERAL CHECKING 31,539 11/07/94 BERG & LEAF .90370 PAYROLL WITHHOLDING 024.02 37540 11/0!/94 D & K REFUSF RECYCLI 611 RECYCLING CONTRACT 2.499.65 37541 11/07/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 222 FICA W/H/J EISELE/SCK 10.54 37541 11/07/94 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 222 MED W/H/J EISELE/SCK PA 2.4G 13.00 K'C 37542 11/09/94 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL .90371 61.11FPRTNT/PLAN E ZON 4.50 37543 11/07/94 LUKACH/JOHN 327 TRAVEL EXPENSE 47.47 37543 11/07/34 LUKACH/JOHN 327 TRAVEL EXPENSE 15.02 37543 11/07/94 LUKACH/JOHN 327 TRAVEL EXPENSE 15.83 37543 11/07/94 LUKACH/JOHN 327 TRAVEL EXPENSE 15.83 94.95 a( 311,44 11/0'7/!44 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 051.00 37545 11/07/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 110 WATERCRAFT TITLE 32..00 3754G 11/07/ 94 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD 254 EASMCNT RECORDING/SCHO 19.50 �)54G 11/07/04 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD 251, EASMENT RFCORD IN(;/L)0ND 19.50 39.00 375b7 11/00/94 ADMIRED PROPERTIEL, .90372 RECYCLING CREDIT/REIM;: 15.40 17540 11/08/94 ADVANTAGE PAPER 03) HAND COAP/CITY HALL 59.08 37'i4U ll./00/04 ADVANTAGE PAPf:R 0.3 OVERPAYMENT FROM 01,'T 0.30CR 50. G'1 C 3)169 11/00/94 AMC GROUP 0 IMPR0VCMENT0/PARKS DE 138.40 � M '7550 11/00/94 ARAMARK n40 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 114.00 87551 11/00/9(4 oro FRANKLIN 70 FILM/`1TVfi1?T 0)PPLIE,, 3.72 I ;)'00? 11/00/f14 40`1(/TCM )3fi RC IM1fVGAt,Y1'C/GI HILL; T 9.•'5 11100 11/00/94 GNAI.IN INTI:i'Ti't: FNVLG 07(! IaJ'1 FEF /C HILI.`,) TV V 1b6.00 brih 1!/UQ/74 V.klL•.GEIIATCR YL L(-C(aON ?4 IFI E4'FIONF o:AEGc1 06.31 ^,l ? 0 11/00/:)4 I;R1OULWAT„1! TELE :'11110 '14 TFLIA HONr HAGIi C: 1)2.°`.1 11/OG/9ti fLk1f'(,fWA7FR lfffi'HCI;J C4ILIfftl tJF CHA1,(J 152.1f' it t"4 11/00/')u OkIU61 WATVP T1.1 LFII 1: J4 YI'I.LPH')NI'. (140:(31 (4 .04 'l i'�i;4 11/0'404 Fk IU6: WAi Ek 1ESf MON ?u YFI L-'PH('tJF CIIARGE`, 14'+.)4 )71,511 11/0(3/94 FkII)iOWAT1.R T11!'0f;0PJ ')4 T(IFPHIINI ';HAGIit' 4.)0 (T i +',t, 1 1 'no/'i4 (trT()Gf t1ATF k TFI ( FHtiN "4 TE,( E PHONE ( HAVCE `_ ?0.7`, �l )',4t1 11/1);1/':4 I1RI1)htWA"r'1'R IL1,i 4HUN 4 :11 t PH+.tJI #:HAI:n' 1/';.' ;: L'+ 11/00/1)4 f'!.If% `'WA1F.R (ii: f110fl ?4 fl F;`V,NJ IHAf Ci ' 41.',6 1!1''::114 T11 PHON .14 Tf I , t'i."::` • 11A:!LA 791.1`) BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/07/94 16:02:23 ( WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37554 11/08/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 37555 11/08/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 37535 11/08/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 37555 11/08/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF S1 3151x5 11/08/94 CELLULAR 2000 OF 8T 37556 11/08/94 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT 37557 11/08/94 CENTURY LABS '1755:, 11/08/94 COPY OUPLCATING PROD 7'7559 11/00/94 CULLIGAN S/500 11/00/94 VYNA SVOTEMS 3v501 11/00/d4 DYNAMIC FASTNER c7' H^ 11/03/'1. P.RV' 0 fiHARPENING :'71,G3 11/00/04 FEFDRITE CONTROL:'. I J 16L l 11/00/16 FL DRITE CCONTR©l �, t 9v G4 11/00/94 rLICKCk'C i.V. 8 APP 11/00/94 FOL'TFR-FRAN?EN-C'ARLC- t7y66 11/00/04 FRONI'LINF Pllfb FIR' ;"G'r 11/00/94 G �: K 'AQVICES ;ll,63 11/110/94 G(rN:RAI RCNTAI. CCNTL }6G;i '1M^/�4 14N(RAL RENTAL CrNTC lf,(<) 11/rlo/pb Gf^ALD HELt MAN LONtJ,T r .!J 11/00/`)4 ',I CVS., J I'L;TrlTING, IN r', 1 11/(;1/"h HA7,-H-;'E1F1_'ON ALL' 11/00/'; NATO" 1'111,; ',A1;. /Of)/ 04 Hh,"iH-Pi1FIr_ON `:AL1 • DisL•ursement •Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl 24 TELEPHONE CHARGES 22.94 1.577.51 794 MOBIL PHONE CHGS/CIV 137.49 794 MOBIL PHONE CHGS/CIV OE 1.35 794 MOBIL PHONE CHGS/CIV D 15.67 794 MOBIL PHONE CHGS/CIV O 24.60 179.11 822 CMIF GRANT PAYMENNT 1.100.?1 276 CRACK FILLER/WWTP 07.09 41 LIBRARY COPY MCH MTC 54.40 753 WATER .OFTNER CHG/RENT 23.11 50 SHOP Pc GARAGE 9UPPLIE 154.01 846 BATTERY FOR DRILL/NATE 60.09 841 SAW SHARPFNING/FIR( r.'I'P 0.00 56 MICC PROF SERVICES/WAT 36.00 56 CHEMICALS/SUNNY FRFSH 62?.00 658.00 GO EOUIPMENT/UAM RECORDF. 713.04 Lit INtHJRANCE PNEM/FIRE 0 '1^9.17 510 'STRAP`./I''Afil'1. CA0FVVI 172.17 051 ktl(, MAT"/E,LP MT1./GLP G ?O.OD G4 :;t AFV0I,01NGVt1,11' 0 GAR x7.110 G4 RULLFf041 HANDLE/PAkV, 0.90 40.1)0 OOG FL.R E`A'E P LO1,K/ULP RL: 46. U0 C40 I111� Pi'WMTY 1')CPt`t '4y.00 X14 f, 11. G, '. LIGHT/: 1RLFT 0 .;^4.03 114 f'FRf. 110;1 /pAINK I -, v: II.t.'