City Council Agenda Packet 02-13-1995AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 13, 1998 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held January 23, the regular
meeting held January 23, and the special meeting held January 31, 1995.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. Consideration of adopting a resolution supporting an administrative
fee increase for deputy registrars.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution adopting a housing plan and
program for issuance of multi -housing revenue bonds.
6. Consideration of reviewing assessor's report for 1994 and setting the Board
of Review for 1995 - Jerry Kramber.
7. Consideration of confirming appointment of new Fire Chief - Mark Wallen.
B. !� Consideration of an update report on Senior Citizen Center activities for
1994 - Pam Loidolt.
9. Consideration of approving preliminary plat of phase V of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision.
10. Consideration of approving Klein Farms EAW and authorizing submittal to
Environmental Quality Board.
11. Consideration of accepting Klein Farms residential subdivision feasibility
study.
12. Consideration of ordering plans and specifications for improvements to the
Iflein Farms residential subdivision.
13. Consideration of establishing Council subcommittee to update City/
Township Urbanization Plan.
14. Consideration of approving development agreement and final plat of the
River Mill subdivision.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
February 13, 1995
Page 2
15. Consideration of selecting consultant to conduct soil contamination and
remediation study for fire hall/bulk tank site.
16. Consideration of upgrading two micro -computer work stations.
17. Consideration of adopting a resolution approving plans and specifications
and ordering advertisement for bids on Eastwood Knoll improvements -
Project 9"2C.
18. Consideration of approving agreement of understanding with Wright County
concerning City acquisition of tax forfeited Gille Auto property.
19. Consideration of adopting a formal position on Vonco Demolition Landfill
expansion proposal - Big Lake Township.
20. Consideration of improvements to the intersection of County Road 75 and
Highway 25 f1eR turn lanes).
21. Consideration of renewing annual highway maintenance agreement with
Wright County.
22. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on wastewater treatment
facilities plan.
23. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 23, 1995.5:18 pm.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault,
Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: None
A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of interviewing four
applicants for appointment to two vacancies on the Monticello Planning
Commission.
Mayor Fyle opened the meeting. Assistant Administrator ONeill noted that Bob
Grieman and Jerry Wells had recently withdrawn their applications. He went on
to review a list of questions to use as a guideline in interviewing the following
applicants: Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Earl Smith, and Steve Andrews. It was the
view of Council that all the applicants were well qualified for appointment to the
Planning Commission, and it was their hope that the two who are not selected for
the Planning Commission would serve the City in another capacity.
After completion of the interviews, Assistant Administrator reported the results of
the interviews conducted by the Planning Commission in December and a
discussion ensued.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint
Herbst to appoint Rod Dragsten and Dick Frie to the Planning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
O
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 28, 1995 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault,
Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: None
Annroval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 9 and the suecial
meeting held January 17. 1995.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 9 AND THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD
JANUARY 17, 1995. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. Public hearing on adontion of nronosed assessment roll for delinouent
utilitv bills and certification of assespment roll to Countv Auditor.
It was the consensus of Council to add this item to the agenda.
In Administrator Wolfsteller's report, it was noted that Council is
asked to adopt an assessment roll for utility billing accounts which
are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll
to the County Auditor for collection on the 1996 Lazes if not paid by
November 30, 1995. In addition to the delinquent amount, the
Council also previously approved the establishment of an
administrative fee of $25 per account, which has been included on the
list of delinquent accounts presented to the Council. It was also
noted that since Council previously approved disconnection of water
service for accounts with a past due balance over UN, the City will
be taking action on the commercial account showing a past due
balance over $500 after proper notification to the property owner.
Mayor Fyle then opened the public hearing. There being no comment
from the public, the public hearing was dosed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT
ROLL FOR THE DELINQUENT CHARGES AS PRESENTED, AND TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS OF
DISCONNECTING WATER SERVICE TO THE ACCOUNT WITH A PAST
DUE BALANCE OVER $500 AFTER PROPER NOTIFICATION TO THE
PROPERTY OWNER. Motion carried unanimously. SEE
RESOLUTION 95.5.
Page 1 0
Council Minutes - 1/23/95
4. Citizens comments/netitions. reauests. and complaints.
None.
5. Consideration of appgal of denial of 2 -ft side vard setback variance to allow
Faraee addition. Applicant. Paul Klein.
Building Official Gary Anderson reported that Paul Klein has appealed the
Planning Commission's decision to deny Klein's request for a 2 -ft side yard
setback variance to allow construction of a garage addition to the west of
the existing garage. In his report, Anderson noted that Klein is proposing
to construct a 10 -ft addition to the garage in order to accommodate
installation of a standard 9 -ft a 7 -ft overhead garage door. The closest
neighboring structure is 28 ft from the proposed garage addition. Anderson
noted that the building setback was rechecked, and it was found that the
variance request was reduced to 1 ft.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that the Planning Commission
denied the variance request based on the finding that the request did not
meet the criteria consistent for granting a variance. It was their view that
a hardship does not exist and that Klein could still obtain reasonable use of
his property by removing the existing 9 -ft x 7 -ft garage door and header,
downsizing the garage addition to fit within the setback requirements, and
installing a 16-iR x 7 R garage door.
Tom Bose, a neighbor to the east, stated that Klein maintains his yard and
buildings; therefore, he had no problem with the proposed variance.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRIM ANDERSON TO GRANT A 1 -FT VARIANCE TO THE
SIDE YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDING THAT A STANDARD TWO -
CAR GARAGE IS A CUSTOMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR A 2 -CAR
GARAGE. THE 10 -FT ADDITION IN THIS CASE IS THE SMALLEST
REASONABLE INCREASE IN SIZE POSSIBLE WITHOUT MAJOR
DEMOLITION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. Motion carried
unanimously.
6. Consideration of accentine revised proposal for nurehasa and development of
Outlet A. Country Club Manor.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Council is asked to consider
accepting a revised proposal made by David Hornig for purchase and
development of Outlet A, Country Club Manor. In his report, O'Neill
reviewed the history of this property, noting that the Council completed a
request for proposals in May of 1994 in an attempt to find a buyer and
developer of this 16 -acre parcel that the City obtained through the tax
Pago 2 0
Council Minutes - 1123195
forfeiture process. In April 1994, the proposal submitted by Hornig was
selected over a similar proposal submitted by Shelter Corporation, and staff
was directed to prepare a development agreement based on phase I
consisting of 42 units at a land price of $126,000. Hornig later requested
modifications to the original proposal downsizing the plan to 12 units at a
land price of $36,000. After Council directed staff to open negotiations with
Shelter Corporation if Hornig did not commit to development of 42 units,
Hornig then requested and was granted two extensions of the deadline in
order to obtain financing.
O'Neill went on to report that Hornig recently submitted another revised
proposal which includes 24 units of senior rental housing at a land price of
$72,000 rather than the $126,000 originally anticipated by the City. The
revised proposal is similar to the original proposal except that the first two
phases of land acquisition and phasing are reversed; however, the phasing
switch greatly reduces the cash that the City expected with phase I, which
means that the City must carry greater land holding costs. He also noted
that selection of the proposal was contingent on the developer obtaining
financing, and it was expected that the property would be sold by now for at
least the first phase.
David Hornig stated that a housing market study was commissioned
immediately after award of this proposal and that the proposal indicated
that he would be applying for tax credits through the State of Minnesota to
assist with financing the development. Because the April deadline was
missed, the application had to be submitted in August of 1994. Hornig
noted that he was notified in September 1994 that he was not awarded the
tax credits but that his project would be put on a reserve list; however, on
December 31 he was notified that he again did not receive award of the tai
credits.
Hornig continued by explaining that after receiving a letter from the
Assistant Administrator regarding staffs concern that progress on the
project was lacking, he submitted the current revised proposal to the City
for review and comment. He noted he is prepared to purchase the property
in April 1995 for the 24 units and will also be applying for tax credits in
April for the proposed 42 unite. He added that the proposed 24 townhome
units in the first phase would be built for sale rather than rent. If the
market warrants this type of unit, the development would continue in this
fashion; if not, they would most likely change to rental units. Hornig
requested that Council defino what they would like for this property and
give him a chance to meet their expectations.
Councilmember Anderson noted her concern that the City selected this
proposal nine months ago and that Council is again being asked for
additional time before the land is purchased. It was noted by staff members
Pte 3
Council Minutes - 1/23/95
that the City has already invested in the area by berming and beginning a
storm water study. Reducing the size of the project at this time would
change the entire scope of the project and could result in the City being
faced with providing additional funds upfront.
Councilmember Herbst agreed that the City has been holding the land for a
long time; however, since Hornig's development was felt to be the best
proposal, it was his view that perhaps the City should again try and develop
an agreement that includes closing deadlines on purchase of the property
and also includes holding cost compensation to the City.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO MEET WITH
HORNIG, DEVELOP AN AGREEMENT INCLUDING DETAILS ON CLOSING
ON THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, AND RETURN THE ITEM TO
COUNCIL AT THE FEBRUARY 27 MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION. Motion
carried unanimously.
Consideralior) of a resolution calling for a public hearine on TIF District
1-19 (Mississia)i Shoresl.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that Tax
Increment Finance District No. 1.19, a 25 -year housing district, is being
created for the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc., a non-profit
organization. Minimum improvements will include construction of a 48 -unit
housing project for senior adults, and the TIF assistance will be used to
reduce and maintain rental fees at a moderate rate. She noted that Council
is asked to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on Monday,
February 27, 1995, regarding TIF District No. 1-19. Koropchak added that
the conflict of interest previously cited by the City Attorney regarding
Councilmembers Anderson and Herbst serving on both the Council and the
Senior Housing Board no longer exists because Anderson and Herbst
resigned from the Senior Alliance Board on January 16, 1995.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 27, 1996, FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-19.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-6.
Consideration of a resolution declaring official intent to reimburse
(M1spisginni Shores).
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak stated that, on the advice
of the Attorney, Council is asked to re -approve the resolution declaring their
intent to reimburse the City certain expenditures 8 om bond proceeds
regarding the senior housing project. The initial resolution declaring intent
Page 4 O
Council Minutes - 1/23/95
to reimburse made at the January 9 Council meeting was made during the
period of time when Councilmembers Anderson and Herbst also served on
the Senior Housing Alliance Board of Directors. Because Anderson and
Herbst resigned from the Senior Housing Alliance Board on January 16, a
conflict of interest no longer exists, and it is suggested that the Council re -
approve the proposed resolution.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO RE -APPROVE THE RESOLUTION
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO TO
REBOURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS
TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 95-7.
Consideration of apnrovinq plans and soecifigations. authorizing
advertisement for bids. and setting_p nublic hearine for the Meadow Oak
storm sewer outlet uroiect.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that at the January 25, 1993,
meeting, Council selected two alternates for further study regarding the
Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet project. Alternate "B" proposed running
the storm water through the Rod Norell property, and Alternate "D"
proposed running the storm water down the center of Gillard Avenue to the
Mississippi River. After adoption of the revised storm sewer assessment
policy on April 25, 1994, staff met with Monticello Township, Rod Norell,
and Gene Bauer regarding impending storm sewer improvement projects
and costa. The Township promised to pay for half of the 2 -inch overlay cost
for Gillard Avenue reconstruction. Discussions with Rod Norell indicated he
was not interested in seeing the storm sewer run through his property
without a substantial payment from the City, which resulted in Alternate
"B" being impractical.
Simola went on to report that on June 13, 1994, Council authorized staff to
proceed with bids for the project using Alternate "D" but to continue
working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the County, and
the Township, regarding oversizing the project to help alleviate ditch 33.
Originally it was felt that the State would contribute to the project due to
the run-off from the freeway between Meadow Oak and the Gene Bauer
property. Bids received on August 12, 1994, came in $10,000 below the
engineer's estimate for the alternate project, while the base project bids
came in $80,000 over the estimate. With no commitment received from the
County, State, or Township to pay for a portion of the alternate large pipe
project, the bids were rejected, and Council chose to give the County, State,
and Township, until January 15, 1995, to respond to the City regarding a
cooperative agreement for paying a portion of any oversizing of the storm
sewer project.
Pago 5 0
Council Minutes - 1/23/95
Since the City has received no commitments from these agencies, Simola
noted that the City must now move ahead with the project on its own, and
Alternate "D" down Gillard Avenue remains the only alternative at this
time. The estimated cost of the basic project is approximately $334,000. To
add an additional 5 cubic feet per second for additional discharge into this
system from future city development or from the County or State would add
$70,000, bringing the estimated cost of the project to $404,000. Simola also
noted that because of the delay in starting this project, it may be beneficial
to hold a public hearing after the bids are received since a number of
residents on Gillard are concerned about the street replacement and
assessments for storm sewer.
Bret Weiss, City Engineer, added that an agreement with MN/DOT had
recently been reached whereby the State will pay for their share of the
storm water going into the Bauer property, which will amount to between
$20,000 and $30,000.
Rick Busch, a Gillard Avenue resident, asked if the scope of the project has
changed since last year and questioned what residents would be assessed
for. Busch was informed that the project has not changed, and benefiting
property owners would be assessed for street and storm water
improvements.
AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST
AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS WITH THE ADDITIONAL 5 CU FT PER SECOND CAPACITY
TO BE USED IN THE FUTURE TO HANDLE ADDITIONAL RUN-OFF FROM
AREAS NOW OUTSIDE OF THE CITY THAT CURRENTLY DRAIN STORM
WATER TO DITCH 33 AT AN ADDITIONAL ESTIMATED COST OF $70,000.
BIDS WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE MARCH 13 COUNCIL MEETING
ALONG WITH A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE SAME MEETING. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Consideration of adontins; resolutions auth rizina Preparation of a feasibility
gludv and declaring official intent to reimburse --Cardinal Hills Phase V.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Value Plus Homes, Inc., has
petitioned the City to complete improvements to phase V of the Cardinal
Hills subdivision; therefore, Council is asked to authorize preparation of a
feasibility study for installation of public improvements. The developer has
deposited $2,000 with the City to cover the cost of the study.
In addition, O'Neill requested that Council adopt a resolution declaring its
intent to use proceeds from a f iture bond sale to reimburse the City for
expenditures relating to installation of utilities.
Pago 6 (D
Council Minutes - 1/23/95
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO PHASE V OF THE CARDINAL
HILLS RESIDENTIAL SUBDMSION. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 95-8.
A MOTION WAS ALSO MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY TOM
PERRAULT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CrM INTENT TO
USE PROCEEDS FROM A FUTURE BOND SALE TO REIMBURSE THE CITY
FOR EXPENDITURES RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES FOR
CARDINAL HILLS PHASE V. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 95-9.
11. Congideration of selectins a consultant to conduct soils correction studv at
the fire hall site.
This item was tabled at staffs request pending further negotiations with
two consultants.
12. Q2nsideration of adoggDg madificgtion to redevelopment contract
assessment agreement --Tappers. Inc.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that recently the
Council adopted a resolution modifying the TIF Plan for TIF District No.
1-9, which increased the TIF budget by $30,000. The $30,000 site
improvement expenditures will occur with Bill and Barb Tapper's 18,000 sq
ft expansion this summer. In addition, the Private Redevelopment Contract
between the HRA and the Tappers was agreed upon and amended by both
parties; however, within the Private Redevelopment Contract is an
Assessment Agreement which, according to amended RtInnMiarStatutes,
must now be approved by City Council prior to the document being recorded
at the County. Koropchak noted that the amended Assessment Agreement
increases the original minimum market value of $750,000 to $1,225,000 as
of January 2, 1998.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AND
RESTATED ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE HRA AND THE TAPPERS.
Motion carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of uperading uniform for nublic works emnlovees.
Public Works Director John Simola requested that Council consider
upgrading the uniforms provided for public works employees. Currently,
the City rents uniforms from Unitog, who also launders them. Employees
Page 7 0
Council Minutes - V23/95
are provided five uniforms, which allows two changes per week, however,
many of the employees wash their uniforms at home. The current cost of
providing uniforms is $187.20 per year per employee.
Simola went on to note that there have some problems with the condition of
uniforms provided by Unitog, and staff has received a quote from G & K
Services of Waite Park for uniform service. The minimum service provided
by G & K is seven uniforms, or three changes per week, which would
amount to a yearly cost per employee of $226.20. Eleven sets of uniforms,
or five changes per week, would amount to $312 per employee per year. In
addition, a multi -colored logo is also available for $2 each, which could be
used to help better identify City employees. The Public Works Director also
noted that in preparation for switching uniforms, an amount of $300 per
employee was placed in the 1995 budget. Councdlmember Herbst suggested
that the City also provide jackets for the public works employees.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN UNIFORMS
FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES, WITH THE CITY PROVIDING FIVE
CHANGES PER WEEK FOR THE HOURLY STAFF, THREE CHANGES PER
WEEK FOR THE SALARIED STAFF, AND FOUR CHANGES PER WEEK FOR
THE WATER SUPERINTENDENT. STAFF IS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO
PROVIDE TWO JACKETS FOR PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES AFTER
INVESTIGATING THE COST OF RENTING VERSUS OWNING. Voting in
favor. Brad FyIe, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf. Opposed:
Tom Perrault. It was Perrault's view that three changes per week would be
sufficient during the winter months.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brian Stumpf to approve the bills for the month of January as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 8 02-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCEL
Tuesday, January 31, 1898 - 8:45 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of reviewing the
Wastewater Facilities Planning Report prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron &
Associates, Inc. (OSM), in association with the engineering firm of Rieke Carroll
Muller Associates, Inc (RrM), and to consider options for expansion of the
wastewater treatment plant.
Mayor Fyle called the meeting to order and stated that the residents present could
ask questions at this time so that their concerns could be addressed during the
meeting.
Some of the concerns raised by residents included items such as notification of
upcoming meetings regarding expansion of the treatment plant, odor problems at
the plant, and they were also concerned about property values decreasing if the
plant is expanded at the current site. It was noted by staff that the regular
Council meeting agendas are published in the newspaper, and a public hearing
notice will also be published in the newspaper. The residents were also informed
that odor control would be discussed during this meeting.
Jon Peterson of OSM reviewed the background of the current wastewater
treatment plant. He noted that the original plant was built in 1960 and was
renovated in the early 1980'x. The reason for the current study is to avoid future
difficulties by planning to meet growth projections, as the plant is now in year 16
of a 20 -year design life. Peterson noted that based on an estimate of 76 housing
starts per year, the projected population for Monticello by the year 2020 is 12,841.
Based on this projection, under the current design, the wastewater treatment
plant would be struggling after three years to treat the wastewater. Public Works
Director John Simola added that the City may be able to extend the three-year
estimate slightly by looking at ways to slow infiltration and inflow and also by
making an effort to locate and stop illegal sump pump hookups currently adding
to the wastewater stream.
Larry Anderson of RCM noted that decisions Council will need to make include
1) the basis of design for the plant, 2) location of the plant, 3) which treatment
option, 4) whether to use phased construction, 8) scheduling of a public hearing or
additional meetings, and 6) consideration of a long-range solution. Anderson went
on to note that there are three types of wastewater planta Council can consider:
Pagel 02-
Special Council Minutes - 1/31/95
An existing upgrade, which would consist of adding to the existing
plant at an estimated cost of $11 million.
A split treatment plant, or "B" plant, which would include
construction of an additional plant at a separate location at an
estimated cost of $13 million, including land cost but not siting costs.
Because the W plant would not have sludge handling capabilities,
this option would require trucking sludge to the existing treatment
plant.
3. Construction of a new plant at an estimated cost of $19 million,
excluding land and siting costs.
Anderson then expanded on the first option of upgrading the existing plant by
noting that there are three ways to upgrade the existing plant. The Council could
duplicate the existing plant at an estimated cost of $10.9 million, eliminate the
activated sludge portion by adding a 2 -stage trickling filter at an estimated $12.7
million, or the City could use only activated sludge and eliminate the trickling
filters, which would cost approximately $9.9 million.
Odor control problems at the wastewater treatment plant were also addressed.
Anderson noted that the cost to upgrade the current odor control system would be
approximatcly $300,000 to $400,000; or the City could install a new odor control
system at a cost of $1.5 million. Anderson also noted that most of the time the
odor would be controlled; however, there will be occasions when the odors cannot
be totally eliminated.
It was then explained by Anderson that the capital costs cited do not include the
operation, maintenance, and replacement costs, which would result in an
additional $510,000 to $560,000 yearly for all three options at the existing
treatment plant site. The current cost for operation and maintenance at the plant
is $395,000.
Phased construction was also discussed, which would require less money upfront,
and was estimated at $5.7 million for duplicating the existing plant and $8.1
million for an activated sludge system. The cost to phase an activated sludge
system is higher due to the fact that a greater portion of the plant would need to
bo constructed upfront.
In summary, Larry Anderson noted that it appears to be less costly to upgrade the
existing plant. He also noted that if Council prefers that construction occur all at
once, the activated sludge option is less expensive; however, if it is preferred that
phased construction be used, then duplicating the existing plant system is less
expensive. It is estimated that construction would take two years, and the
addition could possibly be functional by 1998 if construction began in 1998.
Paso 2 0
Special Council Minutes - 1/31/95
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, reported on financing issues pertaining to
the various options for upgrading the treatment plant. He noted that if the City
constructed a new wastewater treatment plant at an estimated cost of $19 million,
homes with a $90,000 valuation would see an increase in taxes of approximately
$124 a year, and a home valuated at $100,000 would see an increase of
approximately $147. However, if the City phased -in construction of additions to
the existing plant estimated at $6 million, a $90,000 home would see a tax
increase of $60-$70 for the first phase of construction. In addition, taxes would
also increase for the second phase of construction. It was noted that user fees
could be increased to help pay the debt, but the best option for the City would be
to fund the construction with a 10-15 year bond issue.
Jon Peterson of OSM also noted that one option the Council can consider for
helping to fund the plant expansion is the state revolving loan program. He noted
that funds are borrowed from the state and interest is waived during the
construction period; however, additional state requirements involved with this
program could increase the cost of the prgject slightly. In order to take advantage
of this program, the next step for the City would be hold a public hearing for the
residents and then submit the technical plan for state review.
ARor further discussion, it was the consensus of Council to schedule a second
special meeti4workshop for Monday, February 27, 1996, at 6 p.m., to Bother
review the options for expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Staff was
also directed to mail notices of the special meeting to residents living near the
plant.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 3 0
Council Agenda - 2113%
3►. Consideration of adontina a resolution suonortina an
administrative fee increase for deouty registrars. (K.D.)
A. REFERENCE AN BACKGROUND:
The Minnesota Deputy Registrar's Association is requesting that the City
Council adopt a resolution stating its support for increasing the
administrative fee collected by the Deputy Registrars on DNR transactions
(boats, snowmobiles, etc.) from $.60 to $3.60. This administrative fee has
�. not changed for the last 24 years, while the fee charged for handling the
motor vehicle transactions has increased from $.76 to $3.60 during the same
24 -year time period. Because the amount of time required for handling the
DNR transactions has increased due to boat titling and distribution of
decals, the Association is requesting that city deputy registrars adopt a
resolution supporting the administrative fee increase and mail copies of the
resolution to our state representatives and senators.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution supporting an administrative fee increase for
DNR transactions from $.60 to $3.60.