�l G fAC'[ !,H]f 10/. HCP E ',Ah 44.11 G92. !1 VC aC a, p EtRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 1'/07/94 16:02:23 ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37572 11/09/94 HENRY F -. ASSOCIATES 37:172 11/08/94 HENRY 8 ASSOCIATE3 37573 11/08/94 HERMES/JEkRY 17574 11/08/94 HOGLUND COACH LINES 31575 11/00/94 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 71576 11/08/94 J M OI'L COMPANY 3751U 11/08/94 .) M OIL COMPANY 31b77 11/09/94 K MART STURF '?,572 11/00/94 KEN ANDER30N TPUCKIN X75/9 11/00/94 K0Kf)V(:HAK/0LIVF. /� Y4F,0 11/08/94 L "N" R SERVICE; �- l 77301 11/00/94 MAPIF I,AK: LUMGFR CG 711,02 11/00/94 MAU6 GUGU9 Ilig 2 11/0,1/04 MAUL S00n;. Ji!+U? 11/06/04 MA't5 F000S 11',0? 11/00/04 MANS F00-0 ;75RP 11/00/04 MAUS FOUD`' ;71,0` 11/00/94 MAV° f-0005 17 , 11/0(1/04 MINNF.0iA`;CO 1',CS 11f0a)")h MN PLANNING ASC0(!Al 374'1'• 11/00/1!4 r:N '1TATF 1'IRfU(-PA: 11/00/!'4 MC•."JTI('(LLi]ANIMA' Ci) ) 1',tll 11/U.;/')4 MONTT,:: I 0 ('t NIOG ''I '�.0 11/00/^4 1JfI;'i11LRN ',Tt''1f;, P(,HI ;1/P,4114 00' H1 RN -,'IA+I`. :'t -Wt "! 11/08/911 Nl+'1THt AW "ArF'. .."Ill" C e")/114 NtI: 7111 I.N TAT" 1,/1 -+t:' NN ,TAT[, , U' LN TA Wr rt1'.i,rJ "iYA 11. 1'1lUi" Oizbursemant Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT t' 545 WRENCH/WATER DEPT MTC 140.55 545 METERS, ETC/WATER DEP 652.45 793.03 01 LIBRARY CONTRACT PYMT '27.50 483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS P 5.091.87 05 GAS/FIRE DEPT 237.39 95 OIL/STRCET DEPT 50.13 95 GA:,/-TREF.T DEPT 06S.90 915.67 460 1,ASTI.RY FLAYHLICHT/F?k 49.96 G97 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE 74.55 97 MILEAGE EXPENSE 56.91, 10:1 DFADEOLT LOCKS/PRKC C 146.28 004 SHOFGA�H V" LUCK/DF.P NF, 52.09 100 DEPUTY REGISTRAR SUP 1?.00 103 CITY 11A' -L 301't''LIFS 17.'A 108 RECYCLING DATTFRIES 11.47 103 FIRE 005T SUPPLIC'1 1.97 1011 CLEANING CUP/ANIMAL C,0 64.39 100 Ct.FANINr SUP/I.ICRARY 34.93 ib2.40 71'1 IITILT01-:40CP Nf',i 10.32 700 ftEG/SFMINAR/..EfF ONEIL 15.00 477 190'1 MIEN' 0EP M! P.^I R I"0.1)G 105 ANIMAL C(1tJ,k61 (ONT 1.100.00 1 -.9 MONTH1 Y CGINTRA' T 1'Y 9.0 ) 1. JJ 14:: NT It 111;' 1., 1171LITILf. 4,LO?.00 1411 I'T T: tTe; 140 '' Ii S'T 1+' ','1L ;TIE' S'�0.'(• •' C IK( t RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/0!/94 16:02:23 �IAkRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37585 11/08/94 NORTHERN STATE$. PORE 37539 11/08/94 O'NEILL/JEFF 31589 11/00/94 O'NCILL/JEFF 37590 11/00/84 PAGE LINK :7590 11/08/94 PAGE LINk 37590 11/08/94 PAGE LINK 7590 11/08/94 PAGE LINK )7'590 11/08/94 PAGE LINK 37590 11/08/94 PAGE LINK 3/59U 11/00/94 PAGE LINK ;71500 11/08/94 PAGE LINK ]7591 11/08/04 PCTER,EN'S MONT FORD 37592 11/00/94 RTVFR`:II1r 011 911 11/00/n4 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC. /!,I'.11/08/?4 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 31574 11/UO/94 SAFF.TY•K1_U.N CORP. 16115 11/08/04 SENTRY OYC: T EMP, 1100 11/00/94 SNARE CORPURATION 1',9'1 11/OC/O4 SIGNS I'IU: 15')� 11/00/`14 -,IMON'30N IJJWM gs COOP 159'" 11/110/04 OIMON''ON LllMM k COMP X 75^0 11 /01)/04 'JMOWON LL1MWt f, Cf•Mr 159'7 1 t/UOMI, dli C t4AY(A; TA! If: . al,OC 11 /00/94 G1 . r , UU0 FCC i AURANT 11/00/ to 2 .1:1 Mill 4IRI, F.OIIIPM 11 /00/94 ',1 AN , klttt'UI' c;:. ' 1 1 /011/114 1111' ", VAMP !'AD COMPIVJ Disbur;iement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Cl 148 UTILITIES 729.66 9.503.61 161 MILEAGE EXPENSE 51.52 161 FILM/PLAN & 30N/REIMB 5.39 56.91 703 PAGER CHARGCC 42.60 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES 24.50 703 PAGER CHARGES 21.30 703 PAGER CHARDS 21.30 703 PAGER CHARGES ?1..90 703 PAGER CHARGES 703 PAGER CHARGES ?1.30 194.90 165 VEHICLE REPAIR/STREETS 15.14 496 OIL/STRCET DEPT 60.00 7?7 VEHICLE REPAIRS/PARKS 68.65 227 VEHICLE. REPAIRS/FINE 0 40.00 100.135 104 MTC AGRMT/CHOP A GAR 40.46 100 ALAFM MTC: AGRMT/FIRE 126.00 ?81 WINDSHIELD CI NR/SHOP G ''i3.I9 OFO SIGNS/STREET UPT 11.70 113 WAYFk UTILITY M7,' ',UP 110.J� Ill -i 1MPROVEMfNT`.'/PARI(3 29.45 t03 SU('i'I TC9/STRC .T fiUlT 17.;; ! ?P6, 14 IOR ROAFI '1f Al ANY/1iWTP 7N. J' 209 HAND f.W, I : , 1 I(RARY 10.01 243 1'I1:1 I Y' 1N�;IIdf•HF12/�li'P 1 tll. ?.1 1')7 NFW',PAPFR CUf''.CU'dIt' ti ?1.65 I,1'> 1;117 11111T/','iAM•' �', 1W, .'3.'"I aC ni 41 E;RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/07/91. 