2. Do not adopt the resolution.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Because of the increased paperwork and staff time required in
administration of the DNR transactions, City stair recommends
alternative il.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter 1}om Minnesota Deputy Registrar's Association; Copy of
resolution for adoption.
Minnesota ML
M.D.R.A.
Minnesota Deputy Registrar's Association
Date: February 8, 1995
To: All City Deputies
From: Jean Ewald, President of Minn. Deputy Reg. Association
Subject: Deputy Registrars DNR Fee Increase
The Minnesota Deputy Registrar Association is supporting legislation that will
increase the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Transaction
Fee for Deputy Registrars from the current $.50 to $3.50. Since your City would
benefit from this increase, please adopt the attached resolution or a similar
resolution of support. The counhi and city resolutions that were passed in 1993
were very helpful in passing the Drivers Ucense fee increase.
If you are able to obtain an approved resolution from your city administrators,
please duplicate the document and mail copies to:
1. Your State Representative
2. Your State Senator
3. Mr. Robert Renner
Messertl & Kremer
1800 5th Street Towers
150 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402.4218
4. Minnesota Deputy Registrars Association
Attn: Jean Ewald, President
7800 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Thank You for your help.
RESOLUTION 96•
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN ADM[NISTRATIVE FEE
INCREASE FOR DEPUTY REGISTRARS
WHEREAS, the 60 cent administrative fee for processing Department of Natural
Resources licenses such as boats and snowmobiles has not been increased since
1971; and
WHEREAS, the cost of living index (CPI) has increased more than 250% during
the past 24 years; and
WHEREAS, public and private deputy registrars which provide DNR license
services to the public lose money on each transaction because the administrative
fee has failed to keep pace with inflation; and
WHEREAS, the administrative deputy registrar fee charged for handling motor
vehicle transactions has incrcuacd from $.75 to $3.50 during the same 24 -year
time period; and
WHEREAS, the membership of the Minnesota Deputy Registrars Association has
passed a resolution at their annual meeting requesting the administrative fees for
boats, snowmobiles, and ATVs be increased to $3.60 for all services provided by
deputy registrars in Minnesota.
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Monticello supports legislation which will
increase the administrative fees collected by deputy registrars on DNR
transactions from $.60 to $3.60.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Monticello encourages the
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) to adopt a similar policy as part of their
legislative program for 1995.
Adopted this 13th day of February, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 2113/95
s. Public Hearing and consideration to auurove a resolution adoutine a
LRousing Plan and Proaram for the issuance of Multi -Family Housinq
Revenue Bonds. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On January 9, 1995, the City Council approved a resolution calling for a public
hearing of February 13,1995, regarding a proposed Housing Plan and Program
and Issuance of Revenue Bonds under Minngsot k ELtatutes, Chapter 462C. The
public hearing notice appeared in the Monticello Times on January 12, 1995.
The housing plan defines the housing plan of the community, and the program
defines the financial program to be carried out for the acquisition and
eunstruction of the proposed 48 -unit multi -family rental housing facility known
as Mississippi Shores. The enclosed resolution would adopt the plan and
program associated with the issuance of the revenue bonds and would give
preliminary approval for issuance of the bonds or is an intent to sell bonds.
The City Council, at a later date, will approve another resolution for the actual
sale of the bonds.
The housing plan was prepared on short notice in an effort to meet statutory
requirements without benefit from input by the Planning Commission or City
Council. Public Resource Group did receive assistance from staff with plan
preparation. It is very possible that the housing plan will be updated in the
near future in conjunction with completion of the comprehensive plan. The
updated plan will benefit from the public input provided during the
comprehensive plan update process.
The financial package for the senior housing project has not been approved as
was proposed; therefore, the City Council is requested to open the public
hearing and to continue the public hearing until February 27, 1995.
Continuation of the public hearing allows time for the involved groups or
individuals to define the project and to resolve the financial gap for funding the
proposed senior housing facility.
Open and continuo the public hearing to Monday, February 27, 1995,
and table adoption of the housing plan and program for the issuance of
multi -family housing revenue bonds.
Open and close the public hearing and adopt the housing plan and
program for the issuance of multi -family housing revenue bonds.
Council Agenda - 2113/95
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Because the financial package for the senior housing project is incomplete, City
staff and HRA Attorney Bubul recommend alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the public hearing notice; Resolution for adoption; Copy of the housing
plan and program for adoption.
State of kinnesota ) PRINTER'S AFFIDAVIT
)ss. OF PUBLICATION
County of Wright )
Donald 0. Smith, being duly swam, on oath says that be is the publisher of the
newspaper known as The Monticello Times, and has full knowledge of the facts, which
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has compiled with all of the requirements constituting qualifies-
tkm as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33IA.OZ 331A.07,
and other applicable laws amended.
(B) The printed which is attached,
was M fromcolumns of said paper, and was printed and published once each
week for _ usuearsivh weelu; it was first published on nursday, the Ila_
day of 119j5and was thereafter printed and published on everyThursday
to and including Thursday, the my of ,19__�; and printed
below Is a copy of the lower ase alphabet from A to 7, both Inclusive, which is hereby,
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publica-
tion of the notice:
BY.�L—
TITL/E/ : Editor/publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me on th
`'.
0411 day os Lqd, 1915,
MARY a MICKE
r+oraav vast c. un cora
A
WR16MTCOUlr7v
Notary Public, Wright County, Minnesota
aytiOR`10°r
My commission expires
RATE INFORMATION
(1) Lowest classified fate paid by commercial users
' for comparable space
1111.001column Inch
(2) Maximum fate allowed by law for Oro above matter
S 7.38/column inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter
S 7.39/column inch
EXNW A
OF NIONTICILLO
NOTICE OP WBIJC�1R0ra ON A MOUSM PLAN AND
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FatANCE A HOUS1110 PROQRAN
UNDER �OIH80TA STADll`72=D
ONAPrEO MZC iOR T11B ACOIASfr10M
AND CONSTRUCTION OP A TDSANLV IIOIISDIO DHVHI.OPYENT
NOTICE IS HMESY OMEN tient errs Akrdeal0 Cay Carica voundn wO
hold a public 0,601 on March/. Feb. 13, 19a a1 T P.M. at Ctb Napl. 250
me taws�rres ofMo � borrds under Mlraraoa Ir ,skp end=. z
am
anuo
to as
not
emas bends aO be Isaac by ere Cay of"', 11, and Wer be VA. ob,,, 11 of
ow Isawr pw" loom err "Na uas POW to ars prrYnrarrt arreof, old
wal not be a general obapstbn of or be asorsa by are MWp iw o of 0n Clgr of
mwtomwl
of the proposad 1ro�Wr�p pan eM prpp�a�n M on face in pry Nd. Ai Me
deehhrp to behUrd ouch" sae puD10 freaitrq ai ba afforded an opoo/Ndty to do
oto.
Dated: Jars, It 1095
41y ORDER � THE GTI' OPYONIICEU0.WMECOTA
(Jan i3. IM
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, KNNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTING A HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the�C tylr)
9sauthorized to adopt a housing plan and carry out programs for the financing of
multifamily housing which is intended primarily for elderly persona or is affordable
to persons of low and moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the City has'prepared a housing plan (the "Plan") , a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, in accordance with the requirements of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has prepared afinancing program (the "Program"),
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, providing for the acquisition and
construction of a 48 -unit multifamily rental housing facility for elderly persons (the
"Project") to be looted in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has on this date conducted a public hearing on the Plan
and the Program, following publication of notice at least 30 days prior to the date
hereof, all in conformance with the requirements of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City is not located within the area of jurisdiction of either the
Metropolitan Council or any currently active regional development commission, and
therefore the Plan and Program have not been submitted for review and comment by
such bodies as would otherwise be required under the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Program provides for the issuance by the City of up to
$3,800,000 in revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of the
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. That the Plan and Program are hereby in all respects adopted.
2. That the staff of the City Is hereby authorized to do all other things and
take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program
in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations.
3. That the issuance of housing revenue bonds by the City pursuant to the
Program is preliminarily approved subject to a final doterminetion by the City that
such issuance is in the boat interest of the City and this Resolution shall not be
deemed to obligate the City to issue such bonds.
Adopted this 13th day of February, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
67D it
IO190
SQ
EXHIBIT B
PROGRAM FOR THE FINANCING
OF KULTIFAWLY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of
Monticello (the "City") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of
multifamily housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations
set forth In the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such
programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds
issued by the City.
The City has determined that it is in the best interests of the residents of the
City to create a program of financing to encourage and facilitate the development of
multifamily rental housing developments for families in the City (the "Program").
The City has received a proposal from representatives of Monticello Senior Housing
Alliance, Inc. (the "Developer"), that, pursuant to the authority found in the Act,
the City approves a program providing for the acquisition and construction of the
Senior Housing Alliance Project, a multifamily housing development located at 1215
Hart Boulevard in the City (the "Project"). The acquisition and construction of the
Project is to be funded through the issuance of up to $3,500,000 in revenue bonds
issued by the City (the "Bonds") . The Project will be designed for rental primarily
to elderly persons.
The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program"),
has considered the information contained in the City's 482C Housing Plan (the
"Housing Plan") , including particularly (1) the availability and affordability of other
government housing programs; (ll) the availability and affordability of private
marketing financing for the construction of multifamily housing units; (W) an
analysis of population, unemployment trends and projections of future population
trends and future employment needs; (iv) the recent housing trends and future
housing needs of the City. and (v) an analysis of how the Program will meet the
needs of persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City.
The City, in adopting the Program, has further considered (1) the amount,
timing and sale of Bonds to financo the estimated costs of the housing unite, to fund
the appropriate reserves and to pay the coat of issuance; (ii) the method of
monitoring and implementation of the Program to Insure compliance with the City's
housing plan and Its objectives; (W) the method of administering, servicing and
supervising the Program; (iv) the costs of the City, including future admdnietrative
expenses; (v) the restrictions on the multifamily development to be financed under
the Program; and (vi) certain other limitations.
The City, In adopting the Program, considered the potential financing impact
of a bond issuance on affected public agencies. In addition, the City reviewed the
method of marketing the Program. Such review examined the equal opportunity for
participation by (1) minorities; (il) households with incomes at the lower and of the
range that can be served by the Program; (W) households displaced by public or
private actions; (iv) elderly persons; and (v) accessibility to the handicapped.
The Project will be constructed and financed pursuant to Subdivisions 1 and
4 of Section 462C.05 of the Act.
gall$
(2�/)
Subsection A. Definitions. The following terms used in this Program shall
have the following meanings, respectively:
(1) "Act" shall mean Minnesota Statutes, Section 482C.01, at seq., as
currently in effect and as the same may be from time to time amended.
(2) "Bonds" shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the City to
finance the Program.
(3) "City" shall mean the City of Monticello, State of Minnesota.
(4) "Developer" shall mean Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc., a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation.
(5) "Housing Plan" shall mean the City of Monticello 462C Housing Plan, as
amended, setting forth certain information required by the Act.
(9) "Housing Unit" shall mean any one of the 48 units located In the Project,
occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities.
(7) "Land" shall mean the real property upon which each Project is situated.
(8) "Program" shall mean the program for the financing of the Projects
pursuant to the Act.
(9) "Project" shall mean the Senior Housing Alliance Project.
Subsection B. Proirrem For Financina the Prolect. It is proposed that the
City establish this Program to provide financing for acquisition of the Project to be
owned by the Developer, or a related entity, at a cost and upon such other terms
and conditions as are set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between
the City, the initial purchaser of the Bonds and the respective Developer. To do
this, the City expects to issue Bonds the proceeds of which will be loaned to the
Developer for financing the acquisition and construction of the Project. It is
expected that a trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the construction of
the Project and payments of principal and interest on the Bonds. The cost of any
additional security devices for the Bonds will be borne by the Developer and payable
In addition to the principal and interest on the Bonds except as otherwise provided
by resolution of the City.
It is contemplated that the Bonds shall have a maturity of thirty (30) years
and will be priced to the market at the time of Issuance.
The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program.
The City intends to select and contract with a financial institution or trustee,
experienced in trust matters to administer the Bonds.
Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond
counsel, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond proceeds
and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs will be paid from
the City's budget with respect to this Program except as otherwise provided by
resolution of the City. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City,
but are to be paid only from properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may
usuooe
J�
include additional security such as additional collateral, insurance or a letter of
credit.
Subsection C. Local Contributions To The Proaram. The City through its
Housing and Redevelopment Authority ("HRA"), will provide certain tax increment
financing assistance for the Project in accordance with a Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the HRA and the Developer.
Subsection D. Standards and Reguirements Relating to the Financing of the
Projects Pursuant to the Proaram. The following standards and requirements shall
apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Developer pursuant to this
Program:
(1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to
provide funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project. The funds will
be made available to the Developer pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which
may include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and the
Developer.
(2) The Developer or subsequent owner of the Project will not arbitrarily
reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or
disability.
(3) No Housing Unit may be in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or
other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or
development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.83, et seq.
Subsection E. Evidence of Compliance. The City may require from the
Developer or such other person deemed necessary at or before the issuance of the
Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Developer
to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the
standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City,
as set forth herein; and in connection therewith, the City or its representatives may
inspect the relevant books and records of the Developer in order to confirm such
ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require
certification from either the Developer or such other person deemed necessary
concerning compliance with various aspects of the Program.
Subsectlon F. Issuance of Bonds. To finance the Program authorized by this
Section, the City may by resolution authorize, issue and sell its revenue Bonds in
one or snores aeries, and using any additional credit enhancement devices determined
by the City to be necessary or desirable for each such series, in an aggregate
principal amount estimated to be up to $3,500,000. The Bonds shall be issued
pursuant to Section 482C.07, Subdivision 1 of the Act, and shall be payable
primarily from the revenues of the Program authorized by this Section. The City
anticipates the issuance of such amount prior to the end of 1995.
SubsoctionG. SeverablUty. The provisions of this Program are severable and
If any of its provisions, sontences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held
unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or
otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision
of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
ansloct
SE
Subsection H. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program while
Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such
Bonds.
AMI OS
=too!., L
SI
CHAPTER 462C
HOUSING PLAN
CITY OF MONTICELLO
JANUARY 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
II. DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
A. POPULATION - CITY AND COUNTY
B. EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
C. AGE DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME OF RESIDENTS
D. NUMBER AND TYPE OF DWELLJNG UNITS
E. TENURE OF HOUSING STOCK
F. SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING COSTS AND MARKET
G. MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL RANGES AND MARKET
M. HOUSING NEEDS, HOUSING POLICY PLAN AND TARGET AREAS
IV. SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FINANCIAL TOOLS
I. INTRODUCTION
This Housing Plan undertaken pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the
'Aa') provides data and data analysis of the city's population and housing conditions; sets forth
the housing goals and policies which guide the derision making process, and identifies programs
and efforts the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the 'Authority') will pursue
to conserve, preserve, enhance and expand the city's residential environment.
U. DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
A. POPULATION - CITY AND COUNTY
Monticello's population has steadily increased in the past and has been conservatively
forecasted to grow over the next 20 years at an average rate of 40%. The county growth
rate is estimated conservatively at 20 pertxrtt per decade.
Table I
Monticello Population and Households
B. EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Table II shows major employers in Monticello with the total number of employees as of
July 1993. Total employees includes f ffl and part-time workers and average number of
seasonal employees.
Table Il reveals that in total, the companies listed employ approximately 1,224 people.
Of these employees, an estimated 75 percent live in Monticello or within a 15 mile radius
of the city.
1970 1980 %
1990
%
2000
2010
Change
Change
Population
1,477 2,830 91.6
5,045
78.2
7,350
10,000
County
38,933 58,681 50.7
68,710
17.1
82,452
98,942
Monticello households projected prorates growth
1,908
2,779
3,782
rate
Sources:
Bureau of Census, U.S. Census of Pop. and Housing, 1970, 1980, and 1990
B. EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Table II shows major employers in Monticello with the total number of employees as of
July 1993. Total employees includes f ffl and part-time workers and average number of
seasonal employees.
Table Il reveals that in total, the companies listed employ approximately 1,224 people.
Of these employees, an estimated 75 percent live in Monticello or within a 15 mile radius
of the city.
Table II
Monticello Major Employers
July 1993
101
EM21g er
Emol
City of Monticello
t
36
Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc.
180
Fulfillment Systems,Inc.
165
Bondhus Corporation
90
Fingerhut Corporation
79
AB& Inc.
45
M dr P Transports, Inc.
38
Electro Industries
35
Jones Manufacturing
25
Genereux Fine Wood Products
23
Rainbow Enterprises, Inc.
12
NSP Service Center
it
Automatic Garage Door Company
11
Tine Service Equipment Mfg. Company
9
Northern States Power
33u
Remmele Engineering, Inc.
60
Northern States Power Training Center
45
The H -Window Company
--A
1,224
Source: Monticello Community Profile
As can be seen in Table III, the employment in the region and the local economy is still
widely
diversified. Average production wages range between 57.00 and $13.00 per hour. Employment
is expected to continue to grow over the next five years. The last three years have been
particularly strong with the Monticello Industrial base adding approximately 300 jobs.
(sD
Table M
City Employment by Industry
Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1980 - 1990.
'Finance, Inswaace, and Real Estate
C. AGE DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME OF RESIDENTS
Monticello, like other communities across the country, is finding that senior citizens are among
the fastest growing segment of its population. In addition, pen= 25 -years of age and over saw
significant increases in numbers from 1980 to 1990. no sheer nurnerical increases in this
housing market points to a significant need to offer new types of housing for citittns with a wide
array of incomes and needs for services. Secondarily, the 'baby -boomers' or persons from 25
to 44 years old were the sector of population to most increase its share from 1980 to 1990.
Table IV
Monticello Area Age Distribution
AV
12.E
MQ
Total
1,123
2,323
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing
26
31
Mining
—
—
Construction
M
131
Manufacduing
216
487
Transportation, Comm. & Public Utilities
97
244
Trade
282
553
F.I.R.E.•
38
125
Services
360
702
Government
34
50
Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1980 - 1990.
'Finance, Inswaace, and Real Estate
C. AGE DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME OF RESIDENTS
Monticello, like other communities across the country, is finding that senior citizens are among
the fastest growing segment of its population. In addition, pen= 25 -years of age and over saw
significant increases in numbers from 1980 to 1990. no sheer nurnerical increases in this
housing market points to a significant need to offer new types of housing for citittns with a wide
array of incomes and needs for services. Secondarily, the 'baby -boomers' or persons from 25
to 44 years old were the sector of population to most increase its share from 1980 to 1990.
Table IV
Monticello Area Age Distribution
AV
AV
�
i AV
Ar
Total P
17
le- 24 25 -44
45-64 65 & Ova
1980 1990
1930 1990
1980 1990 1980 1990
1980 1990 I930 1990
Number 2.1130 3.043
959 1,237
337 363 702 1.604
393 709 419 882
Percent l00% 100%
33.9% 23.S%
12.6% 11.2% 24.6% 31.1%
13.9% 14.1% 14.3% 17.5%
i
Sowca: Iluruu of tho Cca=, U.S. Cemw3 of Population and Housiq, 1990 and 1990.
Household and family income in the Monticello are have shown steady increases and
diversification over the past decade. Again, these data point to a need to diversify the housing
options for the community.
1989
Table V
Monticello Area Family Income
S35,000-
demur Ow
1979 and 1989
$10.000 $14.999 $24.999 $34.999
-
1979
(mama
Les. than
S10,000 - S 13.000 - 523.000 - S35.000-
G.eaw dm Median
$10,000
514,999 $24,999 $34,999 x4,999
$73,000 h.—
N— 170
182 241 208 130
9 $17.941 1
Ptrroeat 17.8%
19.0% 23.2% 21.7% 13.75
.6% as
1989
Lan than $10,000- S IS.000 - 523,0011-
S35,000-
demur Ow
Medina
$10.000 $14.999 $24.999 $34.999
$74,999
573.000
(mama
Number 118 136 191 244
483
101
533,202
Ptreeot 9.3% 10.7% 13% 19.2%
37.95
7.9%
1
m
Nom: Number may not equal 100.0 due to rounding.
Sources: Bureau of the Census. U.S. Ceasm of Population and Housing, 1980 & 1990.
Table VI
Monticello Am Housebold locome
1989
Lea than 510,000 - $13,000 - 523.000 -
5331000 -
dascer 000
Median
SI0,000 514.999 524.999 534.999
174.999
573,000
lmoma
Number 258 244 236 319
597
101
129,383
Percent 14.3% 13.7% 14.4% 18.0%
33.6%
3.7%
m
'
Nom: Number may not equal 100.0 due to ramding.
Sounoea: PNrm of the Census. U.S. Ceram of Population
and Housing, 1980 & 1990.
7
D. NUMBER AND TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS
Monticello is a city with a majority of owner occupied housing units. However, a significant
share of the total housing stock is multi -family rental units as evidenced by the following table:
Table VII
Dwelling Units
1994
Dwelling Type
Percent of Total
Numbers
Single Family - Detached
53.8%
1,192 1
Townhouse
3.6%
79
Duplex
3.3%
74
Other Multifamily
30.7%
679
Mobile Home
8.1%
180
( Other
.5%
11
Source: 1994 Utility Billing Information, City of Monticello
E. TENURE OF HOUSING STOCK
The age of the housing units varies widely in Monticello. However, over one-third of the
owner -occupied housing was built from 1980 - 1989 and over 75 percent of all housing units
were built after 1960. This trend shows the tremendous growth of the community.
Table VIII
Monticello Area Age of Occupied Housing Units
(Percent of Total Occupied Structures Owned and Rented)
1990
urd am
ade
be
Bela awl
be
tads
Pebb 1910
1910. 19W
1910. 1131
19661969 1970. 1979
191M19a9
Adr 1990
Idc6v no 157
63
111
179 503
113
399
/wcra IODS IIA{
IBS
6.10
$.IS 13.11
16.7%
1130
2m 1 awe= Oran Comm.
UA. Cao or Popubd" d Hoak& IMO L 1900.
F. SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING COSTS AND MARKET
Monticello has a wide variety of housing, from older, pre -World War II housing to IM
ramblers to split-level design of the 1960s and 1970s. The newest housing also reflects
architectural designs of the 1980s, with bay windows, gabled roofs, and two -stories. The vast
majority of the housing stock has been well-maintained and pride of ownership is evident The
Monticello School District has an excellent reputation and Monticello is perceived as a very
desirable community is which to live. Housing is affordable, with average home values between
(70,000 and $90,000. However, bomes in this price range are in high demand. In addition,
the lack of available alternatives for other market segments (particularly empty -nesters and
seniors) has resulted in persons remaining in their homes longer than necessary. If these people
had been able to move, their homes could have been purchased by other households.
The following are the key factors at work in the for -sale market:
Substantial shortage of resale homes in all price ranges due to recent strong sales activity,
and older homeowners not selling. Loral real estate agents have buyers who are looking
to buy.