16:02:23 (,1k6.ANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37604 11/08/94 UNITED STATES SALT, 37605 11/08/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 3'7605 11/08/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37605 11/08/94 UNITOG RENTAL. SERVIC -,7605 11/08/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 37(305 11/08/94 UNITOG RENTAL SERVIC 77605 11/08/94 UNITOG kENTAL SERVIC P7606 11/08/04 VACKO RUBBISH kFMOVA .17606 11/00/94 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVA 37607 11/08/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDTTO 7,1608 11/00/94 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP GI'NERAL CHECKING C Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL 432 SAND/SALT-SNOW & IC 1.422.32 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13.64 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 27.20 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13.64 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 13.G4 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 57.85 211 UNIFORM RENTAL 57.35 183.90 524 GARBAGE CONTRACT PY 9,517.21 524 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 612.48 10.125.69 219 SCE.RG GRANT PYMT 2.,760.51 512 UTILTIES 8.00 TOTAL 43,393.51 *C *C BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/15/94 13:54:25 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37609 11/16/94 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD 37810 11/16/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37811 11/16/94 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 37612 11/16/94 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA 37613 11/16/94 A.E. MICHAELS 37814 11/16/94 AGASSI2 ENVIRONMENTA 37615 11/16/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 37615 11/16/94 ANDERSON & ASSOCIATE 37616 11/16/94 AUTOMATIC GARAGE 000 37617 11/16/94 B & 0 PLUMBING & HEA 37618 11/16/94 BARTON SAND & GRAVEL (37619 11/16/94 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, 37620 11/16/94 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 37621 11/16/94 CONTINENTAL SAFETY E 37622 11/16/94 CRYSTEEL DIST. INC. 37623 11/16/94 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, 37624 11/18/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37624 11/16/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37624 11/16/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37624 11/16/94 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 37625 11/16/94 HERMES/JERRY 37826 11/10/94 H01.MF.S 6 GRAVEN 37627 11/16/84 IN INSTITUTE OF MUNI 37628 11/16/94 J M OIL COMPANY '7629 11/10/84 KRAMDER & AS50CIATES Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CI 254 RECORD EASEMENT/PLAN 2 19.50 118 SNOWMOBILE & ATV REG 848.00 118 WATERCRAFT TITLE 10.00 98 REG FEE/RICK WOLFSTELL 25.00 338 BLINDS/DEP REG OFFICE 77.55 761 SOIL BORINGS/GILLE 1,915.90 10 MISC SIGNS/STREET DEP 846.75 10 SIGNS/BLD INSPEC/ADORE 91.72 938.4,7 •C 260 REPAIR GAR OOOR/FIRE 148.28 600 RAIN CAPS/FIRE DEPT 64.00 305 SAND/RD 10 SH1rR)S/WW *31.20 25 REPAIR MTC MATERIAL/ST 97.06 27 PRINTER PAPER/ELECTION 17.11 „ 256 EQUIPMENT MTC/FIRE OE 271.02 428 BEARING/SNOW & ICE REP 50.41 053 GLOVES/STREET DEPT 92.24 78 OIL/SHOP & GAR 4.70 70 VEH REPAIR PARTS/ETRE 271.37 78 MISC SUPPLIES/SHO& GAR 49.07 70 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE DEP 24.95 350.95 • 01 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 227.50 86 MRA LEGAL FEES 519.97 494 MEMBERSHIP DUES 75.00 95 OII./FIRE DEPT 36.70 000 ASSESSING CONTRACT 1.245.93 ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/15/94 13:54:25 OARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37630 11/16/94 M & P TRANSPORT, INC 37631 11/16/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37631 11/16/94 MARTIE'S FARM SERVIC 37632 11/16/94 MN COPY SYSTEMS INC 37633 11/16/94 MN DEPUTY REGISTRAR' 37634 11/16/94 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO 37635 11/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37635 11/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37635 11/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37635 11/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37635 11/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37635 11/16/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 37635 11/16/94 MONTICEI.I.O OFFICE PR I 3/636 11/16/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 37636 11/16/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 37G36 11/16/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 