Much of the reason for the lack of available homes for sale is tied directly to the number
of senior citizens who continue to reside in their own homes.
Homes in Monticello are generally well-maintained and in good condition.
Greatest demand is for homes priced between $70,000 and $90,000 and homes priced
between $110,000 and $130,000. There is limited demand for homes priced $170,000
and over.
G. MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL RANGES AND MARKET
Most of the rental housing in Monticello was built in the 1970s and 1980s. Much of the rental
product lacks features and amenities desired by today's renters. Market rate rents in Monticello
are affordable, however, with one -bedroom unit rents ranging from over $200 per month to $400
per month in a larger rental complex built more recently. Two•bedroom unit rents range from
$290 per month to 5384 per month.
The following key factors summarize the rental housing market situation in Monticello:
General occupancy rental housing on average has kept pace Monticello's needs over the
past twelve yeah;
Existing market nue rental housing does not offer newer features and amenities desired
by today's renters;
Shortage of market rate housing for several senior market segments;
Usage of income -restricted rental housing where residents are paying market tent;
Non-traditional housing (i.e. rented mobile homes, cabins, garage apartments) which
offer affordable rental housing, but tend to be less visible and less easily monitored for
maintenance and upkeep.
III. HOUSING NEEDS, HOUSING POLICY PLAN AND TARGET AREAS
Table XI
Projected Housing Needs
Year Year
2000 2010
Number of Units
• Single Family/Two Family 390 650
• Market Rate Rental 120 195
• Total New Units 510 945
An analysis of the data clearly indicates that there is a need for additional single-family and
multi -family housing development in the City of Monticello. Single-family needs appear to lire
within a moderate price range and a higher end price range. The Monticello Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and the City have found that the higher -end housing should be
driven by market fortes and assisted by public entities only in the typical governmental roles of
providing udlitia to lots and maintaining and expanding other public improvements. Home-
ownership of moderately priced housing can be promoted through a variety of existing homes.
The HRA and the City have also found that moderately priced homes could be made available
by increasing the opportunities for senior citizens. Because the private market has not
independently provided rental housing in sufficient numbers to mat the needs of the senior
citizens, the HRA and the City have found that public intervention is necessary to provide safe
and decant housing.
The City recognizes that there are a variety of housing nods within the community including
blighted housing, home energy and insulation improvements, toed improvements, and utility
upgrades. These needs will be addressed concurrently with the other emphases of the Housing
Plan. The development of the multi -family housing in the community is expected to be one of
the most efficient means to increasing available housing units, increasing employment, and
improving the health and welfare of its residents while maintaining the lowest cost and least risk
to the taxpayers of the City.
The City and HRA currently intend to target the senior mgment of the population for housing
programs. Administration of housing programs will be handled by the HRA through its
Executive Director in concert with City staff and community organizations. All housing assisted
by the City or HRA will be professionally and independently managed and will be subject to the
HRA's review on an annual or bi-annual basis.
IV. SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FINANCIAL TOOLS
Currently the City and HRA are planning to provide financial assistance to the Monticello Senior
Housing Alliance, Inc. who will construct and own 48 units of senior housing located adjacent
to the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. Construction is expecx I to begin in April of 1995 and be
completed in October of 1995. Rents per unit are anticipated to be between 5595 and 5870 per
unit including all utilities and Furnishings depending on one -bedroom or two-bedroom units.
For more details, see the program for the financing of multi -family rental housing development,
approved concurrently with this housing plan.
(R)
Council Agenda - 2113/95
Consideration of reviewing assessor's reuort for 1894 and setting
the Board of Review for 1998 - Jerry Kramber. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The County Assessor, Mr. Doug Gruber, has tentatively set Thursday,
May 4, 1995, at 7 p.m., as the date for our 1995 Board of Review meeting.
The purpose of the Board of Review is to allow property owners within the
city the opportunity to ask questions relative to their property valuations
that have been established by the City Assessor for taxes payable in 1996.
Our City Assessors, Jerry and Peg Kramber, along with Mr. Gruber, will be
at the meeting to field questions from citizens on their valuations. If the
Council has a problem with Thursday, May 4, the County Assessor would
like to know so that a new date can be arranged.
Our Assessor, Jerry Kramber, has completed his review and paperwork
regarding our assessment for taxes payable in 1995. Mr. Kramber has
prepared a brief summary report that outlines some of the parcels he has
physically reviewed along with some other data relating to commercial
sales, residential sales, and how these relate to our sales ratios. Since the
Council will be confirming the date for the Board of Review at this meeting,
I thought it would be appropriate to have Mr. Kramber available at the
meeting to answer any questions the Council may have on how the
assessment process went this year.
As it is pointed out in the summary report from the Assessor, Mr. Kramber
has made some adjustments to how residential lots have been valued in the
core city. In the past, it seems that many of the residential lots were
valued approximately the same whether they had one, two, or three lots if
they were all one home site. In reality, there is definitely a difference in
value for a 66 -ft wide lot versus a home that actually has 3 or 4 lots. As a
result of these changes, we may have a number of inquiries from residential
property owners once their new valuations aro mailed, as some parcels
received hefty increases in valuation because of the revisions made. In
addition to the residential lots in the core city, Mr. Kramber has noted that
he also has increased the value on river lots and lots abutting the
Monticello Country Club. Again, this is based on actual market conditions
and should more accurately reflect the true values.
As I noted, I've asked Mr. Kramber to be in attendance at the Council
meeting to answer any questions the Council may have on the summary
report or the assessment process that he has recently completed. The only
Council Agenda - W13/95
action needed by the Council other than reviewing the report with
Mr. Kramber concerns confirming the Board of Review date so that the
County Assessor can be notified as soon as possible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of letter from Doug Gruber; Copy of summary report from City
Assessor, Jerry Kramber.
Rick Wolfsteller
Monticello City Administrator
250 E. Broadway
Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Rick&
DOUGLAS M. GRUBER
Wright County Assessor
Wright County Gouernment Center
10 2nd Stan N.W. • Raom 240
BWfalo. A mwsota 66813.1183
Phone. (8 1 21 6C-=71(612) 92-730
FAR: (612)60-0178
February 3, 1995
Please be advised that your 1995 Board of Review has been
tentatively set for Thursday, May 4, 1995 at 7r00 P.M.
If we do not hear from you by March 15, 1995, we assume this Is
satisfactory.
Thank you.
Incerely,
r)�tit
Douglas M. Gruber
Wright County Assessor
DMG/ga
E4W QV—XftY / 4#L- atw Anlw Finpfoyn (ii)
_7&am6e.r aE-2ssocrales, .enc.
January 5, 1995
Rick Wolfsteller, Gary Anderson and
Members of the Monticello City Council
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota
55362
REAL ESTATE ADDRALSEIMASSESSORS
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller, Mr.Anderson, Council Members,
D.O. Sm 56
1Aamma Mn 33363
(612)6753746
Rramber b Associates, Inc. would like to thank you for the
opportunity of being your City Assessors for the 1995 Assessment
Year. The help and cooperation of everyone at City Hall was
greatly appreciated.
Please find enclosed the following data for your review:
1) Commercial sales and sales ratios for 1994.
2) Residential sales and sales ratios for 1994.
3► List or the 256 of parcels veiwed by parcel number.
4) List of building permits issued for 1994 and the percent
complete as of January 1, 1994.
The County Assessor, requested a review of the retail businesses
along Broadway. The review showed that the land square foot
rate should be reduced from $3.85 to $3.50 and minor up and
down adjustments were made on some of the building values.
There will always be an on-going attempt by the assessor to
collect and analyze rent, lease and sale information to assist
in a better commercial assessment.
The residential sales ratio for 1994 was 91.6 and the 1993 sales
ratio was 90.4, which indicates that even with the changes we
made last year, we've gained just a little towards achieving
our goal of a median sales ratio of 95. It is apparent that
the market is increasing at a much faster rate than our estimated
market values. We are still on the low side of the required
906 to 1056 range.
The County increased the residential square foot rates
approximately 56. There were no rate increases for garages,
basement finishing, decks, porches, etc.
The residential rate change is expected to have an overall
increase of approximately 26. The charts and tables that were
established to equalize effective ago will have an additional
effect of approximately 26 to 36.
However, some residences in our 256 viewing area may notice
more of an increase than what was stated previously. This may
be due to the assessor changing the grade, condition, effective
age, land value, etc. and picking up building permits, central
air, basement finishing and so on.
Residential land was reviewed and sales indicated that special
attention should be given in the following areas:
1) River Lots: Land values were established on a frontage
basis rather than on a per lot basis. Please see attached.
2) Parcels throughout the original residential plats were
increased to reflect more realistic market values. Please
see attached.
3) Lots abbuttinq the golf course on Club View Drive:
Sales indicated lot values to be $50,000 rather than in
the $30,000 to $45,000 range.
Just a general note. The response from homeowners on the door
hangers that were issued this year was approximately 506.
If there are any questions on the data submitted, please don't
hesitate to call. Any questions or concerns regarding market
value by the residents of Monticello should be referred to
Rramber 8 Associates,Inc. at 612-675-3748, so they can be
resolved prior to the Board of Equalization meeting.
Res fully,
J r RNrambe
Rramber 8 Associates, Inc.
cc: Douglas Gruber
Bright County Assessor
MONTICELLO
1995 ORIGINAL PLAT RESIDENTIAL LAND VALUES
1 Lot (66 feet) $14,000.00
1.25 Lots (82 feet) $15,000.00
1.5 Lots (99 feet) $17,000.00
1.75 Lots (117 feet) $18,500.00
2- 2.5 Lots (132'to 154') $20,000.00
3 - 4 Lots (198' to 264') $25,000.00
5 Lots and Up (330' and up) '530,000.00
Parcels in the original plate range from 1 lot to 5. lots.
Until the 1995 Assessment, most parcels were valued at
approximately $12,000.00. In analyzing many sales, it was
apparent that tau alae of Lite parcel influenced the sales price.
Therefore, the above rates were established. The sales ratio
on larger parcels in 1994 was approximately 836. The same sales
were analyzed with the new 1995 rates and the sales ratio is
approximately 926.
RIVER LOTS
Up to 50 feet $30,000.00
51 feet to 75 feet $35,000.00
76 feet to 100 feet $37,500.00
Over 100 feet tat 100 feet $37,500.00
Remainder $50/ff
Many river lot sales were analyzed and the sales ratio based
on 1994 was approximately 78%. These same sales were analyzed
with the new 1995 rates and the salon ratio in approximately
95%.
9
a a a a i a i a i i a 0 m i i a m= Q
11/00/94 0.21
•1•
SALES RATIO STATISTICAL I1FORMTlOH •••
SR130-010587
PAVE 44
SORTED 8,. ...........
TOI019HtP
AREA
PROPERTY CLASH PERIOD
FROM 10/97 TO 9194
SELECTIVE NATURE TYPfB.. 1
RANGE OF TOINIBIIIPS......
101 rHPU 220
ACLASa TYPES.........
LL
THP -135 CM OF PDNTICii-o.. ANSA -00. CLASS -06 RES 1-7 UNITS
AV PRICE
CT -PLAT -PARCEL
GALE OATH
DOC •
BALQ PRICE
1MT VALUE
BALESAAT10
ACRES PHP ACRE
INVALID REASON
171-010-009090
06/v
•8770
9].000
9].•00
100.1]
0000 SALE
175-010-016090
10/9]
•6017
6!.000
•0.900
72.00
0000 BALE
. 151-010-027060
lt/v7
•67:0
66.000
5]•000
80.70
0000 SALE
155-010-027060
OB/91
A9820
73.000
$a. 000
71.72
0000 BALE
155-010-077070
05194
•70.9
•+.COO
+7.000
67 19
0000 BALE
155-010-029020
0!/91
•8196
•0.000
75.900
09 75
0000 SALE
155-010-0•.0.1
o!/9A
49127
90.000
,•.700
e2. 56
Coop BALs
175-010-057010
0!/01
•8812
57.000
98.100
101.97
0000 SALE
155-910-067010
07/91
470.4
109.790
88.600
00.77
0000 BALE
173-)10-067100
071,4
4Besl
•5.000
40.100
94 2
0000 SALE
175-)17-001110
07/94
•7081
I.A.000
10•.200
72.]6
GOOD 9AL8
177-911-001720
10/97
•6141
157.900
196.000
M 70
coo GALE
175-013-011100
OB/9•
•9176
70.000
47.100
12. 71
0000 BALE
17!-01!-022070
10/97
17817
100 000
67.000
67,00
0000 BALE
153-015-02!050
0719•
•8090
15.000
Y^.700
72.•7
0 30 BALE
155-915-072061
10193
•6619
107.000
107,000
100 04
0000 SALE
175-017-002070
10/9]
A=
77.,00
76.000
100.17
0000 GALE
155-919-007040
05/91
•8471
76.000
•3.300
00 11
0000 GALE
155-019-007070
07/9•
6071!
99.300
12•'00
88.97
0000 SALE
153-020-003060
0719•
47627
77.500
74.900
101.90
0000 GALE
135-020-003070
08/94
40889
e9. Coo
50.•00
7].77
.000 BALE
13!-)20-005100
03/94
47727
110.300
90.:00
00.76
00011 aAL9
135-021-002170
OB/v4
•,107
7],000
31,700
71 38
0000 BALE
133-021-002750
10: 97
461]0
09.900
75.:00
03 67
C000 SALE
177-021-001020
01/9•
48209
)9.000
67. 000
97 19
0000 OALH
175-024-001050
05/94
48264
78.300
72.000
92..8
COOL) GALE
155-024-002010
06/94
49125
.7.000
72.700
74 03
0000 BALQ
173-)24-0020]0
07/9•
47111
79.000
69.7x,0
M :7
OODJ SAL
155^)25-001010
02: 94
47401
170.000
104.]:0
80 70
0000 SALE
155-J2•-JOlU60
01.9•
4009•
7].900
e2.]:W
G• 70
0000 CALE
137-026-002070
03,94
47443
69.900
60.1-00
91 56
0000 SALE
135-0]1-002020
07194
47730
67.000
6]•'00
94 e7
0000 GALE
157-0]1•-00]050
02/94
47]16
9].900
74.-M
09 27
C000 BALE
135-031-004040
10/9]
46277
•1.500
64.650
06.00
C000 9ALa
155-071-004050
0':.1
49111
61.500
♦1.•00
10 96
C000 GALE
155-0]3-001040
111,7
66715
97.500
96.100
1[ 16
COOL) CAL[
153-037-001050
07:0•
•0756
'7. 4GO
72.600
43 20
0000 CAL[
135-0]]-OOIOvO
12/9]
4e3o8
69.900
63.700
97 47
0000 OALH
155-oa]-507750
oa/•.
.7542
7.,000
eQ,lro
•2 oa
coo. HAL[
155-077-002070
OB/v4
•vlBl
91.500
77••00
82.0'
COO. SALE
155-077-002100
0]19•
47•!•
00.300
GO. 900
11 70
0000 GALE
155-0]3-001111
12/05
17272
50.400
30.700
loo 20
coon GALE
155-3]3-0041]0
01/94
471•]
00.950
96. 1?
o7 t0
COOD HALF
155-oa5-001150
02;0•
•+:'s
70.000
61._M
81.32
COOL) BALE
Ins -057-007010
.). /91
1011•
.6. 3L)0
64. i-io
97 .•
0000 BALE
135-010-00]000
0: os
•7402
B]. 9C'.
77. ')
17 :�
0000 PALE
i i iii i i i i i i i i i iii s s s a
11/00/91
8.21
...
DALES RATIO STATISTICAL INFORMATION ... BR170-010507
PACE 95
'
SORTEDEY.. . ........
. TOWNSHIP
MEA
PROPERTY CLASS PERIOD FROM 10/97 TO 1/99
SELECTIVE NATURE TYPes..
1
_
RANGE OF TOWNSHIPS......
101 iHRU 220
1
ALL CLASS TYPES.........
TIP -155 CITY OF MONTICELLO. MEA -00.
CLASS -06 REG 1-0 WITS
AV PRICE
CT -PLAT -PARCEL BALE DATE DOC 6
BALE PRICE
MIT VALUE SALES RATIO ACRES PER ACRE
INVALID REASON
155-099-009170
OB/94
99048
115.000
122.500 106 52
GOOD GAIT
'
153-093-007010
11/97
•6777
02.900
78.000 95 05
0000 BALE
_ 155-093-006000
10/97
46170
110.92050
01.000 100 97
0000 GALE
15'Y096-001060
07/96
90902
112.700
MI6. 700 107 36
0000 SALE
'
IDS -096-001070
07/99
67181
170.500
191.200 62 S2
0000 BALE
155-090-001070
10/97
962]1
100.000
90.300 90.50
0000 BALE
135-098-001190
05/91
98125
120.000
100.500 90 92
0000 BALE
'
155-090-002020
00/99
19150
97.000
89.700 96.95
0000 SALE
155-099-001080
02/99
97220
70.500
60.000 06 29
GOOD BALE
155-055-001090
OB/99
99027
09.500
617,100 01.78
0000 BALE
'
IDS -059-007010
021179
97227
95.000
9J. 600 95 77
0000 BAIfi
155-062-001010
09/99
97599
96.000
06.000 09 50
0000 BALI
IDS -ON -007020
11"3
97172
79.900
77.100 •7 60
COOD BALE
1
155-065-001020
10/97
93990
190.000
175.000 16 97
OOOU BALI
i DD -063-001050
10/97
96278
190,000
175.000 96 97
COOD SALE
155-065-001080
10/97
96161
190.000
175.000 96 97
0000 BALE
'
155-061-007060
06199
90091
76.000
70.100 92 29
C000 SALE
155-070-002130
07199
90870
176.000
177.000 177 99
0000 SALC
'
I3D-500-072901
12/97
67009
73.100
72.300 96 99
0000 SALE
.99.
.I7. .92.
.99. .97.
TOT ARSE DOOR•0 MT VAL 7.107.000
93.000
O MEDIAN COEFFICIENT O7 DIOPERBION
O U 0
'
MEAN BALED RATIO
09 a11
0
0 OIANUMD DEVIAIION
10 / 0
jf MEDIAN BALES RATIO
91 a
95 O
J COEFFICIENT OF VM IAIION
II 9 0
AOOREOAIC BALED RATIO 89 9
55 0
0 TUIAL OALfi PRICE 5.609.150
•
PRICE RELA160 DIFF
99 1
100 O
0 AVERAGE OAL6 PRICE 07.998
BALED RATIO RANGE
57 7
J
O NUMBER OF PARCELS USED 60
66 1
V _
a i M a a i M M m m i m m m m m m m to
11/08/91 E.21
•••
"-FR RATIO STATISTICAL INFORMATION •9• SR170-010567
PAE 46
SORTfiD BY ....... .......
TOWNSHIP
AREA
PROPERTY CLASS PERIOD FROM 10/93 TO 9/94
SELECTIVE NATURE TYPES..
1
RANGE OF TOWNSHI P8. .. ...
101 THOU 220
' ALL CLASS TYPES.........
TIP -155 CITY OF MONTICELLO. AREA -00, CLASS -07 RES 4. UNITS
AV PRICE
CT -PLAT -PARCEL SALE
DATE DOC 4
SALE PRICE
MKT VALUS BALES RATIO ACRES PER ACRE
INVALID REASON
105-010-054070 09/94
40607
:00.000
109.600 92.00 0000 SALE
•94•
•97••92•
•94• •97•
•92•
TOT ASSESBOR'a MKT VAL
109.600
0
O
MEOIAN COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION
J O
.0
' MEAN SALES RATIO
920
0
0
STANDARD DEVIATION
. J 0
0
NNEDIAN BALES RATIO
92.0
.0
.0
CDEFF ICIENT OF VAR IATIOM
V .0
.0
AGORfiOATfi SALES RATIO
92.8
.0
.O
TOTAL BALE PR ICH 200.000
' PRICE RELATED DIF P
100 0
0
0
AVERAGE SALE PRICE 200.000
BALED RATIO RANGE
0
0
.O
NUMBER OF PARCELO USED 1
1 0
0
�.mmmmmmmmmAmAmAmmms�
/
11/09/94 8.71 ... SALES RATIO STATISTICAL INFORMATIOM «. SR130-010587 PAVE 47
SORTED BY ............... TOWNSHIP AREA PROPERTY CLASS PERIOD FROM 10/93 TO 9/94
_ SELECT IvE IMTUNH TWH9.. 1
RANGE OF TOWNSHIPS ...... 101 THRU 720
ALL CLASS TYPES.........
-TWP--13K CITY OF MOPITICELLO. ARRA-OO. CLASS -12 COMMERCIAL IM
AV PRICE
C,T-Pt_AT-0.000. 9AL9 DATE DOC 1 ^..tiLC PgiCH MAT vALVE bAlfs N.ilO ACR115 rEp ACRE INVALID REASON
17b -010-0090w o7/v. .7y66 279.000 198.800 so
ao00 BALE
155-010-0670 30
01n. .7�8. 300. oo0 27:.800 72. 2a aoo0 &LLE
_155703.-0010ao 09/9. .9299 375.000 718..00 �Y. 7. 0000 BALE
N.• .93• .97. .9.• .93.
TOT ASSESSOR -9 MKT VAL 669..00 0 0 MEDIAN COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION 13.0 .0
MAN BALES RATIO 72.9 .0 .0 STANDARD DEVIATION 12.2 .0
MEDIAN SALES RATIO 72.2 .0 .0 COEFFICIENT OF VM IATION 16.1 .0
ACOREOATS SALES RATIO 70.5 .0 .0 TOTAL BALE PRICE 950.000
PRICE RELATED DIFF 103.. .0 0 AVERAGE SALE PRICE 316.667
SALES RATIO RANOE 29.9 .0 0 MEMBER OF PARCELS USED 3 'J 0
Council Agenda - 2113/95
Consideration of confirming anointment of new Fire Chief • Mark
Wallen (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
According to the fie department bylaws, fire department members elect a
Fire Chief who is supposed to be ratified by the City Council. The Fire
Chief is actually appointed for a two-year term, with the current term
expiring at the end of 1994. The previous Fire Chief, Mr. Jerry Wein, had
served in this capacity for the past six years; but he has elected not to
continue as Fire Chief due to the time contraints of his employment. Being
on the road as a salesman for Larson Manufacturing, he has been finding it
difficult to devote as much time as he wanted to the position.
The fire department members recently elected Mark Wallen as the new Fire
Chief subject to City Council ratification. Mr. Wallen has been a member of
the fire department since 1977 and works at the NSP Power Plant. In
accordance with the fire department bylaws, it has been the past practice of
the Council to ratify the department selection as a Fire Chief, and I do not
know of any reason at this time why the Council would not do likewise for
Mr. Wallen.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I -S
Council could ratify the election of Mr. Wallen to be the new Fire SQ
Chief.
Do not ratify the appointment of Mr. Wallen as Fire Chief.