37636 11/16/94 MONTICELLO PRINTING 37637 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37637 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37637 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 3 7 G 3 7 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37637 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37637 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES )7637 11/16/84 MONTICELLO LIMES 37037 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37637 11/16/94 MONTICELLO TIMES 37638 11/16/04 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37638 11/16/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 37630 11/16/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR ??630 11/1R/A4 NATIONAL BUSHING PAP 37638 11/10/94 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 3/639 11/16/04 NORTHERN STATES POWE 37639 11/16/64 NORIIILRN STATES POWE Disbursement •Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 265 HAULING CHGS/SAND & S 243.67 107 MISC SUPPLIES/C HILLS I 9.25 107 MISC SUPPLIES/PARKS DE 34.07 43.32 756 COPY MCH MTC AGRMT/FIR 31.95 121 MEMBERSHIP DUES/DEP R 210.00 185 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,100.00 136 OFFICE SUPPLIES/C HAL 341.05 136 EASEMENT FORMS/PLAN & 2 6.39 136 FILE CABINET/C HALL 217.26 136 OFFICE SUP/DEP REG OFF 39.88 136 OFFICE SUP/P WORKS 292.80 136 OFFICE SLIP/BLD INSPECT 3.62 136 SUPPLIES/HRA BANQUET 14.61 915.61 137 EXCAVATION PERMITS/WAT 50.91 137 PURCAHSE ORDERS/FINANC 51.92 137 PAYROLL FORMS/FIRE DEP 13.79 137 BLD INSPEC RECORD CARD 27.90 144.52 140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 1,346.37 140 AD FOR BIOS/GENERATOR 57.60 140 BLD PERMIT INFO 09.60 140 PUBLIC HL'ARING NOTICES 67.67 140 TIMES SUBSCRIP/DEP REG 25.00 140 ELECTION VOTING TEST AD 6.71 146 WATER FLUSHING AO 59.60 140 AD FOR BIDS/PUMPER TRK 40.26 140 FIRE FIGHTER AD 407.00 2,119.91 + 144 FIkE DEPT/CORRECT CODIN 9.97CR 144 WATER DEPT MTC '31JPPLIE 33.23 144 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STR 62.20 144 VEH RFPATR PARTS/CTP. I.E 144 MISC SUPPLIEf/SHOP C! U 10.01 ' 197.01 e 140 UTILIIIES 28.56 140 0TILITIE': 31,51 60.06 a BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/15/94 13:54:25 C WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 37640 11/16/94 NTC RESTORATION 37641 11/16/94 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 37641 11/16/94 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 37641 11/16/94 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 37642 11/16/94 OLSON, USSET,AGAN & 37642 11/16/94 OLSON. USSET,AGAN & 37643 11/16/94 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I 37644 11/16/94 PAUL A WALDRON & ASS 37645 11/16/94 PHOTO I 37645 11/16/94 PHOTO I 37645 11/16/84 PHOTO I 37646 11/16/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 37646 11/16/94 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S 37647. 11/16/84 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 37648 11/16/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 37640 11/16/94 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU 37649 11/16/94 RIVERSIDE OIL 37650 11/16/94 SHUMAN/CATHY 37651 11/16/94 TELXON CORPORATION 37657 11/16/94 VIDEO PLUS 37653 11/10/94 WATF.RPRO SUPPLIES CO 37654 11/16/04 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO 37654 11/16/94 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO 37655 11/16/94 WRIGHT WAY SHOPPER 17656 11/10/94 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO \ 6FNERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 852 CONCRETE/7TH ST & RAM 189.00 160 WWTP RENTAL REPAIRS 43.30 160 PROF FEES/NEW MTC ADDT 43.00 160 STREET LIGHT REPAIRS 306.95 393.15 292 LEGAL FEES 2.311.25 292 PROF SERV/EASTWOOD KN 100.00 2,411.25 836 PROF SERVICES/WATER 0 380.00 830 BLD INSPECTION SERVIC 744.00 743 MISC PICTURES/PLAN & 2 14.15 743 MISC SUPPLIES/P WKS IN 16.40 743 NEWSLETTER PICTURES 10.60 41.15 173 FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50.00 173 CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00 450.00 175 WWTF CONTRACT PYMT 31,840.50 26 PROF SERVICES/MRA 225.00 26 PROF SERVICES/TAPPERS 225.00 450.00 496 OIL/FIRE DEPT 80.94 181 TRAVEL EXPENSE/SEMINAR 24.36 942 REPAIR RECYCLING SCAN 293.21 311 P WORKS INSPECTION SUP 15.98 670 WATER DEPT SUPPLIES 138.58 210 SHERIFF'S CONTRACT 23,322.33 219 ADO'L LANDFILL CHGS 7,053.45 31,175.70 711 HELP WANTED AD/PARKS D 87.75 224 NOV