Since it has normally been up to the fire department members to elect their
own Fire Chief, I am not aware of the Council not ratifying the
recommended candidate. Staff does not know of any reason why the
Council would not want to confirm Mr. Wallen's appointment as the new
Fire Chief.
P. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
e. f&nsideration of an undq6k rpgort gn Senior Citizen Center
activities for 1894 • Pam Loidolt. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Senior Citizen Center Coordinator, Pam Loidolt, will be in attendance at the
meeting to update the City Council on the activities that have taken place
in 1994 at the Center. At this time, the Center is not requesting any
specific action being taken by the Council other than discussion of the
activities that have taken place and acceptance of the report as presented
by Pam.
Pam has indicated she will be supplying the Council with statistical data
Monday evening.
�ontice!/
Monticello Senior Center
107 Cedar Street, Monticello, MN 55362
Phone: (612) 295-2000
;Senior ECEnteNr
TO: Monticello City Council Members
L
FROM: Pam LXoidolt, Senior Center Director
SUBJ: 1994 Senior Center Statistics
DATE: February 7, 1995
I have enclosed statistics slurunariting the usage of the Monticello Senior
Center, comparing the years 1993 and 1994.
1 will be attending the February 13th City Council meeting to give a brief
report on senior center activity in 1994 and to answer any questions about the
program that you may have. I will also outline senior center goals for 1995.
1 look forward to seeing you on February 13th.
J
J
MONTICELLO SENIOR CENTER
1994 COMPARATIVE STATISTICS
Unwhrpli=od
Duplimted Duel. Parddp= Volw= Haus
Phone Calls
Acuvit n Offend
Pnrticiv="
?ankioanu (orgmrized & unam
Reowed
(mdapliemed)
c am) adman)
1993
447
2,604 4,000 1,279
850
36
1st Quarter
1994
493
2,997 4,200 1,375.5
892
43
1993
528
3,501 4,700 1,382.5
759
38
2nd Quarter
1994
•696
3,544 4,900 •'2,097.5
870
42
1993
628
3,833 5,100 1,656.5
737
34
3rd Quarter
1994
669
3,348 4,800 1,611
744
46
1993
$42
3,099 4,028 1,536
681
42
4th Quarter
1994
421
2,889 4,000 1,700
689
44
TOTALS-1993
1,104
13,037 17,828 5,854
3,027
65
TOTALS-1994
1,259
12,778 17,900 6,784
3,195
73
*Reflects Open House guests
**Reflects 150 non-senior volunteer heure for remodeling
Q
Council Agenda - 7113/95
Coneideral;_ion of o Dkt of phase V of the
Cardinal HiUs subdivieiopA2ulicant. Value Plus Homes. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed is the preliminary plat of phase V of the Cardinal Hills
subdivision. Phase V includes 34 lots, which is slightly smaller than the
previous two phases. I plan on providing a complete site plan review at the
meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of phase V of
the Cardinal Hills subdivision.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of phase V of the
Cardinal Hills subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Phase V is completely consistent with the development plan previously
reviewed and approved by the City, therefore, approval of this phase is
virtually a housekeeping matter. Staff, therefore, recommends
alternative #1.
A copy of preliminary plat will be presented at the meeting.
Council Agenda - W13/95
ro. Consideration of aonroving Klein Farms EAW and authorizing
submittal to Environmental Quality Board. (10.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A few months ago, City Council authorized completion of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in cor; unction with development of the Klein
Farms plat. The approval was subject to the developer providing the City
with funds necessary to complete the Klein Farms' share of the EAW and
one-half of the cost to provide supplemental information describing the
extension of trunk sanitary sewer service serving the Klein Farms and other
future development areas. Emmerich provided the funds as requested by
City Council whereupon OSM completed the EAW, which is now provided
for your review.
The EAW process is required when a project reaches a certain magnitude of
development. Local governments such as Monticello are responsible for
coordinating the environmental assessment process. The EAW basically
summarizes the development proposal as identified in the 80 -acre
preliminary plat on the north side of School Boulevard and also outlines in
conceptual terms the proposed development of the south 80 acres of the
Klein Farm development.
If the City Council votes to accept the Klein Farms EAW and authorizes
submittal of the document to the Environmental Quality Board, the EAW
will then be submitted to a variety of organizations and institutions
concerned with environmental issues. A notice of the availability of the
EAW will also be published in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor as
notification to all interested parties not otherwise on the EQB mailing list.
Individuals or organizations wishing to comment on the EAW will have 30
days in which to submit comments to the City. After the 30 -day period has
expired, the comments obtained will be presented to the City Council, at
which time Council will be asked to consider making a negative declaration
of impact associated with the development. The negative declaration of
impact is required before the project can proceed any further.
Motion to accept the EAW and authorize submittal to the
Environmental Quality Board.
Motion to deny neceptanra of the EAW.
Council Agenda - 2113/95
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has had the opportunity to review the document and make
adjustments accordingly. It is our view that it accurately outlines the
environmental issues relating to the development of the site and, therefore,
it is appropriate to accept it per alternative Hl.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Klein Farms and
trunk sanitary sewer utility extension.
Council Agenda - 2113/95
11. Consideration of accgntkw Klein Farms residential subdivision
feasibility study. AND
12. Consideration of ordering 41ans and stecificgtions for
improvements to the Klein Farms residential subdivision. W.O.I
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to review the feasibility study and consider authorizing
preparation of plans and specifications for the Klein Farms residential
subdivision. Tony Emmerich has indicated that the costs of the project are
consistent with his expectations, and he supports moving ahead on the
project. He has noted that he plans on providing the City with funds
necessary to complete plans and specifications.
The feasibility study outlines improvements to the Klein Farm residential
subdivision and does not include the study of School Boulevard, which is
also planned for construction in 1995. Under the School Boulevard project,
School Boulevard, along with utility services, will be extended from Fallon
Avenue to Highway 25. The School Boulevard portion of the total project
has also been funded by Emmerich and is currently being completed by
OSM. The timing of the School Boulevard bidding process and associated
constructed will follow Klein Farms by about one month. Dividing the
project in two parts should result in lower bids because reducing the project
into two smaller parts will open the project to more contractors.
Following are some of the issues that will need to be resolved prior to
ordering the project, which is scheduled for early April 1995. Emmerich is
aware of the issues below and is comfortable with moving forward with the
project without complete resolution of the issues at this time.
At this point in time, it is assumed that Council continues to be comfortable
in financing the project via the public improvement process. The public
improvement process has been favored because of the following reasons:
Although privately funded projects can be constructed sucoesafally,
City staff favors projects managed and funded by the City because of
the added control that the public improvement process offers.
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
The risk of non-payment of assessments is minimal because the
developer is required to provide 60% of the cost of the improvements
to the City in the form of a letter of credit that the city can draw on
in the event the developer does not pay the assessments. In addition
to the letter of credit, the City can eventually acquire the land if the
developer forfeits it due to non-payment of assessments. In sum, the
value of the letter of credit plus the value of the improved lots far
exceeds the City debt associated with installing the improvements.
Due to the number and magnitude of projects planned for 1995, it
will be necessary to issue general obligation bonds to fund the
projects. In terms of bonding expenses, the bigger, the better.
Combining the Mein Farms funding requirements into an already
large potential bond issue already planned for funding City projects
will help drive down bonding costs and may improve the bid. Projects
that will derive funding from the City bond issue in 1995 include
Cardinal Hills, Gould Brothers utility extension, Eastwood Knoll, and
Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet.
C
At the next Council meeting, Paul Weingarden will be submitting his ideas
regarding implementation of the storm sewer access charge previously
discussed and conceptually approved by the City Council in 1994. Tony
Emmerich has reviewed the concept of paying a storm sewer access charge
and is supportive of paying a storm sewer access fee as long as any
oversizing expenses for storm sewer improvements to the Klein Farms site
are funded by the City. The details of this arrangement need to be worked
out by the City Engineer.
Fallon Avenue Imarovements
The feasibility study does not include upgrading Fallon Avenue. Council
may want to discuss whether or not it is appropriate to reconstruct Fallon
Avenue in conjunction with the Mein Farms project and explore
alternatives for funding the reconstruction. It does not appear that it is
necessary to rebuild the road at this time, especially with the planned
extension of School Boulevard to Highway 25. Completion of School
Boulevard will likely result in a reduction in the amount of traffic on Fallon
Avenue, thereby reducing the immediate need for reconstruction. On the
other hand, the Mein Farms development includes an access point on
Fallon which may result in new tragic that offsets diverted traffic.
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
The City may also want to consider reconstruction at this time while said
expenses can be assessed against vacant lots. It will be much more difficult
to assess the costs later after the project is developed. Perhaps an
alternative acceptable to the developer would be to establish a fee to be
collected at the time of payment of the building permit which would be used
for establishing a fund to pay for a portion of the future expense of
reconstruction of Fallon Avenue. It is estimated that the Klein Farms'
share of the expense to reconstruct Fallon Avenue is $104,000, which is
equal to $1,300/acre; $104,000 represents one-half of the full cost of
reconstruction. If Emmerich develops 250 housing units, the cost per unit
could be set at about $420/housing unit. The Klein Farms development
formula above may need to be adjusted because it may be difficult to
demonstrate an increase in value to the property equal to $104,000. It
could be argued that parcels should not be required to pay the full cost
associated with reconstruction of b2th School Boulevard and Fallon Avenue
because adequate access to the development can be obtained via School
Boulevard.
Ultimately, when it comes time to reconstruct Fallon Avenue, it will be
necessary to complete an appraisal of the potential effect of the
reconstruction of Fallon Avenue on the value of the adjoining properties.
This information will indicate what the limits are for obtaining special
assessment revenue from the benefiting properties. The difference between
special assessment revenue and the total project costs would be financed by
the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.� Motion to approve the feasibility study and authorize preparation of
plans and specifications contingent on the developer providing ftmds
necessary to complete the plans and specifications.
Under this alternative, the project will move forward following the
time line desired by the developer. By upfronting the cost of plans
and specifications, the developer assumes all risk associated with
moving forward without resolution of a number of development
issues. City staff will be working with the developer to resolve the
issues above and will be preparing a better overall summary for
Council of project expenses and financing sources.
2. Motion to deny or table approval of the feasibility study and do not
authorize preparation of plans and specifications.
Council Agenda - ? IN%
If Council is not comfortable with moving forward on this project
until some of the issues noted above are resolved, then Council may
wish to deny or table the matter.
C. STAFF RECONBMNDATION:
Staff recommends approval of alternative Nl. It is our view that the issues
identified in the discussion above can be investigated and resolved prior to
ordering the project. Any rials associated with moving forward to develop
plans and specifications without first resolving the issues noted are borne
by the developer because he is funding the cost of plan preparation. In the
event the City eventually decides to withdraw from doing the project via the
public improvement process, the developer an use the plans to complete the
project privately.
D. SUPPORTING DATA,:
Copy of feasibility study.
14
Council Agenda - 2/13195
13. Considerat(gn R$ Qatablishina C.,ouncll subcommittee to update
Cit tEpwnshio Urbanization Plan. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A few months ago, the City Council approved a feasibility study and authorized
completion of plans and specifications for extension of sewer and water service
to Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus. The authorization was in
response to a petition for public improvements by both Gould Brothers and D &
D Bus. In addition, Gould Brothers Chevrolet provided $10,000 as a deposit to
fund the expense to prepare the plans. The plans are nearly complete and will
be ready to be considered for approval by Council at the next Council meeting.
At that time, Council will also be asked to authorize advertisement for bids and
call for a public hearing on the project.
Prior to further formal action on the project, Council is asked to review input
pmvidAd by the Township regarding concerns about the annexation agreement
as it relates to the Gould Brothers/D & D Bus annexation request. Please note
that annexation must occur prior to ordering the project because the City
cannot assess Gould Brothers or D & D bus for their share of the cost of the
project if the properties are not in the city. Following is a summary of the
annexation issue.
Both Gould Brothers Chevrolet and D & D Bus have submitted petitions for
annexation. Under the annexation agreement with the Township, the
annexation of the parcels should be automatic; however, the Township has
been somewhat slow to approve the annexation request. I have been informed
by Franklin Dern that the Township does not intend to hold up the
annexation; however. I understand that the Township would like to review
certain provisions of the agreement in light of this annexation request, If the
agreement is amended, they would like the amendment to be retroactive to the
Gould Brothers/D & D Bus annexation.
Following is my understanding of the amendments to the agreement that the
Township is proposing.
A. Under the current agreement, all taxes paid by annexed property aro
paid to the City at such time that the annexed property is provided city
services. The Township will request that the taxes from existing
businesses that aro annexed to the city continue to be paid to the
Township for a period of throe years. This would allow tho Township to
cushion the impact of the lose in tax base over a period of time.
As an alternative to this idea, perhaps Council would like to consider
phasing in the tax switch over a period of three years as follows: In
1995, 100% of the fazes could stay with the Township; In 1996, 66%
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
Township and 33% City; In 1997, 33% Township and 66% City; and in
1998, 10046 City. See the attached table for a description of this
program.
B. For residential developments, the City receives all property taxes from a
subdivision immediately upon extension of utilities to the subdivision.
The Township may request that the Township continue to receive tax
revenue from the annexed parcel in an amount equal to what the
property paid when it was being used for agricultural purposes. This
arrangement would continue for a period of three years. As an example,
the 160 -acre 10ein Farms property pays approximately $200/year to the
Township. Under the amendment, this amount would be paid to the
Township for a period of three years. The balance of the new taxes
coming from new homes would be paid to the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to appoint two Council members to a subcommittee to review
potential amendments to the Annexation Agreement.
In the spirit of City/Township cooperation, Council may wish to appoint
two members of the City Council to work with staff and the Township on
establishing amendments to the agreement governing annexation.
Please note that there are areas within the agreement that could be
changed to benefit the City as well as the Township. For instance, the
area identified as immediately annexable under the urbanization plan is
due to be enlarged because of the development of Cardinal Hills and
because of the impending development of the River Mill and lGein Farms
subdivisions.
Motion to deny establishment of proposed annexation subcommittee.
If Council is satisfied with the agreement, perhaps it is not necessary to
open discussions.
C. ST
Staff recommends alternative Nl. The agreement has been used successfully
over the past few years to streamline the annexation process for properties ripe
for annexation; however, it has been some time since it has been updated.
Therefore, it may make sense to open up discussions regardless of the status of
the Gould Brother's annexation situation.
D. SUPPORT2UDAU:
Copy of Annexation Agreement/Urbanization Plan (see page 3); Gould
Brothera/D & D Bus tax profile.
RESOLUTION 90-52
URBANIZATION PLAN
JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
CONCERNING THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA
WHEREAS; reoccurring boundary adjustments have occurred between the
City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for the last twenty
years and uncertainty as to future adjustments has resulted; and
WHEREAS; responding to requests for boundary adjustments on a case
by case basis, apart from an overall plan for urbanization, is
expensive, time consuming, and counterproductive; and
WHEREAS; it has been difficult for the Town of Monticello and the
City of Monticello and property owners within the Orderly
Annexation Area to plan separately for development and growth; and
WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has requested that the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, the City, and the Town work
cooperatively in re-examining the future of the Orderly Annexation
Area to determine if development is being properly focused; and
WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has urged the City and Town
to approach the orderly annexation issue with a spirit of
cooperation; and
WHEREAS; it appears to be in the best interest of both parties that
joint cooperation and planning between the parties be conducted;
and
WHEREAS; the parties want to stabilize and enhance the
predictability of boundary adjustments; and
WHEREAS; there is a basis for agreement between the parties for
accomplishing these goals, and the parties hereto do set forth the
terms of this agreement by the following:
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly
agree to the following:
1. CONTINUING THE MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA
That the following Orderly Annexation Area in the Town of
Monticollo was established by a Minnesota Municipal Board Ordor on
Decembor 8, 1972, as in need of orderly annexation pursuant to
Minnesota Statute Chapter 414, et al.
URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 1
2. LAND USE GUIDE PLAN
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, upon their
adoption of this policy, approve the Monticello Orderly Annexation
Area Plan which is attached as Exhibit "B" (hereinafter referred to
as the Guide Plan).
3. URBAN SERVICE AREA
The area identified within the Guide Plan as the "Urban Service
Area" is an area that abuts the City of Monticello and is presently
urban or suburban in nature or is about to become urban or
suburban. Further, the City of Monticello is now capable of
providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area.
4. ANNEXATION PROCESS
Annexation should be allowed to occur upon the following terms and
conditions:
A. The property must be located within the above described
"Urban Service Area";
/ B. The property owner must petition both the City of
Monticello and the Town of Monticello for annexation;
ilt C. The property owner shall submit a development plan to the
,+ �+ City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello showing the
r need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least
60% of the property petitioned for annexation;
�= D. The development plan must be of sufficient detail to show
it will meet the standards and requirements of the City
of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use
plan, comprehensive plan, utilities plan, assessment
procedures, and financing plan;
E. Municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and
ready for use within two (2) years from the date of
annexation; and
F. There shall be no future petitions for annexation until
all previous conditions in the development plan have been
complied with.
Prior to final City approval of the development plan, said plan
shall be submitted to the Town of Monticello for review. Concerns
expressed by the Town of Monticello shall be addressed prior to
formal approval of the development plan by the City of Monticello.
URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 2
All efforts will be made to establish development plans that
incorporate the land use planning efforts of both the City of
Monticello and the Town of Monticello. No development plan shall
be considered by the City under this agreement without written
summary of comments submitted by the Town of Monticello to the City
of Monticello. If the City receives written approval of the
development plan from the Town, a joint petition for annexation
shall be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board.
If the Town of Monticello does not approve the development plan,
the City shall then either reject the development plan, or the
issue may be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to
Minnesota Statute Chapter 414.
4. TERMS
The,term of this agreement shall be ten (10) years from the
effective date of this agreement. Both parties reserve the right
to terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days' written notice.
The effective date shall be upon the approval of the City Council
ui the City of Monticello and the Town Board of the Town of
Monticello and acceptance by the Minnesota Municipal Board and said
subsequent order approving this agreement.
6. LAND USE/ZONING AND PLANNING
The zoning and planning throughout the Orderly Annexation Area as
described above shall be under the control of the Monticello
Orderly Annexation Board until annexed to the City of Monticello.
If the property is annexed to the City of Monticello, the property
shall be designated as agricultural according to the City of
Monticello Zoning and Planning Ordinances. Any alteration or
change to the zoning classification shall be subject to a public
hearing to be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission.
The City of Monticello shall notify the Town of Monticello of said
land use classification hearing.
7. TAXES
Any and all of the property taxes collected in the Orderly
Annexation Area shall remain the property of the Town of
Monticello. Any and all property taxes collected from annexed
properties shall be the property of the City of Monticello after
ouch time that paid proporty actually roceives City sewor and wator
service or after expiration of a period of three (3) years,
whichever occurs sooner.
URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 3
8. ISOLATED TOWN PROPERTY
Any property within the "Urban Service Area" that becomes or is
about to become isolated as a result of annexation proposed under
Section 4 shall be submitted for consideration to the Minnesota
Municipal Board along with the proposed annexation for
consideration by the Minnesota Municipal Board. In general, the
creation of such isolated parcels should be avoided.
9. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIED ON THE ANNEKATION PLAN
AS THE AGRICULTURAL AREA.
No development should occur within the orderly annexation area
which is outside the "Urban Service Area" as described in the MOAA
Annexation Plan unless said development meets the standards of the
zoning and subdivision requirements of the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Board, the City of Monticello, and the Town of
Monticello. Said development can only occur if all local
government standards are complied with or are capable of being
complied with in the future. The intent of this paragraph is to
strongly discourage development outside the "Urban Service Area" as
identified in the Orderly Annexation Plan.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of
Monticello this 13th day of
November J , 9
Y nCAYVAdolnistrator
ATT
TOWN OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the Town
Board of the Town of..
Monti c 1 thio ��_ daof
4.
19y(1.
8
eCai s
ATTEST /.I�CFIf�P � ,�/af
Town Boars Clerk
URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 4
..I- r;-' - E"J:') "' I" — - -
rro,v!-to rcoc, umsm.cin
m I Ullls L -J
u.-; I't n15• (It VtLOPLD I.Itto ;o
A i..l -IL IMI A1.1 A
A
MONTICELLO
ORDERLY
ANNEXATION
ku
(r
TAX REVENUE PROFILE
GOULD BROTHERS CHEVROLETID & D BUS COMPANY
0
Estimated
Esftated
Estimated
Taxes Paid
I
T
l
ax Py961
Share I
Share
In 984I
Share
In Cite
(Gould Brothers Chevrolet
$12,183
$1,076
$16,923
51389
$2,945
ID
& 0 Bum Go.
$4,584
$403
$4514
$369
$782
TOTAL
$16,777
$1,479
$21,437
$1,756
$3,727
1995 Tax
19%
1997
1998
Payment
Township
City
City
Gty
Tex Rate
Tex Rate
Tex Rate
Tax Rate
(Total Taxes
$1,758
53,727
$3,727
$3,727
(Township
100%
67%
339E
0%
$1,758
$2,482
$1,241
$0
(City
0%
33%
67%
100%
$0
$1,241
$2,482
$3,727
0
Monticello Township
County Road 117
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
February 7, 1995
Mr.Jeff O'Neil
Assistant City Administrator
City of Monticello
Monticello, Mn.
Dear Jeffs
'chis is in response to our discussion with you at the
township meeting of February 6th, at which time
we brought up the adverse problems the township
will be faced with in regard to tax losses from the
considerable amount of annexation of township land into the
city at this time. With this in mind, we are requesting that
taxes for a 3 -year period, 1996, 1997 and 1998, from the
Gould and the DSD properties, continue to be paid to the
township.
In the near future, we feel that we should be looking at our
Urbanization Plan.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP
X&��
by clork, Darlene Savatzko.
GD
Council Agenda - 7/13(95
ra. Consideration of aoprovine deyelooment sereement and final Dist
of the River Mill subdivision. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to review both the development agreement and
associated disbursement agreement, along with the final plat of the River
Mill subdivision and consider approval. For the past few weeks, City staff,
including the City Engineer and City Attorney, have been working with the
developer to nail down the details of the plans and specifications and the
development agreement relating to the River Mill subdivision. At this point
in time, the plans and specifications and supporting documentation relating
to the development agreement are nearly complete. All of the major issues
relating to the physical development of the site have been resolved to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Public Works Director. All that
remains is to update the final plans and specifications and make minor
adjustments to the protective covenants.
The City Attorney has prepared a development agreement that is similar to
the Oak Ridge development agreement. The Oak Ridge development
agreement was used as a guide for the River Mill project because it was also
a project that called for the private funding of development improvements.