CONTRACT PYMT 625.00 TOTAL O1.905.00 rC rC rt r� r1 r RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 1/01/94 17:15:29 Disbursement Journal _t f' VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C ARRANT DATE LIQUOR FUND 17774 10/27/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 BEER PURCHASE 98.40 17775 10/27/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800002 TELEPHONE CHARGES 159.91 17776 0/27/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 718.02 17776 10/27/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 2,253.34 17776 10/27/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR CREDIT 189.81CR 17776 10/27/94 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE CREDIT 4.62CR 2,776.93 tf 17777 10'/27/94 HOME JUICE 800136 JUICE PURCHASE 49.35 17778 10/27/94 EXPO 94 800181 REG/CONFERENCE 136.00 17779 10/27/94 LIEFERT TRUCKING 800025 FREIGHT CHARGES 336.70 17780 10/27/84 U 9 WEST COMMUNICATI 800093 ADVERTISING 26.10 17781 10/27/94 GRIP-PAK RETAIL INC 800182 MISC SUPPLIES 96.75 17782 10/27/84 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 BEER PURCHASE /,191.86 17783 10/27/94 QUALITY LAWN MAINTEN 800070 MOWING CHARGES 140.00 17784 10/27/94 TOTAL REGISTER SY9TE 8,00112 MTC AGRMT/REGISTERS 1,575.00 17705 10/27/94 DISCOUNT PAPER PRODU 800177 PAPER & RIBBON OUPPLI 107.00 1778G 10/27/94 PAUSTIS & SONS 000103 WINE PURCHASE 03.00 17707 10/27/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 280.57 17707 10/27/04 QUALITY WINE r, SPIRI 000040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 442.89 732.46 = 17709 10/77/94 GRIGGS. COOPER 8 COM 000010 LIQUOR PURCHASE 10,282.49 17709 10/27/94 CAGLE WINE COMPANY 000012 WINE PURCHASE 2,035.04 17700 10/27/94 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 000100 WINE PURCHASE 1.029.59 17700 10/21/94 PH'1LLIPS WINO & SPIR 000100 MLXEO FOR REGALE 107.50 17790 10/27/f)4 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 000100 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,732.04 2,929.07 17791 10/27/04 JOHNSON BROS WN0LEOA 000022 WINE PURCHASE 1,400.20 1719? 10/21/94 OUALITY WINE & OPIRI 000040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 4,020.41 17192 10/27/94 CJUALITY WINE & :PIRI 600040 WINE PURCHASE 100.06 4,007.21 DRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 1 1/0 1/94 17:15:29 Disbursement. Journal .,ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL1 LIQUOR FUND 17793 10/27/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 536.65 17793 10/27/94 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MISC MIX FOR RESALE 67.00 603.65 "CHI 17794 10/27/94 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 6,273.54 LIQUOR FUND TOTAL 42,131.67 c BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/04/94 15:45:12 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LIQUOR FUND 17795 11/04/94 SERNICKI.S PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE 171.99 17796 11/04/94 BRIDGEWATER TELEPHON 800002 TELEPHONE CHARGES 157.30 17797 11/04/94 CITY OF MONTICELLO 800003 SEWER WATER BILL 20.49 17788 11/04/94 COAST TO COAST 800004 FURNACE FILTERS/BLO MT 19.11 17799 11/04/94 CONSOLIDATED COMM DI 800163 ADVERTISING 39.25 17800 11/04/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800008 BEER PURCHASE 15,737.35 17800 11/04/94 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 401.25 16,138.60 17801 11/04/94 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 BEER PURCHASE 1,311.70 17802 11/04/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 BEER PURCHASE 1,399.50 1/802 11/04/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 15.20 17802 11/04/94 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 900011 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 21.30 1,436.00 1/$309 11/04/94 FAGI.F WING COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASF 3,867.95 17803 11/04/94 FAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MISC MIX FOR RESALE X05.94 4,169.89 17804 11/04/94 FLECCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 PAPER BAGS/SUPPLIES 42.33 17004 11/04/94 FLESCH-0 PAPER SCRVI 800110 TOWELS/LIQUOR STORE SU 15.49 57.02 17005 11/04/34 G & K SERVICE 0001-29 RUG MATS/MTC OF HI.f1 30.70 17000 11/04/94 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 000010 LIQUOR PURCHASE 7,450.33 17006 11/04/94 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 000010 MIX FOR RE5ALI- 51.70 7,502.03 1780/ 11/04/94 GRO,5LF.IN 13EVERAGC 1000019 DEER PURCHASE 7.109.40 17000 11/(14/94 HOME JUICE 000116 JUICE FOR RESALE 0?.a5 170Uf1 11/04/04 .JOHNOON UROO WKOLCiA 00002? 