There is one major difference between the two agreements. The Oak Ridge
development agreement required that 26% of the total project cost be
provided to the City in the form of a letter of credit which could be used by
the City in the event the developer defaulted on the project. In the event of
default, the funds available would be used toward restoration of disturbed
soils or to complete a portion of the project remaining. The development
agreement governing the River Mill subdivision improves on the Oak Ridge
arrangement by establishing a disbursement agreement which indirectly
provides the City with access to 110% of the project cost. Under the
disbursement agreement, the lending institution guarantees that 110% of
the project costs are available to the developer for payment of coats
associated with construction. As construction is completed, both the
developer's engineer and the City Engineer certify work that is completed
and jointly authorize disbursement of funds to pay costs. In the event the
developer would default on the agreement, the City would be able to draw
on the funds to complete the project. This is an improvement over the Oak
Ridge agreement because the City only had access to 25% of the total coat to
complete the project. Other differences between the Oak Ridge and River
Mill agreements are relatively minor and pertain to the peculiarities of each
site.
Following is an update on events that have occurred sines Council granted
preliminary plat approval of the River Mill plat late in 1994.
Council Agenda - 2113/95
The original preliminary plat included a land swap between the River
Mill development and A Glorious Church. Subsequent to approval of
the preliminary plat, A Glorious Church had a change of heart with
regard to the land swap. The final plat was adjusted accordingly.
The adjustment did not result in the need for any variance or special
consideration.
Significant work was done on trying to make the park as useful as
possible in response to Council concerns during preliminary plat
review. It is the view of City staff that the park area that has
resulted is far superior to the park plan originally presented.
As you will see in the final plat, the park plan shows a total area of 7
acres, which includes a major portion that is flat and useable as an
active play area. The park will feature a sliding hill and ample area
for off-street parking. The park itself is relatively wide, and there are
grade differentials on the east and west side between the park and
residences. These factors should combine to give the park a sense of
being an open public place rather than a private park. An 8-R
bituminous walkway will be extended from the twinhome area to the
top side of the sliding hill providing park acceas to twinhome
residents, and an additional 8 -ft bituminous trail will be extended
between homes on the east side of the park to provide direct access to
the facility from the east.
In terms of the tax increment financing plan and associated
agreement, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority adopted a
redevelopment plan that will provide a level of assurance that the
property values of the single homes constructed will be at a value
equal or greater than the city-wide average. The average single
family home will be valued over $112,000, and no single family home
will be less than $95,000. The average twinhome will be $87,500,
and no twinhome will be leas than $80,000. The completed
development will have a completed value in excess of $16,250,000
plus the potential value of commercial development.
The development agreement, if followed, places home values in this
area at a value close to homes built in the Oak Ridge neighborhood.
If the developer does not achieve the average as outlined in the
redevelopment plan, then he will not be eligible to receive the tax
increment financing pay-as-you-go funding to pay back his upfront
cost to reclaim the gravel pit.
The Municipal Hoard approved the annexation of Hawks Aar and the
Krauthauer's site.
Council Agenda - 2/13195
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the development agreement and approve the final
plat contingent on the following:
1. Final approval of development plans by City Engineer and City
staff.
2. Completion of minor a$justments to final plat necessary to
accommodate City Engineer requirements.
3. Execution of the disbursement agreement and payment to the
City of all preliminary platting expenses in excess of the
original platting fee.
4. Acquisition of all necessary permits.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the development agreement.
Council should select this alternative if uncomfortable with the
development agreement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The disbursement and development agreement is actually stricter than
previous development agreements governing the private development
process. The plat design and protective covenants meet or exceed City
standards, and the developer has agreed to pay all fees as established by
the City; therefore, staff recommends approval under alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTMG DATA:
Copy of disbursement agreement; Copy of development agreement; Copy of
protective covenants. Final plat and park plan will be presented at the
meeting.
19
FEB. -10' 95IFR 1) 12:13 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P. 015
DIBBDR88DDyr ttEt�!
THIS AGR8EKMM, is made and entered on * by and betveen
Residential Development, Inc., a Kinnagota Corporation
(•Developer•), Century Bank National Association ("Lender"), and
The City of Nonticello, a Xinaesota Nunicipal Corporation
("city").
WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of the real property
described in tidbit A attached hereto, commonly known as River
Hill ("subdivision•);
WHEREAS, on *, the Developer and the City made and entered
into a Development Agreement, a Copy of Which is attached as
EXhibit B, ("Development Agreement") concerning the construction
of certain improvements to the Subdivision as described therein
("Developer improvements");
WHEREAS, on *, the Developer and the Lander rondo and entered
into a Loan Agreement ("Loan Agrssnant■) Wherein the Lander
agreed to loan the sum of $* to the Developer for the purpose of
constructing the Developer improvements and other related
development costs;
WHERRU, on *, the Developer, as maker executed and
delivered to the Lender, as payee, a promissory note in the sum
of 8* with interest theraon payable on or before *, and said note
was secured by a Mortgage exeauted and delivered by Developer, as
mortgagor, to Lei+der, as Kortgages, encumbering the subdivision;
and
FEB.-10'95(FRI) 12:15 OLSON/USSET P.A. TEL:612 925 $879 P.016
WSSREW the parties desire to establish procedures
concerning the disbursement of the funds under the Loan
Agreement.
NoW, -„,, in consideration of the mutual covenants
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which is hereby acknovledged, the parties hereby
agree as follows:
I. Ac2MIU. The City hereby accepts this Disbursement
Agreement as Security for the construction of the Developer
Improvements under the Development Agreement, The liability of
the Lender to the City under this Disbursement Agreement shall
automatically be reduced to the extent of advances made by the
Lender under the Loan Agreement for the Developer Improvements,
Provided that said advances are approved in writing by the City.
In the event of improper disbursement, tender shall be
liable to City for any damages arising from any improper
disbursement up to the amount of such improper disbursement.
2. Grtificatien by privatA gnaineer. Sathre-8er9quist,
Inc. (-Private Engineer") shall certify in writing to the
Developer, the Lender and City the progress of construction of
the Developer Improvement& at the conclusion of each stage of
construction. such certification shall set forth the quality of
workmanship, the stage of construction according to the plans and
specifications, the dollar asiount of the Developer Xmprovemente
-a-
0
FEB. -10' 9501) 12:14 OLSON/USSET ?.A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 017
completed to the data of such certification, and the dollar
amount of the disbursement necessary to pay for the certified
Developer Improvements.
3. annmvai by city, after receipt of the certification
by the private Engineer, the City shall give written notice to
the Developer and the Lander whether the City approves or rejects
the Developer Improvement relating to such certification. The
City will use its beat efforts to notify the Developer and Lander
within ten (10) business days after receipt of such certification
by the private Engineer. The City may perform it-- own
independent inspection of the Developer Improvemants.
4. . If the City approves a
certification of the Developer improvement by the Private
Engineer in writing, the Lender may rely upon such approval and,
if so instructed by the City, advance no more than Ninety-five
percent (93+) of the sum certified by the Private Engineer for
the Developer Improvements. Five percent (st) of all certified
sums of the Developer Improvements (•Retainage•) may be retained
until the final inspection by the City. The Retainage shall be
disbussad ninety-one (91) days after the City completes its final
inspection and establishes a Completion Date. If the City
rejects any item of the Developer uprovement in the
certification by the private Enginssr, the Tendos shall not
advance any funds relating to that item of the Developer
Improvesients until the city has given its written consent.
-3-
S
FEB. -10' 95(FR1) 11:14 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 $819 P. O18
Certifications not relating to Developer Improvements as
referenced in the Development Agreement shall not require the Si
retainage pursuant to this paragraph.
S. Susuennion or T ={nation t" C•rtiPicatien by Private
moi. The City may suspend or terminate the certification of
the Developer Improvemsnte by the Private Engineer. In such
event, the City shall give written notice to the Developer and
the Lander of such suspension or termination. Such suspension or
termination shall not affect any certification issued by the
Private 8nginoar prior to the receipt of such notice to all
parties. Such suspension or termination shall be prospective
only. In the event of such suspension or tarmination, the City
shall inspect the Developer Improvements completed, certify to
the Developer and the Lender the dollar amount of the Developer
Improvements completed to the date of such certification and the
amount to be advanced to pay for the cortified Developer
Improvements.
6, proal Tnanection by the city, pursuant to the
Development Agreement, the City Rnainner of the City shall maks a
final inspection of the Developer Improvemants. The Private
Enginear shall have no authority to make the final inspection on
behalf of the city. The city Enqineer may object to any
construction defects discovered during the final inspection
regardlass of when such defects occurred. The failure of the
City to object to a prior certification by the Private Engineer
-4-
FEB. -10'95(FR1) 12:14 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P.019
shall not be deemed a waiver of the City's right to demand the
correction of any construction defects discovered during the
final inspection.
7. Default IN DnvelMK& Right to Cure. If the Developer
commits an avant of default upon its obligations as imposed by
this Agreement, or pursuant to the Note and Mortgage executed by
Developer, or as defined within the Development agreement With
City and does not cure the event of default within the time
proscribed within the Development Agreement, the City may give
the Developer notice of the City's intention to terminate the
private installation of the Developer Improvements and the City
may proceed to lot contracts to complete the Developer
Improvemants. The cost of said contracts, plus other obligations
of the Developer under the Development Agreement, any be drawn
from the remaining unadvancad amount of Lender under this
Disbursement Agreonant.
In the alternative, upon default by the Developer of its
obligations under the Development Agreement following the above
described notice, the City may request the Lender to advance the
remaining unadvanced funds under this Disbursement Agreement
directly to the City, which funds the City shall hold in escrow
for the exclusive purposo of completing the Developer
improvements and satisfying the other obligations of the
Developer under the Development Agreement.
Upon final completion of the Developer isprovemsnts, the
City shall pay any remaining funds to Lender to be applied as a
-5-
/9E
FEB. -10' 95(FRI) 12:14 OLSON/USSET P.A. TEL:611 925 5819 P.020
payment on Developer '■ behalf. TGs notice of uncured default
shall be signed by the Kayor or the Clark of the City. Copies of
said notices shall also be served on the Lander.
in the event City does not recoup its costs in completing
the Developer Improvements under the provisions of this
paragraph, as an additional remedy, City may, at its option,
assess the benefitted property in the manner provided by
Kinnesota Statutes $429.01 at seq.
S. Terms of Aaraemant. This Agreement shall expire on •.
This Agreement shall automatically be extended for successive six
month periods unless Lander gives written notice to the City 30
days prior to any expiration data. It the Lander chooses not.to
extend the Agreement, and the City desires continued financial
security for the Developer's obligations under the Development
Agreement, the City may request the Lender disburse to the City
the remaining unadvanced amount of this Disbursing Agreement
which funds the City shall hold In escrow for the exclusive
purpose of Completing the Developer Improvements or other
obligations of the Developer under the Development Agreement.
Upon final complotion of the Developer improvements and
satisfaction of the Developer's obligations under the Development
Agreement, the City shall pay any remaining funds to Lander to be
applied as a payment on Developer's behalf.
9. Any request by the City of the Lender, which is
authoriaed by paragraphs 7 and 0, shall be honored by the Lander
within three (3) business days atter demand is made by the City.
-6-
0
FEB. -1O'951FR11 12:15 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P.O21
10. )fig. Any notice provided for in this Agreement may
be delivered or mailed as follows:
I,sttder: 11455 Viking Drive
Edea Prairie, M!i 55344-7247
Attentions Man Sracks
Developer: 15 Choctav Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55217
Attention: Mr. Rick Murray
Cityt 250 Bast Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Attention: Rick Volfstellar
Such notices shall be deemed to have been given when
received by all parties.
11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed in all
respects by the lav of the State of Minnesota.
12. AjjLgw=j. The rights of the City tinder this
Agreement cannot be assigned.
12. Bkpg Rrtoct. This Agreement shall inure to and bind
the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.
14. Mo Thi*d Party Riahte. This Agreement in made for the
sole benefit of the parties hereto. No other person shall have
any rights or remedies under this Agreement.
IN MITNMSS WHEMP, the parties have mads and entered into
this Agresmant as of the first day and year above written.
CITY op MmiaLm
By$
Itst Mayor
Sys
Rick Uolfetsller
Its t city Administrator
-7-
FEB. -10' 95 (FRI) 11:15 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 92S 5819 P. 022
RESIDEWMAL Dzvna mm, ruc.
By:
Iter
CENTURY BANK RATIONAL ASSOMATION
BYt
Ite s
.8•
ISSN
FEB.- 10'95(FR I) 12:09 OLSON/USSETP. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 002
DEVELOPER's
RZVER FILL AEBIDZMnL SUBDIVISION
THIS UGREEKM, made and entered into this day of
, 1995, by and between the CITY OF KONTICELLO,
a municipal corporation organised under the laws of the state of
Kinnesota (the "City"), and RESIDENTIAL DEVZWPKBNT, INC., a
Kinnesota corporation (the •Developer•).
WIUMMS, Developer has requested that city grant final
approval to a plat to be known as River Kill (the "Subdivision"),
said land legally described as set forth in Exhibit h attached
hereto and mads a part hereof ("Property) which Subdivision
shall consist of 41 single family residential units, 4e twinhome
residential units and area tar park purposes; and
WHERUS, Developer intends to construct, install, provide
for and maintain streets, storm serer, water main, signs,
grading, and drainage activities in accordance with the plans and
specifications as hereinafter described, all at the sole cost and
expense of Developer; and
WHEREAS, the City has by resolution adopted ,
199_, granted final approval to the Subdivision provided that
the Developer enter into the within Weement and that Developer
faithfully perform the terms and conditions contained herein.
NOW, THMFORB, in consideration of the premises and the
mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is
hereby agreed as follows:
1. plat Ap�reval.
The City agrees to approve the Subdivision
a@ requested by Developer on the terms and conditions as
hereafter set forth. The Developer agrees that the
Subdivision shall be developed in accordance with the
exhibits attached hereto which are hereby incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein. The exhibits arae
Exhibit 8 -- Final Plat which shall include a seven
acre site dedicated to the public tar park purposes
(identified as "Outlot A") and roadway easement
allowing access from Bart Boulevard as presently
platted to the adjacent Hawks Bar parcel
Exhibit C -• Protective Covenants
Prior to the date or filing the plat and protective
covenant@, Developer must pay to City any and all
outstanding expenses incurred by City tar plat and other
development purposes including, but not limited to,
FEB. -10' 95(FRI) 12:10 OLSON/USSET P.A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 003
engineering, legal and other professional staff fees.
The final plat and protective covenants must be approved and
executed in accordance with City and County ordinances and
filed in the office of the Wright County Recorder at
Developer's expense no later than , 1995.
Failure to fila the final plat and protective covenants by
this date shall render this Agreement null and void in its
entirety.
2. ReRxesentations of Developer. As inducement to the City's
approval of the Subdivision and entering into this
Agreement, the Developer hereby represents and warrants to
the City:
A. That the Developer is the fee owner of the Property and
Me authority to enter into this Agreement.
B. That the intended use of the property is for single
family and twinhome residential development.
C. That the Subdivision complies with all city, county,
state, and federal lava and rogulatione including, but
not limited to, City subdivision ordinances and zoning
ordinances.
D. That to the best of Developer's knowledge, the
Subdivision does not require an Environmental
Assessment W-rkaheet or an Rnvironmental Impact
Statement, but shall prepare the same if required to do
so by City or other goverrauntal entity and shall
reimburse City for all expenses incurred by City in
connection with the preparation of the reviev, MwIudng
staff time and attorneys tau.
].The Developer agrees it shall
construct, nstall and maintain certain public improvements
(•Developer Improvemente•) on the Property, at Developer's
sole coat and expense, in accordance with tho following
exhibits:
Exhibit D -- Building and Site Design Plan
Exhibit E -- Construction Plan
Exhibit F -- Landscape
Developer agrees the Developer Improvements shall be
performed in accordance with the plans, specifications, and
preliminary engineering reports approved or to be approved
by the City Engineer and the City prior to commencement of
construction and thereafter, in accordance with all city
rules, regulations, ordinances, and the requirements of this
�y1
FEB. -10' 95(FR1) 12:10 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P. 004
Agreement, which shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. Street grading, graveling, surfacing and stabilizing
which shall include curbs, gutter and driveway
approaches.
2. Electrical services including street lighting within
the subdivision as determined to be necessary by the
City.
3. Storm severs, including all necessary catch basins, and
appurtenances.
4. Water main, including all appurtenances.
5. Sanitary sever, including all appurtenances.
6. Setting of lot and block monuments.
7. Surveying and staking.
a. Site grading, terming and landscaping consistent with
landscape and the City Erosion Control policy
Residential Late regulation.
2. Establishment of post office cluster box stands with
groups of six or more in the single family residential
area, provided that each group shall be no closer than
200 test from any other group. post office cluster box
stands in the twinhome area shall be in groups of eight
or more.
lo. The City shall install street name signs, stop signs
and other traffic control signs at all locations deemed
necessary by City, at Developer's cost and expense.
4. pets. Upon execution of this Agreement, Dsvelopnr and
other necessary parties shall promptly apply for all
permits, approvals, licenses, or other documents from any
and all necessary governmental agencies (which may Include
the City, Wright County, pG and MM) so as to enable
Davoloper to construct the Developer Improvements as herein
contemplated. Developer shall use its best efforts to
obtain the same as soon as reasonably possible.
2n requesting building pernits from City, Developer
acknowledges and agrees that a per unit lift station, trunk
water main and sanitary sewer fee shall be incorporated into
each building permit issued by City in an amount of $
which Developer agrees is fair and reasonable. No grading
or building permit shall be issued by City unless the plans
-3-
FEB. -10' 95(FR1) 12:10 OLSON/USSET P.A. TEL:612 925 S879 P.00S
or application are in conformity with the City comprehensive
plan, this Agreement, and all local, state and federal
regulations. The City shall, within fifteen (15) days of
receipt of plans or building per applications, review such
submittal to determine whether the foregoing requirements
have been met.
It the city discerns said plans or applications are
deficient, it shall notify the Developer in writing stating
the deficiencias and the steps necessary for correction.
Issuance of a grading or building permit by City shall be a
conclusive determination that the plane or applications have
been approved as to the requested activity by Developer and
satisfies the provisions of this section.
The City shall issue building permits prior to City
acceptance of the Developer Improvements provided that the
party applying for the building permit agrees to withhold
requests for occupancy until necessary Developer
improvements have been installed, which include operational
and tested sever and water systems, installation of sod in
the front yard, and roadway development sufficiently
completed to support access by emergency vehicles,
snowplows, and garbage trucks, to be determined by the City
Engineer in his sole discretion. Until such approval is
granted, no dwelling may be occupied on either a temporary
or permanent basis.
Notwithstanding this provision, if the Developer is in
default of this Agreement, as hereinafter dafined, in
addition to any other remedy provided by this Agreement,
City may refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy for any
lot or parcel in the Subdivision until Developer cures the
default as provided herein.
pre -Construction Aetivitiee. The Developer or his engineer
shall schedule a pre -construction meeting with City to
review a proposed schedule for construction of the Developer
Improvements.
n
obta n all necessary governmental approvals, licenses and
permits, subject to Unavoidable Delays, Developer shall
commence construction of the Developer Improvements within
ten (10) days.
XM1Developer shall install, eonstruot and ma to n ebe
Subdivision Items and Developer Improvements in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement. Developer guarantees and
warrants the vorkmanship and materials respecting such
Subdivision Items and Developer Improvements for a period of
-4-
0
FEB. -10'95(FR1) 12:11 OLSOY/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P.006
one year following City's acceptance of the same ("Guarantee
Period•).
The Developer shall repair or replace, as directed by the
City and at the Developer's sols coat and expense, any work
and/or materials that become defective, in the sole opinion
of the City or its Engineer, within said Guarantee Period
even though notice thereof be given by City after said
Guarantee Period. The Developer, or Developer's
contractors, shall post maintenance bonds or other security
acceptable to City to secure these warranties.
=nanection of Izrorovements. Developer authorizes the City
inspector and City Engineer to inspect construction of the
Developer Improvements as required by City and grants to
them a license to enter the Subdivision to perform all
necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate during
the construction of the improvemonta until final
certification of acceptance is approved by City for all
Developer improvement Stems and expiration of any applicable
warranty period. Inspections by the City are to be logged
and reported weekly to Developer.
Construction and installation plans shall be provided to
City and shall be reviewed by and subject to approval of the
City to insure that the construction work mute with
approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance.
Developer shall cause its contractor to furnish City with a
schedule of proposed operations at least five (S) days prior
to the commencement of the construction of each type of
Subdivision item and Developer Improvement. The City shall
inspect all such work items during and after construction
for compliance with approved specifications and ordinance
requirements until final certification of acceptance is
approved by City and expiration of any applicable warranty
period.
Aecnntmnce of Imnrevnment. Upon notification by Developer
that any of the Developer Improvements have been completed,
City Engineer shall inspect the Developer Improvement and,
at his sole discretion, determine if the Development
Improvemwnt(s) has been completed in accordance with the
plans, specifications and exhibits attached hereto.
If the City Engineer dotarmines that the Developer
Improvemant(s) is not completed in accordance with said
requirements, the City Engineer shall notify Developer in
writing of the deficiency and provide a reasonable date upon
which to cure the doficiency. Failure by the Developer to
cure within the stated time period shall constltuto an Event
of Default.
FEB. -10'9SIFR1) 12:11 OLSOY/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P. 001
10. Come etlon of Developer improvements. Developer agrees to
complete the Subdivision Items and Developer improvements on
or before , 1995. The Completion
date as provided herein is subject to Unavoidable Delays as
hereinafter defined, in which avant the completion date may
be untended by the period of such Unavoidable Delays.
For the purpose of this section, Unavoidable Delays mean
delays which are caused by strikes, fire, war, road weight
restrictions, material shortages, weather that renders
construction progress impossible, causes beyond the
Developer's control or other casualty to the Developer
improvements, or the act of any federal, state or local
government unit, except those acts of the City authorised or
contemplated by this Agreement.
In the avant Developer believes an extension is warranted,
Developer shall request such extension in writing to the
City Engineer and specify the requested length of extension
and the reason therefore. The City Engineer shall determine
the length of the extension, if any, in his sole discretion.
11. Dwnershig of improvements. Upon the completion of the
Developer improvements required to be constructed by this
Agreement, and the acceptance thereof by the City, the
Developer Items lying within the public easements and public
right-of-ways as shown on the Subdivision plat shall become
City property without further notice or action. Within
thirty days thereafter, and before any security as herein
required is released, Developer shall supply City with a
complete sat Of reproducible OAS BUILT• and •DEVSLOPNSNT
PLAW plans in a form acceptable to the City Engineer,
without charge to City, which documents shall become the
property of City.
17. Clean Un- The Developer shall properly clear any soil,
earth, or debris on City -owned property or public right-of-
way resulting from construction worX by the Developer, its
agents, or assigns.
13, Developer shall, at
its expanse, prepare any streets located in the Subdivision
for snowplowing and other maintenance that Developer wishes
City to undertake prior to formal acceptance by City of such
streets. This preparation shall include, without
limitation, ramping any manholes as necessary to avoid
damage to eno"lows or other vehicles used in street
maintenance. Should damage occur to City snowplows or other
vehicles during the course of snowplowing or other
maintenance procedures prior to formal acceptance of the
street by city which damage is caused by Developer's failure
to properly maintain the same, Developer shall pay all such
-6-
FEB. -10' 95(FRI) 12:11 OLSON/USSET ?.A. TEL:612 9I5 5879 P.008
damages and shall indemnify and hold City harmless for all
such damage, cost, or expense incurred by City with regard
thereto.