1.1011n.R PURCHAOF 8.??7.7U 17007 11/04/04 J011NGGN DROO WHOLFUA 000022 WINE PURCHASE -1,201.1i3 1/009 11/04/94 .IUHNfON ORO' WHOLLSA 000022 MIX F4,-)R RE'JAIA' 04.79 1;4,114.10 ro 17010 11/04/94 411fi1 I.ANDY & TOP)ACCO 000021 (16.: 6 CIGARS FOR 16 S IU5.74 1 /()10 11/04/04 JUI}t' CANDY f- TOMACCO 000021 1 7000R E-TORE ::Lwf l-IES G4.00 C170.54 c ERC FINANCIAL 5'YSTEM 11/04/94 15:45:12 Disbursement Journal l� tVAR,RANT AMOUNT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION LIQUOR FUND 17811 11/04/94 MINNEGASCO 800160 UTILITIES 52.23 17812 11/04/94 MN WINEGROWERS COOPE 800132 WINE PURCHASE 368.20 17813 11/04/94 MONTICELLO OFFICE PR 800031 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.65 17814 11/04/94 NEWTON MANUFACTURING 800149 PENS/OPERATING SUPPLI 102.65 17815 11/04/94 NORTHERN STATES POWE 800035 UTILITIES 930.79 11816 11'/04/94 PAUSTIS & SONS 800103 WINE PURCHASE 170.75 17917 11/04/94 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR,800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 2,195.21 17817 11/04/94 PHILLIPS 'WINE & SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASL 2,058.96 17817 11/04/94 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 MIX FOR RESALE 67.74 17017 11/04/94 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 MISC FOOD ITEMS/RESAL 287.37 4,,608.18 1701E 11/04/94-GUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 12,190.00 17010 11/04/94 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 358.89 12,55G.89 FOR 301.20 17019 11/04/94 RONIS ICE COMPANY 000041 ICE RESALE 17820 11/04/94 SIMONSON LUMOER COMP 900141 DOOR LOCK/MTC SUPPLICS 10.77 17021 11/04/94 9T. CLOUD RESTAURANT 000046 GLASSES & MIX FOR REC 181.7G 1702,1 11/04/94 OT. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 CLEANING SUPPLICO 51.55 17021 11/04/94 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 000045 JUICE FOR REGALE 15.90 240.20 17022 11/04/94 THORPE DIt;TRIOUTING 800040 DEER PURCHASE 18,310.20 17022 11/04/94 TNORPC OISTRIOUTING 000040 NON ALCOHOLIC uEHR ?01.7(1 10,519.90 178?3 11/04/84 TRAVELKRf, DIRECTORY 800007 ADVERTISINt3 192.00 17074 11/04/94 VIKING COCA-COLA Et OT 800051 VnFPURCHASE 622.9!1 L.IO UOR FUND TOTAI 02.7100..,1 I INFORMATION ITEM November 28, 1994 Update on Citv's development of the Eastwood Knoll residential plat. (K.W.) Over the past year or so, the City has been working toward the goal of developing Outlots C & D of the Meadow Oak Estates development into an upscale residential plat containing approximately 30 lots to be known as Eastwood Knoll. This proposed development has been delayed for a number of reasons; and since it became apparent that we would be unable to complete the improvements to the project in 1994, there hasn't been a real strong effort by the City staff to rush this project. Now that we are nearing the end of 1994, and it has been our intent to hopefully have a final plat approved and ready for bidding the sewer, water, and street improvements in January for early spring construction, we do need to decide once and for all the final layout and number of lots that we should create if we still expect to meet this early spring time table next year. Although I think it is common knowledge that this property is always for sale to an individual developer or builder, if the City is going to continue with assuming development of this intended upscale neighborhood, we need to decide whether our previously -approved preliminary plat recommended by the Planning Commission should be continued or whether a whole new redesign should be considered. City staff has spent numerous hours reviewing the propcscd ac:•c!cpment, including various site visits by myself, Jeff, John Simola and also Bret Weiss, City Engineer. In addition, I have personally accompanied a few Council members on a walk through the property now that we have surveyed and staked the center line of the proposed streets. While I think we can all agree that it may be impossible to save every tree in this development, our intent is to try and create an upscale development with numerous trees and to create a neighborhood that would not only be desirable but also encourage a higher valued home. After making these site visits, some stall members, along with our engineer, have recommended the plat be altered slightly by realigning some roads and the shortening of the major cul-de-sac to not only protect some valuable trees, but to also hopefully develop better building sites. In doing so, the proposed development remains very similar to the original design that was recommended by the Planning Commission and provides for a new direct access to Meadow Oak Avenue from the adjacent development of Briar Oaks with the cul-de-sac still remaining on the west end of the property. As some of you may recall, the direct street connection to Meadow Oak Avenue was felt to be an important point of the development in that it would, or should, alleviate traffic from going through the existing Meadow Oak Estates development as a shortcut and would also provide the Eastwood Knoll development with its own separate entrance for its own identity purposes. Information Item Eastwood Knoll Plat November 28, 1994 Page 2 Although I realize there are as many ideas on how this plat should be designed as there are individuals who have reviewed it, the City has to decide once and for all whether this is going to be a City project or if we are going to wait until a private developer purchases this property from us. Since we haven't had many offers in the past that have been reasonable, I am assuming the City will want to continue with the development; and if so, we need to decide whether we are going to do it in early 1995 or put in on the shelf and wait for a few years to develop it. Some comments I have heard from individuals concerning this development are mixed, yet I believe there will be plenty of interest in this property once it is subdivided and developed with utilities. There are currently a number of builders in the area that are having difficulty in finding residential lots to build on that are not controlled by other developers; and along with individual interest in an upscale neighborhood, I do not think it will take the City 5 to 8 years to sell these lots. In light of the proposed changes that have been recommended by staff and our engineer, I've enclosed a copy of the original plat and a sketched -in overlay of the new street alignments that are recommended for the final plat. As I noted earlier, the changes were recommended to save additional trees and hopefully make some of the lots more desirable by having better building sites. If the Council is still in agreement with the general concept of the City platting the property, preparing plans and specifications, with the intent of bidding and awarding this project in early spring, the staff will continue with the final plat and most likely have it on the December 12 Council agenda for approval. On the other hand, if we are not in general agreement on how this plat should be designed but the Council is still in favor of being the developer, I would then suggest we set up a workshop with the Council and staff, along with our engineer, to review, discuss, and finalize a design that we can get prepared and approved to keep this project on a reasonable schedule. It seems that after a year to a year -and -a -half of discussing, designing, and reviewing, we should either approve something once and for all or let's put it on the shelf and forget about it for a while. If any Council member has any comment regarding this development, please lot staff members know; or if no comments are raised, we will be proceeding with the redesign development per enclosed sketch plan. COUNCEL UPDATE November 83. 1894 Review of Erosion Control Policv. (J.O.) City Council is asked to review the attached erosion control policy and, if necessary, place formal discussion of the policy on the Council agenda. This policy has been formulated by City staff to allow staff to manage erosion problems resulting from land development and building activity. The main problems resulting from development include excessive amounts of dirt being dragged onto city streets, damage to new curb systems, and erosion of disturbed soils into wetlands, streets, and storm sewers. The proposed policy has been sent to the builders and developers in the area with the notice that the policy will be enforced starting on the Tuesday morning after the Council meeting. Feel free to ask questions, make comments, etc., or place consideration of the policy on the Council agenda for formal discussion and review. City of Monticello Erosion Control Policy Residential Lots The