14. Erosion and Drainage control. The Developer shall provide
and comply with erosion and drainage control provisions in
the landscape plan and City policy requirements as described
in paragraph 3(8) and as otherwise required by City. As
development progresses, the City may impose additional
erosion and drainage control requirements if, in the sole
opinion of the City lhgineer, they would be useful and
appropriate in controlling drainage and erosion. Developer
shall promptly comply with such erosion and drainage control
plans and with such additional instructions it receives from
City.
15. Hold Harmless Agreement. Developer acknowledges that its
failure to control erosion in accordance with the plans and
exhibits as contained herein may cause flooding and/or
damage to adjoining property owners. In such event,
Developer agrees to hold City harmless and indemnify City
from claims of all third parties or Developer for damages
arising out of such flooding and/or damages.
The parties recognise that time is of the essence in
controlling erosion. in the event of an emergency situation
requiring immediate action to prevent loss or damage to
persons or property, to be determined at the sole discretion
of City, the notice and cure provisions of paragraph 21
shall not apply and City is authorised to undostako an
corrective action it deems necessary to prevent or mine
any such flooding and/or damage. in such event, Developer
agrees to hold City harmless and indemnify City from claims
of all third parties for damages arising out of said
corrective action by City, and agrees to reimburse City for
all out of pocket expenses incurred by City arising out of
the corrective action including, but not limited to, any
costs necessary to re-landecaps disrupted coils located
within the Subdivision.
16. InlurAws
A. The Developer Will provide and maintain or cause to be
maintained at all times during the process of
constructing the Developer Uprovemants until siu (6)
months after aacsptance of all Developer improvemiants
and, from time to tine at the request of the City
furnish with proof of payment of premiums ono
(i) Comprehensive general liability insurance
(including operations, contingent liability,
operations of subcontractors, completed operations
�µ o
FEB. -10' 95(FRI) 12:12 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P.009
and contractual liability insurance) together with
an Owner's Contractor's Policy with limits against
bodily injury, including death, and property
damage (to include, but not be limited to damages
caused by erosion or flooding) which may arise out
of the Developer's work or the work of any of its
subcontractors.
Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be
less than $500,000.00 for one parson and
$1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for
property damage shall not be leas than $200,000.00
for each occurrence. The City, City Engineer and
Developer's Engineer shall be an additional named
insured on said policy. Developer shall file a
copy of the insurance coverage with the City upon
request.
(ii) Worker's compensation insurance, with statutory
coverage.
17. For the purpose Of
financing the construction, installation and maintenance of
the Developer Improvements, and to pay all associated costs
and expanses of City as described in paragraph 18, Developer
shall, upon execution of this Agreement, execute and deliver
to Century Hank National Association (•Lender") a Note and
Mortgage encumbering the property in an amount not lass than
$ The proceeds of this loan shall be escrowed by
Lander and disbursed only in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a certain Disbursement Agreement attached
haroto as 8xhibit 8 and incorporated by reference heroin.
No work shall be commenced under this Agreement until the
Note, Mortgage, and Disbursement Agreement has boon executed
and certified copies filed with City.
Is. Reeeensihility fer coats.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or
City in connection with the development of the
Subdivision, including but not limited to construction
of Developer Improvements, legal, planning,
engineering, and inspection expanses incurred in
connection with approval and acceptance of the
Subdivision plat, the preparation of this Agresumt,
and all reasonable coats and expenses incurred by the
City in monitoring and inspecting development of the
Subdivision.
a. The Developpeors shall pay in full all bills submitted by
the City vlthin thirty (30) days after receipt. If the
-a-
FEB. -10' 9501) 1212 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 010
bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat
development work until the bills are paid in full.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and
employees harmless from claims made by itself and third
parties for damages sustained or costs incurred
resulting from subdivision plat approval and
development. The Developer shall indemnify the City
and its officers and exployees for all costs, damages,
or expenses which the City may pay or incur in
consequence of ouch claims, including reasonable
attorneys fees.
D. The Developer shall reimburse the City for its costs
incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement,
including engineering and reasonable attorneys fees.
19. Developer
represents and agrees that (except for aasoolating with
other individuals or entities), prior to the completion of
the Developer Improvements as certified by the City:
A. Except only by vey of security for, and only for the
purpose of obtaining financing necessary to enable the
Developer or any successor in interest to the property,
or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with
respect to the construction of the Developer
Improvements under this Agreement, and any other
purpose authorized by this Agreement, the Developer
(except as so authorized) will not make or create, or
suffer to be made or created, any total or partial
sale, assignment, conveyance, or transfer in any other
mode or form of with respect to this Agreement or any
interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do
any of the same, without the prior vritten approval of
City.
B. Zn the absence of specific written agreement by the
City to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by
City shall be deemed to relieve Developer from any of
its obligations. In the avant that City approves a
substitute developer and the property is transferred to
said substitute, the City agrees to relieve the
Developer of liability from performance as described in
this contract. Said substitute shall assume all
responsibilities and rights of the Developer under this
contract.
20. Evnnts of Default Defined_ The following shall be "Ivens
of Default• under this Agreement and the toss "events of
default* shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement
(unless the context otherwise provides), any one or acre of
-9-
FEB.-10'9S(FRI) 12:12 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P.011
the following events.,
A. Failure by the Developer to observe and substantially
perform any covenant, condition, obligation or
agreement on its part to be observed or performed under
the terms of this Agreement, or the Disbursement
Agreement by and between City, the Developer and
Lender.
S. If the Developer shall admit in writing its inability
to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall
file a petition in bankruptcy, or shall mare an
assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall
consent to the appointment of a receiver of itself or
of the Ahola or any substantial part of the property.
C. If the Developer shall file a petition under the
federal bankruptcy laws.
D. If the Developer is in default under the Kortqage and
has not entered into a work-out agreement with the
Lander.
E. If the Developer shall fail to begin construction of
the Developer Improvements in conformance with this
Agreement, and such failures are not due to unavoidable
delays as defined in this Agreement.
Y. The Developer shall, after commencement of the
construction of the Developer Iaprovemante, default in
or violate its obligations with respect to the
construction of the same (including the nature and the
data for the completion thereof), or shall abandon or
substantially suspend construction work, such act or
actions is not due to unavoidable delays and any such
default, violation, abandonment, or suspension shall
not be cured, eneed, or remedied within the time
provided for La this Agreement.
21. Ketien/Romediss on Default. Vhwwver any Event of Default
ooaurs, the City shall give written notice of the Event of
Default to Developer by United States mall at its last known
address. If the Developer fails to curs tho Event of
Default within fifteen (iS) days of the date of mailed
notico, in addition to any other ramody provided in this
Agreement, and without wa ver of any such right, City may
avail itself of any or all of the following ramediasi
A. Balt all plat development work and construction of
Developer Improvenants until such time as the Event of
Default is cured.
-10-
0
FEB.-10'951FR11 12:13 OLSON/USSET P.A. TEL:612 925 5819 P. 012
a. Refuse to issue building permits or occupancy permits
as to any parcel until such time as the Event of
Default is cured.
C. Apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin
continuation of the Event of Default.
D. Exercise any and all remedies available to City
pursuant to the Disbursement Agreement. If the Event
of Default is the failure of Developer to complete,
construct, install or correct the Developer
improvements in accordance with the plans and
specifications and this Agreement, City may perform the
construction or work and apply to Lender pursuant to
the Disbursement Agreement to reimburse City for its
expenses. This provision shall be a license granted by
the Developer to the City to act, but shall not require
the City to take any such action. Developer consents
to such action by City and waives any claim Developer
may have against City for damages in the event City
exercises its rights in accordance with this provision.
E. Terminate this Agreement by written notice to Developer
at which time all terms and conditions as contained
heroin shall be of no further force and effect and all
obligations of the parties as imposed hereunder shall
be null and void.
21. Miscellaneoun.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their
heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be.
B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause,
paragraph, or phase of this Agreement is for any reason
held invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
C. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute
a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this
Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall
be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by
written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this
Agreement shall not be a waiver or release.
D. ruture residents of this Subdivision shall not be
deemed to be third party beneficiaries of this
Agreement.
Z. This Agreement shall run with the land and allll be
binding upon the Developer, its successors and assigns.
FEB. -10' 95(FR1) 12:13 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P. 013
The Developer shall, at its expense record this
Agreement in the office of the Wright County Recorder.
After the Developer has completed the work required
under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the
City will execute and deliver to Developer a release in
recordable fora.
P. All parties to this Agreement acknowledge they have
been represented by counsel and have entered into this
Agreement freely and voluntarily.
22. ff2jL2=. Required notices to the Developer shall be in
writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer,
or mailed to the Developer by United States mail, postage
prepaid to the following address: 1.5 Choctaw Circle,
Chanhassen, KK 55317, Attention: Mr. Rick Murray. Notices
to City shall be in writing and either hand delivered to the
City Administrator or mailed to City by United States mail,
postage prepaid to the address 250 East Broadway,
Monticello, WN 55362.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have signed this
Developer's Agreement the day and year first written above.
CITY OF MONTICE=
ey:
Iter Mayor
Sys
Rick eolfsteller
its: City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY O? NRICBT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before as this
day of , 1995, by
and , the Mayor and
City Administrator of the City of manticallo, a Kiaeasota
municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary public
-12-
(a
FEB. -10' 95(FR1) 12:13 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5819 P. 014
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, IHC.
91
Ita:
STATE or NINHES0TA)
S8.
COUNTY OF WU=T )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before as this
day of , 1995, by
its of Residential
Developmant, Inc., a Minnasota corporation on behalf of the
corporation.
Notary Public
This Znatrument Drafted By:
Olson, Dseet, Agan i Weingardan
6600 prance Avenue South
Suite S90
Edina, NN 55435
F.2
DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR RIVER MLL
THIS DECLARATION, made this day of January 1985,. by
Resldential Development Ino., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"DeclsranC.
WHEREAS, the undersigned Declarant, a fWnnsecta corporation with Its
offices at 15 Choctaw Circle, Chanhassen. h8nnesota, 55917, Is the fee owner of the
following described real property:
Lots t - 19, Inclusive, Block 1;
Lau 1 - 22. Inclusive. Block 2;
Lots 1 - 4, Inclusive, Block 9;
Late 1- 22, Inclusive, Blodk4;
Late 1 - 20, Inclusive. Block 5;
Lata 1 - 8, inclusive. Stock 7;
River tAll Suddiv slon, Wright County. M9nnesota.
(hereinafter 'Property").
WHEREAS, it Is the intention of Declarant to develop and Improve the Property
and to offer for onto the Iota Included In the Property for the canetulrction of single famAy
and of twinhomos and to crests thereon a community of contpatiblo and
complimentary single family and twin midentiel homes for the benefit of the roefdertta
of the community; and
WHEREAS. Dsolaront Is desirous of sub)octi ng aald Property to certain
Protective Covenants as hereinafter sa forth for the assurance of consistent quality In
srchhoatural design and landscape:
NOW THEREFORE. Declarant hereby dsolaroa that the Property. and any tot
within the Property. shall be held. sold. and conveyed subject to the following
eassmema, mmmlations, covenants, conditions. and reservations which operate Y
restrictions passing with the conveyance of every lot of the Property so described
herein and WW be binding on all patlw having any right title or Interest In the
described Property, or any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall
Inure to the benefit of each owner hereof;
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
For the purposo of this, definition, the topowlg tenne shall have tits meanings
ascribed below:
1. khd rnik shall mean and rotor to any portion of a residence bul"
eiwated upon the propsMae. designed and Untended for use and occupancy by a
single family.
2. Lot shall mean and refer to any portion of Wad In the Property upon which a
Uvinp unit Is situated.
S. MCK" mean and rotor to the record owner. whether one or more
persons or entities. of a tes Wrnple tills to any Lot whkh Is a part of the Property.
Including contract sellers and vendase, but excluding those holding such Interest
,µv
P.3
merely as security for the performance of an obligation, and excluding those having a
Ben upon the property by provision or operation of law.
4. jPraparty shall mean and refer to the real property hereinbefore described.
S. Private Hard Aran shall mean that portion of a Lot not covered by a Living
Unit.
ARTICLE II
GENERAL BUILDING AND USE RESTRICTIONS
SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY LIVING UNITS
t. Aawrd.mral "Re- No Lot or Living Unit shall be used for other than residential
purposes.
2. Frrarwar Seerwea_ No vehicle shall be perked on the Lot other than In the
driveway. A maximum of two vahWa may to perked In the driveway at any one time.
No Lot shall be used for the parking or storage, of fish houses or unlicensed or
Inoperable vehicles Including boats, campers, or trallers, whether licensed or not
2,w .LIIdIne etze wnwfrl�,rene. No buOEing shag be erected, aftered, placed or
permitted to remain on erry Lot other than ane detached singlo-family dwelling or one
two famlly Living Unit, not to exceed two and one -halt (2.8) stories In Might exclusive
of the basement, with an attached private garage for not more than three cars
4. No bulkling shin be boated on any lot nearer to the front
lot One, Olde lot Ones, roar lot lines than the minimum building setback Ones as
required by all applicable statusa, a►dinanas and regulations promulgated by
governmental subdivlalon having Jurisdiction over subdivisions. For the purpose of this
covenant. saves, steps, and open porches shag not be considered a part of a building.
provided, however, that this shall not be Construed to permit any portion of a building
on a lot, to encroach upon another lot.
4. Opiwrr,r Penhrhrnww_ . No fowl, animals, reptiles or Insects shag be kept on any
Living Unit or Lot oxospt dogs, cam and other oommon household pats. provided they
are not kept , bred or maintained for any commerdal purpose. Further:
AL Each pet owner shall be financially responsible for any personal Injury
or property damage caused by his or her pat.
b. Each pot owner shall be rs,aponslble for cleaning up after his pct at all
places on the Property as well as an the pib0o lands appurtenant thereto.
a Each pat owner stall comply with all applicable provisions of all stats.
mundpal, or local law or ordinance governing or regulating the ownership and
maintenance of pets..
8. The owner of a Lot shall complete the construction
of the exterior of all structures Inehxling, but not ON to. all painting, olding,
beckvvork, roofing, and landscaping within nine (g) monthe after starting construction.
Consgnuclion to deemed to have gwtod when the excavation of a basement or
foundation Is begun.
6. gaW=&CS& e ssmertt for Instaltolon and maintenance of ullOtiss and
drainage flacittles are reserved . No alma!urs, planting or other materials shall be
piaasd or ponnkted to remain within the easements of record as shown on the
recorded plat which may damage or lnt* aro with Installation or maintenanoe of the
utilities In the easements, or whlan may obstruct or retard the flow of water through
drainage channels In the easements. Ttw easement area of each lot and all
Improvements In It shall be maintslned continuously by the owner of the lot, except for
thou Improvements for which a publlo authority or utility Company to responsible.
7. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carred
JPV 31 '95 05:47PM 0 • —I_ P.4
on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be dons thereon which ay be or may become an
annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
9. No storage building dual] 1200 square feet , the
aiding of which shall match the siding of the Living Unit No structure of a temporary
character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, bam, or other outbuilding "be
used on any Lot at any time as a residence dtiher temporarily or permanently.
9. 2"& No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public New on any Lot
except an foltowe:
a. During the Wdal construction and sales period of the subdivision one sign
no torpor than 9 fest by 4 feet in size may be placed on the Lot advertising the
Lot for sale, except in the case of houses advertised as model homes, in which
case multiple signs, and/or signs In excess of 9 foot by 4 feet In size are
permitted.
b. After the Initial construction and -ales period, one sign of not more than
one square foot In else Idendlying the profession of the occupant of the tat. and
one sign of not more than 2.5 feet by 9 feet size. advertising the Lot for a" are
permitted
10. WA� o�ane� No Lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground
for rubbish. Trash. garlano or other waste shall not be kept except In sanitary
containers. Ail Incinerators or other equipment for the storage or disposal of such
matsrial shall be kept In a dean and sanitary condition.
11. Te1wlMan anrnnr�.. External television antennae are prohibited.
Television antennae may be Installed In the rafter area of the garage.
12. EgLUM , No fence. wap. hedge, or shrub planting which obstructs sight lines
at elevations between 2 and A feet above the roadways shall be placed or permitted to
remain on any comer tot within the triangular area formed by the street properly lines
and a pre connecting them at points 25 feet from the Intersection of the street property
from the pavement. No tree shall be permitted to remain within such distances of such
Intersections unless the fol ago line is maintained at sufficient heights to prevent
obstruction of such sign tines.
I& r MS mad Pie JUM Each UvIng Unit. prior to the Issuance of a Certitioate
of Occupancy. shall have the area between the curb and the rear building line sodded.
Trees and shrubs that fall to talks root shall be removed and replaced prior to or
coincident with the next growing season.
14. AttW,ildLa& Maintenance froe materials shall be used throughout for
exterior aiding.
I IL 6AedS .cud 9Nee u■.- All use herein nohMthstanding. arty Living Unit may
be used as • model for a single or multiple family resldsnce, or for a real estate offlos
with customary development and/or "Iss signs during the development period of the
Declarant. its successors or assigns. J
1 e. E=RggLA&WUU== The entrance monuments which IdentIfy
community m RIVER MILL shall remain and be maintained by RsWentlalave f. ",P'
Development, Inc. until January 1. 1908. at which time maintenance shall be ✓ P,'`
continued by the Owners of the propertles subjeed to the" covenants. . I,a�' i V ✓ .
Cr 40 de
�.. f
ARTICLE III A
SINGLE pAMILV
1. PriorPrnNN n All provtstons of Article 11 above shall apply to this Article as
014Y-
though repeated herein.
2,The Architectural Control Committee for
single fatuity, detached LMng Units shall be composed of Rick D. Murray, Roarts M.
Murray, and Robert E. Murray, all of 15 Choctaw Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota,
65317, until such time as the Declarant no longer owns any Lot within the Property.
Thereafter an Architectural Control Committee may be formed by a majority vote of the
owners of the Lots on the basis of one vote per Lot. A majority of the committee may
designate a representative to act for It. In the event of death or resignation of any
member of the committee, Residential Development Inc. @hail have full authority to
designate a successor. Neither the members of the committee, nor its designate
representative shall be entttled to any compensation for servioes performed pursuant
to this covenant. The committee's approval or disapproval as required In these
covenant* shall be In writing. In the event the committee or Its designated
representative fella to approve or disapprove plans and specifications within 30 days
after sold plans and specifications have been submitted to it, such plans and
specifications shall be doomed approved.
The Architectural Control Committee shall be concerned with aesthetic
characteristics only and shall not assert architectural expertise. In the course of Its
dulls, the committee may request certain design modrticatione in the Interest of
producing Improvements more complementary to or compatible with the community, It
Is the sal duty and reaponelbUlty of any applicant to employ an architect or other
qualified person to design the requested modifbatlons In a safe and sound manner.
Each owner of a Lot walvee any right to claim damages resulting from design
modifications requested by the committee.
3. BYlld+aga. Tewnrn w na nd Fen A■. No building, tower, fence, wail, or
structure of any type shall be erected, placed or altered on any Lot until the
constnutlon plana and specifications and plat showing the location of the structure
have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to quality of
workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing or proposed
structures, and as to location with resoeot to topography and finish grade elevation.
No fence or wall shall be erected, pieced or altered on any Lot unless similarly
approved.
4. Trees. In addition to the requirements of Article II, Paragraph 13, each lot
shall have two trees planted In accordance with Monticello City Ordinance Title Vlli,
Chapter 3, Section 5 towit:
(a) Elm trees aro prohibited spades.
(b) Plantings are not required an lots having existing trees
(c) Tress required to be planted shall be planted Inside the lot wlthln 4' of
the frontproperty One.
(d) Requlred subdivision trees shall have a diameter of 2' one foot above the
ground.
(e) Approved tree guards are reWlred.
ARTICLE IV
TWIN HOMES
1. Poor Pravfalans. All provisions of Anita II above shall apply to this Article as
though repeated herein.
2. Pn.�Wafh Each party wall which in bull as part of the original construction
of any Uving Unit upon the Property and placed on the dhAcUng Una between two (2)
Living Units shall constitute a Party Wall and to the extant Consistent with the
provisions of this Article. the general nil" of law regarding party walls and of liability
"I 05:48PM O P.6
for property damage due to negligent or willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto.
B. Rgnaira and M Imnnsnen_ The cost of reasonable repair and
maintenance of each party wall shall be shared by the Owners who make use of the
wall in proportion to such use.
b. Destruction by Fire or Casualty_ If a Party Wall Is destroyed by Ore or
other casualty or by physical deterioration, any Owner using the well may restore It,
and shall have an easement over the adjoining Living Unit for the purpose of making
such restoration, and If other Owners thereafter make use of the wall they shall
Contribute to the cost of restoration thereof In proportion to such use without prejudice,
however, to the right of any such Owner to call for a larger contribution from other
Owners under any rule of law regarding liability for neglioent or willful acts or
omissions.
c. bULLUmprymp$pp. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
Paragraph, any Owner who by his negligence or willful act causes any party wall to be
exposed to the elements or excessive heat or cold shall bear the whole cost of
furnishing necessary protection egalinat such elements or heal or cold, and of
repairing the party wall from damage caused by such exposure.
CL RIeM n aMdh Men RLnn h Thw L_nd. The right of any Owner to
contribution from another Owner under this Paragraph shall be appurtenant to the Lot
and shall pass to such Owner's successors In title.
e. Fricranhmnni. II any portions of a UNng Unit or any Lot shall
actually encroach upon any other Lot or Uvtng Unit , or If any such encroachment shall
hereafter arise by reason of settling or shifting of the building or other cause, there
shall be deemed to be an easement In favor of the Owner of the encroaching Uving
Unit to the extent of such encroachment so long as the same shall exist.
f. Machnntc'e Iinns, Each Owner of a Uving Unit ('Defaulting Owner)
agrees to Indemnify and hold harmless the Owner of the adjoining Uving Unit for any
mechanic's gens arising from work done or materials supplied to make repairs or
replacements for which the Defaulting Owner Is responsible.
g. mop. In the event of any dispute arising under provlalon of this
Paragraph concerning a party wail, or any other dispute, each Owner shall choose
one arbllrator and such arbitrators shall choose one addltlonal arbitrator, and the
decJslon of the majority of the arbltratore shall be final and conclusive of the Question
Involved. If either Owner refuses or falls to property choose an arbitrator, the same may
be appointed by any Judas of the State district court for Wright County, Minnesota.
Arbitration shall be In acoordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Assoclatlon.
0. Arehitse " t -entrnt smmi"nu.The Architectural Control Committee for multi
family Uving Units shall be comprised of Rick D. Murray, Roberta M. Murray, and
Robert E. Murray, all of 18 Choctaw Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota, 63317, until such
time as the Declarant no longer owns any Lot within the Property. Thereafter an
Architectural Control Committee may be formed by a majority vote of the owners of the
Uving Units on the baste of one vote per Uving Unit. A majority of the committee may
designate a representative to set for It. In the event of death or resignation of any
member of the committee, Deolannt Mall have full authority to designate a successor.
Neither the members of the committee, nor Its designated representative shall be
entitled to any compensation for sa►Yces pertormed pursuant to this covenant. The
committee's approval or disapproval as required In thou covenants shall be In writing.
In the event the committee or Its designated representative falls to approve or
6µt
P.7
disapprove plane and specifications within 30 days after said plans and specifications
have been submitted to It, such plans and specifications shall be deemed approved.
The Architectural Control Committee shell be concerned with aesthetic
characteristics only and shall not assert architectural expartlso. In the course of Its
duties, the Committee may request certain design modifications In the Interest Of
producing Improvements more complementary to or compatible with the Community. It
is the sole duty and responsibility of any applicant to employ an architect or other
qualified person to design the requested modifications In a safe and sound manner.
Each owner of a Lot waives any right to claim damages resulting from design
modifications requested by the committee.
4, Rulldinee Tewers . No building, tower, fence, wall, or
structure of any type shall be erected, placed or altered on any Lot until the
construction plans and specifleations and plat showing the location of the structure
have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to quality of
workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with srdeting or proposed
structures, and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation.
No fence or wall shell be erected, placed or altered on any Lot unless similarly
approved.
S. Trees. In addition to the requirements of Ankle 11, Paragraph 13, each lot
shall have one tree planted In In front of each Living Unit as follows:
(a) Elm tress are prohibited spades.
(b) Plantings are not required on late having existing trees In the front yards.
(c) Trees required to be planted shall be planted Inside the lot within 4' of
the frontproperty line.
(d Required subdlvlsion trees shall have a diameter of Y one toot above the
ground.
(e) One decorative shrub shall be planted In front of the utility meter location
to screen the meter(s) from the street.
(f) Approved tree guards are required.
ARTICLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Aznppmgtup. These covenants conditions, restrictions and reservations shall
rum with the land and be servitude thereon and shall be binding on all parties and all
persons claiming under them and upon all purchasers of all or any of the land as
described herein, and their heirs assigns, or successors In Interest for a period of
Thirty (30) years from the data these covenants are recorded, after which time sold
covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of Ten (10) years.
These covenants may be amended by recording against all the property an Instrument
signed by a majority of the then owners of the Lots agreeing to change said covenants
In whole or In part. For purposes of these Declarations the owner of a Lot shall consist
of each of the owners of record In the office of the Registrar of Titles. the spouse of
such person and the holder of any mortgage of repord against such Lot.
2. Rnfe� wiiimna Enforcement shall be by proceedings of law or In equity against
any parson or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or provision
either to restrain violations or to recover damages. In the event a court Issues a final
order finding that a party has violated the provisions of this Declaration, such patty
shall be liable for the attorneys fess of the party seeking such an order.
3. Aaverbllity, Invalidation of any one or more of those covenants or provisions
hereln by judgment or court order shall In no Was affect any of the other provlslons
P.B
which shall remain in fun force and effect.
IN WITNE88 VMEREOP, The Declarant has hereunto set hie hand on the
date first above written.
RESIDENTIIAL DEVELOPMENT INC.
By
he
)88
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The for"Wrlo Instrument was acknowledged before me thle day of
1893, by Rick D. Murray, President of Residential Development
Ino., a Minnesota corporatlon, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
This Instrument wan drafted by
Residential Development, Ino,
IS Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN fSW`I7
0
Council Agenda - 2113/95
15. Consideratipn of aonroy*aponndtant foy remedial soil investigation
for Bulk Oil Plant and Citv Fire Hall. W.SJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item has been continued from previous meetings to allow time for City
staff and representatives from Riverside Oil and JM Oil to interview two of the
consultants, check references, and make a recommendation for the City
Council. The two firms interviewed were American Engineering and Testing,
Inc., of St. Paul, and Agassiz Evironmental Systems in Brooklyn Center.
American Engineering and Testing's coat for the scope of work and our request
for proposals was $18,400. Agassiz's cost based upon their proposal was
$12,413.50. Upon further review of their proposal, it was found that they only
included three of the proposed five monitoring wells and deleted the
corresponding testing. Upon taking their unit prices and calculating out for
the original scope as requested, their proposal increased to $14,994.
At the completion of the interviews, the joint group selected Agassiz, and
references were checked with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, past
clients, and the Petrofund Board. All references were found to be acceptable.
The fust alternative would be to approve Agassiz Environmental
Systems as a consultant to the remedial soil investigation at an
estimated cost based upon the original scope of work for $14,994. The
cost would be split between the three parties.
The second alternative would be not to select Agassiz but another firm
from the other three proposals.
The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time.
Since the City of Monticello, JM Oil, and Riverside Oil aro obligated under
state statutes to complete the additional soil remedial investigation work, and
the City Council has approved the joint venture between the throe parties to
accomplish the work, I recommend we move ahead by selecting Agassiz
Environmental Systems as outlined in alternative 01.
On an additional note, Jeff Michaelis from Riverside Oil asked whether or not
the City would be willing to upfront the cost of the investigation estimated to
be $6,000 per party. It is possible that the Petroilund reimbursement may be
slow in coming and could take a year or longer. I discussed this with Rick, and
he indicated that we would have to look at whether or not this would set a
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
precedent and the fact that we are already in a joint venture is already saving
both Riverside and JM Oil. This could also be a reason, however, to upfront
some of the costs at a low interest rate. We may discuss this further at
Monday evening's meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of corrected proposal from Agaasiz Environmental Systems.
'1
ILA-
G A S S I Z
Environmental systems
December 30, 1994
Mr. John Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
RE: Proposal for Remedial Investigation, Monticello Fire Hall (leak number 8097),
Riverside Oil (leak number 807 3) and JM Oil (leak number 8074)
Dear Mr. Simola:
Enclosed please find Agassiz Environmental Systems' bid/proposal for the remedial
investigation for the combined leak sites.
If you require further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at
612-531-8255.
Sincerely,
William Cole Storm, CHMM
Director of Environmental Operations
Al",wp0
0
PROPOSAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
MULTIPLE SITES
i FIFTH STREET _
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
9
SUBMITTED TO:
Mr. John Simola '
Public Works Director ,
250 East Broadway
P.O. Box 1147 =
Monticello, Minnesota
55362-9245 -
SUBMITTED BY:
AGASSI2 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
5637 Brooklyn Boulevard
Suite 103 ,
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
55429
December 30, 1994
R.. - 0/68
y
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................
2.0 SOIL BORING PROGRAM............................................................
3.0 MONITORING WELL PROGRAM .....................................................
4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC TESTING........................................................
5.0 VAPOR SURVEY...................................................................
0.0 RVCAD REPORT...................................................................
7.0 PETROFUND APPUCATION.........................................................
8.0 COST............................................................................
APPENDIX A PETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS
PROPOSAL: RWAU
CIT' OFh10%'nC'1'.LL r
A157
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Braun Intedec (Braun) conducted a subsurface contamination assessment at four sites In the City of
Monticello; JM Oil, Riverside OR. Nelson Oil and the Monticello Fire Hall. The assessment used a
Geoprobe to evaluate the soil and groundwater for potential petroleum hydrocarbon contamination.
Braun concluded that petroleum contaminated soil and/or groundwater was present at three (JN OR,
Riverside Oil and the Monticello Fire Hail) of the four sites; further investigation was recommended.
The following scope of work was prepared in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPGA) requirements for petroleum release identification and Investigation . MPCA has Identified the sites
with leak numbers 8097 (Monticello Fire Hall), 8073 (Riverside Oil) and 8074 (JM O)I. The scope of the
work described in this proposal Includes:
• The completion of ton (10) soll borings;
• The sampling and analysis of soil (minimum of 10 samples) collected from the borings;
• The sampling and analysis of "groundwater' (3 samples) collected from the borings;
• The installation of five (5) monitoring wells;
• The sampling and analysis of ground water (minimum 2 quarters) collected from the monitoring
wells.
• Hydrogeologic testing Q.e., slug tests) at two of the monitoring wells and completion of MPCA fact
shoot 024 (Hydrogeologic Setting and Groundwater Contamination Characterization)
• Conduct a vapor survey in accordance with MPCA fact sheet 022
• Completion of an RUCAD report; If corrective action Is deemed necessary a CCAP will be prepared
• Completion of Potrofund application
The purpose for No work described in the report Is to assess the impact that the release Is having on the
site and identify potential receptors.
2.0 SOIL BORING PROGRAM
Ten standard ponotration tost borings will be installed; seven of the borings will be advanced to 15 foot
below grade (assumod depth to top of clay unit), three of the borings will be advanced to 25 feet below
grade. The objective of the deeper borings Is to assess the thickness and continuity of the clay unit across
the site, as well as evaluate the potential for petroleum contamination below this clay unit.
The soli borings will be advanced with a 3114 • inside diameter (ID) hollo"orn auger. Soil samples will be
obtained from 5' by 3• split spoon tubes, samples will be continuously screened for the presence of organic
vapors utilizing a hydrogen flame ionization detector (FID). The FID readings represent a qualitative
Indicator of contamination by compounds which are Ionized or •bumed• In a flame. Tho soli so mplos wUl bo
mooned for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) In occordonoo with the MPCA document "Jar
Hoadspaco Analytical Scrooning Procedures.*
The boring loge Illustrating the Wholugy and summarizing the soli vapor data wit be completed.
Selected sampling Intervals will be chosen for analytical testing from each seg boring basad on Gold
observations Ov., visual, olfactory and hoodspaco) and In accordance with MPGA fad shoats 015, 18 and
17. A minimum of ton soil somptos is anticipated, however, doponding on G to conditions this numbor may
be excoodod.
Soil samples will be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (DRO) and as gasoline (GRO),
PRUP(T%1. RbC,u)
Crry or h1o\ ❑CM.0
A177
BTEX and lead (Pb). Soil samples will be submitted to Wxtwest Analytical Services of Cambridge,
Minnesota for analysis.
Sod samples collected for analytical laboratory analysis will be packed in dean, laboratory -supplied 2
ounce glass jars equipped with nylon septums. Approximately 25 grams of sod was placed in each jar
using a digital scale. Samples analyzed for diesel range organics (DRO) were preserved in the laboratory
Samples analyzed for gasoline range organics (GRO) will preserved In the field with methanol. Samples
will be kept in a cooler on site until arrival at Agassiz where they will be placed in a refrigerator. Proper
sample chain of custody was maintained.
Samples of'grourdwater will be collected and analyzed for identical parameters from the open bore hole
in the three deep borings.
3.0 MONITORING WELL PROGRAM
Five (5) of the shallow soil borings will be converted in above grade monitoring wells. The wells will be
advanced using a Ingersoll Rand A-2000, hollow stem auger, We toot continuous split spoon to
appropriately intersect the apparent water table. The wells will be logged end completed under water well
ficense 75389, which is held by Lee Well Drilling. Following installation, the monitoring wells will be
developed, stabilized and sampled In accordance with MPCA guidelines.
Well construction diagrams, Mnnesote Department of Health permits and a summary of well construction
data will be provided.
The monitoring wells will be surveyed and ground water elevation date collected during ground water
sampling events. Ground water will be gauged by measuring the distance from a surveyed notch in the
Inner casing of the monitoring wells to the water table by lowering a ground water probe which aminates a
tone when d comes In contact with water. The probe will be thoroughly dislnfocted and decontaminated
between monitoring wells with alcohol and de-lonized water. In addition, the total depth to the bottom of the
well will be collodod to assist with the determination of the volume of water present in the well and Inspect
the condition of the well.
Two rounds O.o., quarters) of groundwater sampling and analysis will be performed. Analytical parameters
selected during the first ground water quality sampling event will Include Minnesota Department of Health
volsWe organic compounds (VOCs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesol range organics (DRO) and
as gasoline range orgordcs (GRO), me" tortiary butyl other (MTBE) and dbsotved lead (Pb). In addition,
dissolved oxygon (DO), chomicat oxygen domand (COD), total nitrogen (TKN, nitratolndrdo) and total
phosphorous analyses will be performed during the first round of groundwater sampling.
Assuming that no non•potroloum VOCs are detected In the find round of groundwater sampling, the second
round will be analyzed for BTEX, MTBE, GRO, ORO and lead. One blank will be collected and analyzed
during each sampling event for VOCs and BTEX.
Samples will be collected by determining the volume of water present within the monitoring wells and
removing five well volumes or more to get o sample roprosontativo of the oqulfor. Once the volume of
water Is removed, o sample Is eofiodad by dean bailor. Samples will be transferred to 60 ml purge and
trap kite for trormportollon and subrrtUal to the laboratory.
Ground water samples will be submitted to Midwost Analytical Servicas of Cambridge, Minnesota for
onalydo.
PROIN)S,U: RVCAnIUF
cn,y OF Kn'il U 14 )
A117
4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC TESTING
An in-situ conductivity (i.e., slug) lest will be performed on two of the monitoring web. A groundwater
receptor survey will be conducted in accordance with the MPCA fact sheet 023 utilizing the County Well
Index data' base (CVM) which Agassiz has in-house.
The hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, ground water flow direction and ground water velocity will be
determined by utilizing the data collected at the site during the site monitoring activities (ground water
gauging, monitoring well survey and slug test) and available and site specific reference data p.e., CWI well
logs, Minnesota Geological Survey [MGSI maps, books and hydrological allas. USGS Basic Groundwater
Hydrogeology, water supply paper 2220) .
This information will be used to complete the MPCA fad sheet 024
6.0 VAPOR SURVEY
A vapor risk assessment and survey will be conducted to assess the potential and/or actual migration of
petroleum vapors through structures and utilities in accordance with the MPCA fact sheet 022.
6.0 RUCAD REPORT
Following the completion of the remedial investigation, a Remedial Investigation/Corrective Action Design
Report (RVCAD) will be developed and prepared M accordance with the MPCA guidelines. The remedial
Investigation report will detail the methods, findings and conclusions of the investigation; the corrective
action design will discuss these conclusions relative to the need for corrective action and discuss the
alternatives. Three alternatives will be discussed, Including the 'no action alternative', sufficient details of
progminery, design of the proposed corrective actions will be provided to permit evaluation of their likely
offectIveness.
If corrective action Involving active remediation Is deemed necessary, Agassiz will prepare a
Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan (CCAP) based upon the listed unit costa.
7.0 PETROFUND APPLICATION
Upon rocolpt of MPCA approval of the RUCAD report. Agassiz will prepare the necessary paperwork
for completion of the Patiofund application submittal.
8.0 COST
Cost for the above scope of work Is estimated at $14.984.00; see Appondbi A for a brook down on costa.
i
PROPOSAL
PACKAGE
Site: Monticelle Fire Hoa
Remidel Investiption
Submitted to: John Simola
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway 0
P.O. Box 1147
u
Monticello, MN 55362
December 29,1994
Proposal a: A157
Submitted by:
AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Suite 103
Brooklyn Center, MN 5.429
1-612-531-8255
♦�.:fJJ I A— 1-1\ IN 11\\/lN Oi .:\ 1: \1. J 1 J 1 \.lm\J,
Environmental Contracting and Consulting Services
PROPOSAL
Proposal offered to: Company: City of Monticello
"client" Address: 250 East Broadway
PO Bos 1147
City/St./Zip: Monticello, MN 55362
Contact: John Simota
Site: Monticello Fire Hall
Agassiz Environmental Systems and the Client hereby agree as follows:
See attachment A (Scope of Services)
See attachment B (Petrofund Proposal for Consultant Selection)
See attachment C (Petrofund Proposal for Contractors Selection)
See attachment D. (Other):
We hereby propose to furnish all labor and materials in accordance with the above specifications, for the
sum of: fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety-four dollars and zero tents (S 14994.00) with payment t.
be made as follows: NET 30 DAYS.
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workman like manner according to
standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executeu
only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate.
Authorized Signature:
Terms of agreement:
1. cliat will udcal. dw Ply tuna+mdbr reapaeibk fa wcur y dma to
3. Clio rill twice fa rigM.doq dpasomel and ayuipnaa to mlpku work.
J. AV.,ia will —dw. V damage called by Audi, Chen a say ahr muaaas m uta pswrt Aped= Oaw congktu.
the work miliwd in ib muaa wuh the MM Apui+hu IM room to oxmd 6moM Any dmnga m my by Ap ie. wgfip" will be billed w m.
C1iat.
4. Glia/ will be r Wy ible ga kauat all auMararem wuau m ailuim: ii cd g wan, sews, go sad deatial Whim and booed lards, ppn ud slim
adootbom egamaanoa. In do e.at the Cline Wb to pr—& she idamw- whb w mdl wilh" tad.+, pito and app aknuwm dr Clime apn
to irdwwy and hold Apoic homier ft— any and aU chum m damage a the Climt a w say drud puty arimina oa da in airy way oamm al wi1A
fbihae to pee ide such hdbttttatlm
S. Aly u dCrpv" obsru line sensed will be Burped a= elan and ionvicM m a tiar ad music Ens m to n6lblw pica
6. Agaaut will annul un oia+lo dim maamly, and • 1)nal b,tria ttpm eoapinim daaeica broom will +haw cbwtm based m Agmitlt atrat Pm adtaduY m
elm agrad upm baso. Ada-' semitone ofcbwto and badup daw will boprwidod al dr flim\ rew m
7.'llr slim win toy dw balance dad m dw irvrum udm Ili dine naiad Apcu in writvlg wilhia 117) Meta da)s sora We Imvi.e data dUr parlivla itrn.lha .•
alkpd w ba umatre'a.
g, 1 Inlet aha urall>:amt1 IaN bre mall wish Ili Clirnl pa)asaa u due upon romp dmwin and i pm dw else Ihirry da>s Gnat uroia tine. On pm dw
sennas. to Cliad will pry a rbmm cargo of 1.51a pa marmc m tea naon nuaialiowa! by bw, wbich v a Ina.
9. 11.-CGcm atm dd aU rapmb and aha wa► lu mood b dw fuels a the t(yattl wt" m m paid M. will be raemcd upon d--1 and win b be ued by too
Chat orally Papme.
1 U, 11r Mai will pay dl reaaaahlr WrAlk. and adkati n acpetyes urckdi to an nmy fen do Apmit Moa k o dkaing say dclhqum w—d We Clim moa urd.,
this emirul. h, adduim dw Chm mhsU pa) 4*ctw n dr run or I.N\ pa mase many pm dw lml t
11. it Lt. Clint ucu" a ae apim Apa=u wttidt i, d,.rh d a Ihr wtudh judpmt is leadtte'Am Ap=ia. ft Chat will ho ropntabk for all oras d&amt,
oa-hdby oxm-y tbo. eve wino Ibm sad awl moa In addaiat, the cliew dmu pay irdaw u a raw of I'See pa mono m say pm dw Wm -
2, c-uw m) br amadod ad) by • wtimm unadaasa eily d by bah ter Clint sad Apde
13. All wok will ho p AM as pa Fcknd, lSWa orad oral lawn lain and np"km atWw u pa udmry ataadarh.
11 A, pa btuaraaa bws. A&—U my came a Uat spm for V Very Uthq• m m pad e W lib stomas.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are hereby accepted. You arc authorized to do the work as
specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
l"I't,. C;.,.,.,t...., cii)
SCOPE OF SERVICES
City of Monticello
SITE: Monticello Fire Hall
Agassiz Environmental Systems is to provide the following services for the site located in
Monticello, MN. The purpose of these activities is to provide a sub -surface investigation.
The following services are to be provided by Agassiz Environmental:
-Provide a site Health and Safety Plan
-Advance 7 soil borings to a depth of 15' each
-Advance 3 soil borings to a depth of 25' each
-Screen Soils for the presence of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
-Obtain and submit Laboratory samples
-Install 5 Monitoring Wells to a depth of 15' each
-Complete 2 Rounds of Sampling
-Provide a Remedial Investigation report
Methodologies:
-Advancement of soil borings will be done with an Ingersol Rand Model A 200
Environmental Drill Rig. The drilling will be done by hollow -stem augers
which advance 5' X 3" split spoon tubes, all samples will be collected
continuously.
-Soils will be collected in accordance with MPCA guidance document M7 ("Jar
Headspace Soil Screening Procedures'). The soils will be screened for the
presence of organic vapors using a photoionization detector (PID)
equipped with a 10.2 electron volt (eV) lamp and calibrated to read in pans
per million (ppm) volume/volume as benzene. The PID readings represent a
qualitative indicator of contamination by compounds which are ionized by
the 10.2 eV energy source. The soil samples were screened for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the MPCA document "Jar
Headspace Analytical Screening Procedures"
-Soil samples collected for laboratory analysis will be packed in dean, laboratory
supplied 2 ounce glass jars equipped with nylon septums. Approximately
25 grams of soil will be placed in each jar. The samples will be kept in a
cooler on site and during transit to the laboratory. Samples analyzed for
gasoline organic range (GRO) will be preserved in the field with 20 grams
of methanol. Samples analyzed for dicsel range organics (DRO) will be
preserved in the laboratory. Proper chain of custody will be maintained.
-Monitor wells will be installed to a depth of 15' each. Wells will be installed in
accordance with all rules and regulations of the Minnesota Health
Department and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
•2 rounds of water samples will be collected. The monitor wells will be
stabilized and water will be collected in accordance to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency Guidance Document #10 (Ground Water Sample
Collection Protocol). The water samples will be placed in lab supplied
receptors. Water samples will be kept in a cooler on site and during transit
to the laboratory. Proper chain of custody will be maintained.
-All data will be complied and written into a Remedial Investigation report. This
report is to include an introduction, background, discussion/conclusions
and recommendations. Attachments to the reports will be tables (i.e., soil
vapor tables and soil analytical tables), figures (i.e., site location map, site
map and soil boring/monitor well location map) and appendix (i.e., soil
boring logs, monitor well specification and laboratory results).
MINNESOTA PETROLEUM TANK RELEASE COMPENSATION FU14D
Petrofund Proposal for Consusant Selection
NOTICE TO THE TANK OWNEW/PETROFUND APPLICANT
(1) If you intend to use consultant services, the Petrofund rules require you to obtain a proposal
from at least two consultants in order to compare costs and qualifications (unless a specific exemption
applies to you). A "consultant" is one who provides professional environmental consulting, investigation
or design services.
(2) The Petrofund Board may require you to justify the reasonableness of the costs in the proposal
you Seed.
(3) After the consultant you have selected performs the work, the Petrofund Board will review the
invoices and will reimburse you only for those costs which it determines are rea.onable. IT IS YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE THAT ONLY NECESSARY WORK IS PERFORMED.
(4) It Is also necessary for you or your agent to obtain a bid from at least two contractors for each
contractor service performed at your site. 'Contractor services' Include, but are not limited to, excavation,
treatment of contaminated soil and groundwater, soil borings, well Installations, laboratory analysis.
surveying, electrical, plumbing and equipment. Bids must be obtained using a separate Petrofund bid
form, and mew not be included in this consultant proposal form.