purpose of the erosion control policy for residential home construction is to control individual lot site access, thereby limiting damage to the street and curb, as well as reducing the contamination of the streets and siltation of ponds, storm sewers and receiving waters. This policy is written with the understanding that it is extremely difficult to eliminate street contamination; however, by restricting the lot access to one location on each lot, contamination should be significantly reduced. This policy contains provision for both home construction within new developments as well as home construction on random lots located throughout the City of Monticello. The policy for erosion control is as follows: Development Lots: All new developments will have erosion control that consists of silt fence and/or sod. If a building permit is issued prior to installation of curb, erosion control consisting of silt fence will be placed at the property line until such time as curb and two rolls of sod behind the curb are in place. ,No inspections will occur until erosion control (silt fence and/or sod) is in place. The home builder will be allowed to remove a 20 -foot section of erosion control (sod and/or silt fence) in the location of the proposed driveway. The contractor shall place a gravel or crushed rock construction entrance the width of the driveway, at least 20 feet wide, to help reduce contamination on the streets and provide a stable entrance location for the subcontractors working on the structure. If the development is located in a sandy region of Monticello, the contractor is not responsible to place any crushed rock materials in driveway entrance prior to actual driveway construction. The remaining sod or silt fence adjoining the construction access must be maintained by the builder. This means that it shall not be damaged; and if the sod becomes silted due to excess erosion or the silt fence breaks or is moved, the erosion control should be replaced to its original condition. In the winter months when sod is not available silt fencing or staked straw bales will be used. Daily cleanup of heavily contaminated streets is enforced. If at anytime the Building Inspector notices the erosion control is damaged or the street contaminated, an inspection notice will be left at the site with corrections needed. If corrections are not made within 48 hours a stop work order will be issued and enforced until the corrections are made. In addition as part of the development agreement, the developer of the project shall enter into a contract with a street sweeping firm for routine cleaning and sweeping of the streets. If general street contamination becomes a problem, the Street Superintendent shall contact the project manager/developer who should authorize street sweeping immediately. The City will be authorized to schedule the project's street sweeping firm when cleanup is not completed in 48 hours. If the City is required to mobilize it's sweeper and perform the work, there will be a $100 mobilization charge, plus a charge of $75 per hour (or portion thereof) portal to portal. The City's equipment will be utilized on a last resort basis only, and is not intended to be utilized on a regular basis. EROSION.POL 11/2U94 Page 1 Individual Lot: If a lot is located outside of a development area, or after 80% of the lots in a development have been constructed, the policy shall be modified to specify that silt fence will be placed along the curb. If the erosion control is not in place, there will be no inspections. The streets will be cleaned or swept on an as - needed basis by the builder or as directed by the Building Inspector or Street Superintendent. The builder will be charged for street cleaning initiated by the City due to lack of response by the builder. Wetland/Pond Areas: To prevent any siltation of ponds or wetlands, the developer shall place silt fence along the full length of the disturbed area upstream of the wetland area. This shall be kept in place until vegetation is established. Once building permits are issued, the maintenance of erosion control along wetland/storm pond area is the responsibility of the builder. Ng inspections will occur until the erosion control is in place. Silt Fence Material and Installation: All silt fence material and installation shall comply with the City of Monticello standards as recommended by the City Engineer. EROSION.POL 11/21/94 Page 2