OWNERIAPPLICANT INFORMATION
FIRM NAME: City of Monticello
ADDRESS: 250 East Broadway
PO Box 1147
Monticello MN 66392
CLIENTS NAME: John Simola
SITE ADDRESS: Monticello Fire Hall
CONSULTANT INFORMATION
FIRM NAME: Agassix Environmental Systems
ADDRESS: 6637 Brooklyn Blvd. Suite 103
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
CONTACT NAME: John Landwohr
PHONE NUMBER: (912)9314268
A general description of the consultant's approach to this project and the scope of work to be performed at
the above site:
i
Petrofund Proposal for Consultant Seledlon
Ownerslapplicants must obtain two proposals which enable them to compare the same phases.
PHASE 7
CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATION
EST. UNITS
UNIT COSTS
EST. TOTAL
Professional Services
15.00
0.(
1. Coordination with Client, Contractor 3 MPCA
50.00
0.
2. Health 8 Safety Plan Development
50.00
0.
3. Supervision (Project Management)
50.00
0
4. Sample Collection 6 Field Screening (soil)
45.00
0.
5. Sample Collection 6 Field Screening (groundwater)
45.00
0
8. Field Map Development
40.00
0.1
7. Soil Treatment Coordination (permits. etc.)
50.00
0.1
S. SCAP Preparation
50.00
0.,
9. Tank Closure Report
50.00
0.1
10. Administrative Personnel
25.00
2,250.00
11. Other (specify)
1
50.00
Expenses
1. Diagnostic Equipment HNU Meter
90.00
0.(
2. Field Supplies
15.00
0.(
3. Travel: Mileage
0.35
0.(
Time
25.00
01
4. Per Diem
75.00
01
5. Other (specify)
Soil boring supervisionlsoll sample collection
8
45.00
Sub Total:
0.0
PHASE II
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Professional Services
1. Workplan Preparation
2
50.00
100.01
2. Health & Safely Plan Modilications
0.5
50.00
25.01
3. Coordination with Contractor (permits)
50.00
0.0(
4. Data Collection:
Soil boring supervisionlsoll sample collection
8
45.00
380.0(
Monitoring well Installation supervision
3
45.00
135.(X
Groundwater sample collodion
8
40.00
210.0C
Well development
40.00
0.00
Report WrItInglAnalyzation
45
50.00
2,250.00
SurveyinglFleld Mapping
1
50.00
50.00
Polrolund
1
250.00
250.00
Administrative Personnel
4
25.00
100.00
/SL
ruu u,ui,u i-,uyu�ia, ,w
EST. UNITS UNIT COSTS EST. TOTAL
5. Risk Analysis
Vapor risk assessment 2 50.00 100.(.
Receptor risk assessment 2 50.00 10D.0
Groundwater receptor survey 4 50.00 200.0
Hydrogectogy characterization worksheet 4 50.00 200.0
Slug Tests 2 50.00 100.6
Expenses
1. Diagnostic Equipment HNU Meter
1
90.00
90.1
2. Field Supplies
2
15.00
30.1
3. Travel Mileage
200
0.35
70.1
Time
4
25.00
100.(
4. Per Diem
75.00
0.(
5. Other (specify) Bailers
15.00
0.l
Survey Equipment
1
85.00
85.(
SlaWlizalion Equipment
85.00
01
Sub
Total:
4,585.(
COMPREHENSIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
Professional Services
1. Coordination with Client, Contractor 6 MPCA
50.00
0.(
2. Recovery Well IratallatloNDesign
50.00
0.l
3. Recovery Well Installation Supervision
50.00
0 (
4. Aquifer Pumping Test
50.00
0.(
5. Aquifer Testing Analysis
50.00
0.l
8. Soil Vent Installation Supervision
50.00
0.(
7. Soil Vent Pilot Test
50.00
0.(
8. Soil Vent Pilot Test Analysis
50.00
0.(
9. Bioremediation Bench Testing
50.00
0.l
10. Permitting (NPDES, Air, etc.)
50.00
0.(
11. Date Reduction/Evaluation
50.00
0.(
12. MPCA Teleconference
50.00
0.(
13. CCAP Preparation
50.00
0.t
14. Other (specify) Report Summary
50.00
0.(
Expanses
1. Diagnostic Equipment HNU Moter
90.00
0.(
2. Field Supplies
15.00
0.(
3. Travel Mileage
0.35
0.(
Time
25.00
0.(
4. Per Diem
75.00
0.(
S. Other (specify)
Sub Total: 0.0
Form A
/sM
10
I
MONITORINGIREMEMATION SYSTEM OPERATION b MAINTENANCE
90.00
0.0'
EST. UNITS UNIT COSTS EST. TOTAL
15.00
Professional Services
3. Travel Mileage
0.35
1. Coordination with Client. Contractor & MPCA
50.00
0.0(
2. System Start-up services
50.00
0.0(
3. System Inspection
50.00
0.0(
4. Groundwater Monitoring
50.00
0.01
5. Air Monitoring
50.00
0.0(
0. Periodic Permit Renewals
25.00
0.01
7. Performance Analysis/Data Reduction
50.00
00
B. Monitoring Report Preparation
50.00
0.01
9. Other (specify)
Expenses
1. Diagnostic Equipment HNU Meter
90.00
0.0'
2. Field Supplies
15.00
0.0
3. Travel Mileage
0.35
0.0
Time
25.00
0.0
4. Per Diem
75.00
0.0
5. Other (specify)
2. Field Supplies
15.00 O,C
Sub Total: 0.0
SITE CLOSURE
Professional Services
1. Coordination with Client, Contractor d MPCA
50.00 W.
2. Data Reduction/Evaluation
50.00 ox
3. Site Closure Report Preparation
50.00 01
4. Monitoring Well/Soil vent Abandonment
50.00 01
5. Treatment System Romoval/Supervislon
50.00 01
0. Other (specify)
Expanses
1. Diagnostic Equipment HNU Meter
90.00 O.0
2. Field Supplies
15.00 O,C
3. Travel Mileage
0.35 0.1
Time
25.00 O.C.
4. Per Diem
75.00 01
5. Other (specify)
Sub Total: . OX
TOTAL: 4,585.0
Form A
Consultant Qualifications & Costs:
1. What experience does the environmental consulting firm have working with storage tanks or remediating petrol
releases in Minnesota? Provide types and sizes of projects and the number of years
experience for each:
We at Agassiz have a combined 18 years experience working with and in the petroleum field.
We have worked on sites that have had 1 to 18 tanks to be removed.
We have been responsible for emergency clean-up from single farms to large trucking firms.
We have 10 years combined experience with pre site investigation (Phase 1).
2. Provide references from at least two individuals, firms or corporations who have worked with the
consultant on projects of the same type and size as this project Including contact names and
telephone numbers:
Ron Welber ECSU (Schools Division) 812/255-3238
8111 Mendenhall Farmers Union OU Company 812/839.2523
Gary Anderson City of Monticello 812/295-2711
3. Provide a summary Ost of equipment the consulting firm has available to perform site investigation
and remedial activities:
H -Nu Meter, FID Meter, Explosion Meter, Well Stabilization Equipment
Survey Equipment, Monitor Well Drill Rig
4. Insurance Information:
General Liability: CNA Insurance Companies 2,000,000. 5114/94 to 5114/95
Worker's Compensation Insurance: CNA Insurance Companies 8115/94 to 8/15/95
Professional Liability Insurance: No
5. Describe the time frame within which the consulting firm will perform the scope of work:
Estimated starling date:
Estimated completion date of Soil Correction Action Plan:
Estimated completion date of Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan:
8. Has the consulting firm's field personnel completed US EPA or OSHA required health d safety training
and medical monitoring? Yes
7. State the education, experience and hourly rate of on-site and off-site personnel who will be
assigned to this project, and attach o current fee schedule:
NAME TITLE EDUCATION EXP.
FIELD
RATE
William Storm, CHMM Project Manager Degreed 10 years
R,L,C
$50.00
John Landwehr Project Manager Accredited 7 years
R,L,C
$50.00
Quentin Lee, Jr. Field Director Degreed 21 years
R,L,C
$50.00
David Lee Asst. Project Manager Accredited 21 years
R,C
$45.00
Chuck Grossman Field Tech Accredited 1 year
R,C
$40.00
Kathy Jereczok Asst. Project Manager Accredited 7 years
$45.00
• REGISTERED/LICENSED/CERTIFIED/ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST?
rcuuwuu r -p.— — ----
This is a proposal of unit costs by the consulling firm to the owner/applicant. It is not Intended as a substitute for
a contract to perform a specific scope of work. When accepted by the owner/applicant by signing and dating, the
fee schedule rates attached to this form will be effective for one year from the date of the effective date of the fee
f schedule attached to this form. Thereafter, the fee schedule rates charged to the owner/applicant shall not Increase
more that 5% annually over the fee schedule rates attached to this form.
The consulting firth certifies that the information provided in this form Is true and correct to the best of
Its knowledge and belief.
7
Authorized signature of the Consulting Firm: , .—
Date: December 29, 1994 Th le: Director of Marketing
Owner/applicant signature: Dale:
(Signature Indicated that this consulting Orth has been selected by the owner/applicant)
Forth A
a
PETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
OWNER/APPLICANT INFORMATION
FIRM NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENTS NAME:
PHONE NUMBER:
SITE ADDRESS:
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
PO BOX 1147
Monticello MN 55362.
John Simola
295-3170
Monticello Fire Hall
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
FIRM NAME: Agassiz Environmental Systems
ADDRESS: 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Suite 103
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
CONTACT NAME: John Landwehr
PHONE NUMBER: (612)531-8255
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Fonn B
/SQ
v
PETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
TANK REMOVAL SERVICES
total
1. Coordination with MPCA (permits) $/Iv 40.00
unit estimated estimated
2. Preparation of excavation report $/hr 50.00
costs units total
' 1. Contact MPCA, fire marshall, and local
0.00
authority for tank removal permits, $/hr
0.00
• 2. Site Preparation, $/hr
0.00
-removal of obstacles above ground
0.00
-removal of obstacles below ground
0.00
3. Remove and dispose of surface $/sq. yr.
0.00
4. Excavate uncontaminated soil $/cu yd
0.00
• 5. Pump and dispose of material in tanks $/gal
0.00
• 6. Inerting tank $/gal
0.00
-Explosion monitoring $/tank
0.00
• 7. Provide crane or backhoe(specify)
0.00
• 8. Remove and dispose of piping lines $/hr
0.00
' 9. Clean and dispose of tanks $/tank
0.00
• 10. Tank abandomnent $/tank
0.00
• 11. Fill for area left by removed tanks $/cu yd
0.00
12. Backfill of uncontaminated soil $ sq. yd
0.00
13. Restore site $/sq. yd
0.00
14. On-site personnel $/hr per ea..
0.00
Sub Total: 0.00
SOIL CORRECTIVE ACTION SERVICES
unit estimated estimated
costs units
total
1. Coordination with MPCA (permits) $/Iv 40.00
0.00
2. Preparation of excavation report $/hr 50.00
0.00
3. Soil Disposal application $/Itr 50.00
0.00
4. Excavation of contaminated soil $/cu yd
0.00
5. Load & haul contaminated soil $/cu yd
0.00
6. Fill to replace contaminated soil $/cu yd
0.00
7. Other (specify)
0.00
0.00
Sub Total:
0.00
• Notice to Tank Owner/Petrofund Applicant: Costs indicated by asterisk are tank
removal costs which are not reimbursed by the Petrofund. See page 6.
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Fonn B I'
(2i)
PETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
,MpLE AND LABORATORY SERVICES
unit
estimated
estimated
costs
Units
total
Sample Collection and Field Screening
50.00
0.00
( $oil) $/hr
0.00
''e Collection and Field Screening
50.00
0.00
:(wpatcr) $/lv0.00
ratory Services CRO/soil
60.00
10
600.00
Laboratory Services DRO/soil
75.00
10
750.00
Laboratory Services GRO/Water
60.00
10
600.00
:aboratory Services DRO/water
75.00
10
750.00
aboratory Services VOC/soil
150.00
0.00
.aboratory Services VOC/water
150.00
5
750.00
aboratory Services Lead/soil
30.00
10
300.00
Laboratory Services Lead/water
10.00
10
100.00
!aboratory Services Trip Blank/soil
10.00
1
10.00
aboratory Services Trip Blank/water
10.00
2
20.00
ti ,ratoryServices Dissloved Oxyge»lwate
10.00
5
50.00
aboratory Services COD/water
19.00
5
95.00
.aboratory Services Phosphorus/water
17.00
5
85.00
.aboratory Services Kjeldahl/water
9.00
5
45.00
.aboratory ServicesNitrate/Water
9.00
5
45.00
aboratory Services Nitrite/water
15.00
5
75.00
ample preparation $sample
10.00
20
200.00
ample liandling charge $/sample
10.00
20
200.00
abilazation equipment $/well
20.00
10
200.00
oilcrs/pwnps $/each
15.00
10
150.00
:Id technician $/Itr
40.00
1
40.00
;rvel costs personnel $/hr
25.00
2
50.00
rvel costs vehicle $/mile
0.35
90
31.50
her (specify)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sub Total:
5,146.50
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Fonii R r�„ /s
PETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
L
COMPREHENSIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION
unit
estimated
estimated
costs
units
total
1. Drilling services:
-soil borings:
$/flat fee to 10'
100.00
10
1,000.00
$/foot thereafter
10.00
80
800.00
stockpile of contaminated cuttings
35.00
1
35.00
-soil boring abandonment:
thru soil only $/ft
1.50
105
157.50
thru soil/groundwater interface $/ft
3.00
0.00
-well installation:
Without borings $/flat fee to 10'
180.00
0.00
Additional feet $!foot
18.00
0.00
Boring conversion $/flat fee to 10'
120.00
5
600.00
Additional feet $/foot
12.00
25
300.00
Sand packing & grouting $/per foot
5.00
75
375.00
6" protective post with cap/lock $/e
115.00
5
575.00
At grade cover with cap/lock $/ea.
85.00
0.00
4' X 4' concrete pad $/per well
60.00
0.00
Well development $/per well
60.00
5
300.00
-well abandonment:
wells $/per foot
8.00
0.00
Protective post $/per well
25.00
0.00
-drilling obstructions:
frost $/ft
5.00
0.00
concrete $/each
35.00
0.00
rock/othcr obstructions $/hour
115.00
0.00
stand by time $/liour
75.00
0.00
2. Mileage:
travel cost drill rig $/mile
0.75
100
75.00
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Form B 1'a
CIS T
PETROFUND DID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
y travel cost support vehicle $/mile
0.35
100
35.00
travel cost persomiel $/Iw
25.00
4
100.00
3. Persoiutel:
administrative $/hr
25.00
4
100.00
supervisory $/hr
50.00
3
150.00
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Fomt D Pa8(
PETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
4. Other charges:
Utility locate ca1V►neets $/call
35.00
1 35.00
Monitor Well Permits $/permit
115.00
3 345.00
Well registration permits $/well
40.00
5 200.00
Well abandonment permits $/well
40.00
0.00
Decontamination of equipment $/da
100.00
1 100.00
Well stabilization $/well
20.00
0.00
Bailers/pumps $/each
15.00
0.00
0.00
Sub Total: 5,282.50
TOTAL: 10,429.00
"$4.00 per stop for sampling (1 for every 5' included in boring price)
"$2.00 per foot for Split Spoon Sampling
"$100.00 Private Utility Locate
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Form B e6
PETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
I. What experiences does the contractor have working with storage tanks
or remediating petroleum releases in Minnesota?
See Profile
2. Provide references from at least two individuals, fins or corporations who have
worked with the contractor on projects of the sane type and size as this projec
Carlson Oil Company Martin Carlson (612) 748-7977
U.S. Army Kurt Brownell (608)3884789
3. Provide a summary list of equipment the contractor has available.
Monitor Well Drill Rig, Pumper truck, Air compressor w/jack hammer
HNU Meter, FID Meter, Oxygen Meter, Utility Locator &
Monitor well pump
4. Insurance information:
A. Does the contractor maintain general liability insurance? Yes
CNA Insurance Companies
5/14/94-5/14/95 2,000.000.
B. Does the contractor maintain worker's compensation insurance?
Yes
C. Does the contractor maintain professional liability insurance?
No
5. Has the contractor completed US EPA or OSHA required health and safety traini
and medical monitoring?. Yes
6. 'rank remover certification number: 277
7. If subcontractors are included in this bid, list each subcontractors name
address, contact name and phone number and identify the service to be
performed. Midwest Analytical Services, Matt Stokes (612) 689-2175
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Form B�e7
/S W
PETROI-IIND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
NOTICES TO THE TANK OWNER/Petrofund APPLICANT;
1. The Petrofund reimbursement rules require you to obtain a bid from at least two
contractors for each contractor service performed at your site. Contractor services
include, but are not limited to, excavation, treatment of contaminated soil and
grom►d water, soil borings, well installations, laboratory analysis, surveying,
electrical, plumbing and equipment.
2. The Petrofmnd board will reimburse only costs it determines are reasonable. If
you select a contractor whose unit costs are substantially in excess of the lowest
bid, the Petrofu nd board may consider your costs unreasonable.
3. After the contractor you have selected performs the work, the Petrofimd board
will also review the invoices for reasonableness. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
TO ASSURE THAT ONLY NECESSARY WORK IS PERFORMED.
4. 1f different contractors are needed for various services listed in this fonn, each
contractor must complete a separate bid form.
NOTICE TO TANK OWNERS/Petrofund APPLICANT REGARDING TANK
REMOVAL SERVICES
t. The Petrofund law prohibits reimbursement for costs associated with tank
.emoval. However, if there is contaminated soil around a tank, the Petrofumd may
reimburse for services which are necessary to reach contaminated soil around
a tank, such as removal of concrete/asphalt and above ground obstacles over the
contamination, excavation of uncontaminated soil to reach contamination, and
site restoration over the area of contamination.
2. When you submit your application for reimbursement, it will be necessary for
the excavation, backfill and site restoration invoices to clearly indicate which
costs are I'or the area. over tanks with soil contamination surrounding them, and
which costs are for the area over tanks with no soil contamination.
This is a bid of unit costs by the contractor to the owner/applicant. The contractor
certifies that the information provided in this form is true and correct to the best of
its knowledge and belief.
Signature of Contractor:/'rte ` Date: 12/29/94
Signature of Owner/Alrplicant: Date:
SEL' PAGE 6 FOR PETROFUND NOTICES Fonn B
City Council Agenda - 2/13/95
ie. CQnsidgration of uo=adina two micro -computer workstations. (J.O.,
C.S., K.D.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider purchasing 2 personal computers as provided
in the 1995 data processing budget. It is proposed to purchase a larger,
Pentium® computer and a 486DX2 computer similar to the newer computers
used by other staff members.
The Pentiym® comuuter would be used by the Assistant Administrator. City
staff would like to begin implementing a Geographic Information System (GIS)
within two years, which could allow tracking of all city property and linking
each piece of property to base data that would be stored by the property
identification number assigned to the property. In the future, this would aid
City staff whcn working with public hearings, zoning issues, and
comprehensive land use planning. There are many other potential uses of the
data that could be stored in this type of system, such as planning for future
improvements and extensions of city utilities.
This computer could also have an optional CD-ROM unit added. This would
allow the City to utilize some of the newer technology which provides
information on disks rather than in book form. The City has already been
receiving offers regarding government information that is available only on
CD-ROM. This trend is likely to continue.
The computer currently being used by the Assistant Administrator would go
to the Receptionist and Utility Billing Clerk. There is a definite need to
upgrade to the Windows environment which is being used on most other
computers at city hall. Since the Receptionist does a lot of work under
direction of the Office Manager, it makes sense to have them both using
computers with the same operating systems. Also, it is planned to utilize
Lotus spreadsheet for Windows for both administrative and utility billing
purposes. The computer currently being used by the Receptionist does not
have the capability for us to install Windows or to work with large
spreadsheets.
The 486DX2 computer would replace the 386 computer used by the Computer
Support Analyst. Greater speed and more disk storage area are needed for the
programs that the Computer Support Analyst operates, Many times multiple
programs are in use at one time, and the current computer does not have the
speed to run efficiently. At times, the computer slows down because of the
various programs loaded previously (such as the Paradox custom recycling
program), and it becomes necessary to restart the computer to continue
working.
22
City Council Agenda - 2/13/95
The computer currently being used by the Computer Support Analyst would
go to the Public Works Secretary. This would enable her to operate in the
Windows environment, which would be mainly for word processing. There may
be other programs used, but not to the extent that it would cause intensive
slowdowns at the present time.
The computer used by the Public Works Secretary will go to the Water
Department Supervisor. In the past he has used one of the old Wang
computers to maintain water department records. However, the Wang
computer became unusable last year, and he has been waiting to get a
replacement computer to restore his previous work and begin entering all the
accumulated data.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Approve the purchase of a new Pentium® personal computer at the cost
of approximately $3,000 plus tax with a CD-ROM unit at the cost of
$250 plus tax. Also, approve the purchase of a new 486DX2 personal
computer at the cost of approximately $1,900 plus tax. (There is $5,000
budgeted specifically for personal computers plus $4,375 for other
capital outlay for data processing.)
This option should be selected if City Council agrees that the City
should update their computer hardware. As a modification of this
alternative, Council could purchase two 486DX2 machines and wait to
buy a Pentium computer until implementation of GIS is iminent. This
option would save the City about $1,400 in the short run and delay the
purchase of the larger, faster computer to coincide with the need for
speed and extra capacity. Given the rate of technological advances it
may make sense to wait on the Pentium and buy two 486DX computers.
Deny the purchase of any new computers.
This option should be selected if City Council finds that they do not feel
it is necessary to purchase updated computer hardware at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends alternative #1 to purchase 2 now computers for the
City. It is felt that the direction the City has taken regarding computer
technology has been ef1fective and efficient. Upgrading to the Windows
operating system has proven to be a good decision, as the trend in computer
software often requires that type of a system. City staff foals that this would
allow us to continue in this same direction and keep up with changes in
technology.
P'rioe quotes from vendors.
23
DESCRIPTION
Pentium 90mhz System:
16MB memory
730MB (appr) hard drive
101 key enhanced keyboard
Colorado DJ -20 Jumbo 250MB
internal tape drive
Microsoft serial mouse v2.0a
1.44MB 3.6" floppy drive
faxtmodem
16" CTX (or similar) monitor
MS-DOS v6.22
Windows for Workgroups v3.11
486DX2 66mhz System:
8MB memory
500MB (appr) hard drive
101 key enhanced keyboard
Colorado DJ -20 Jumbo 250MB
internal tape drive
Microsoft serial mouse v2.0a
1.44MB 3.6" floppy drive
1.2MB 6.26" floppy drive
16" CTX (or similar) monitor
MS-DOS v6.22
Windows for Workgroups Q.11
CD-ROM
quad speed
PC EXPRESS COMPUTER PC
PARTS SOLUTIONS
3040.00 3346.00 3049.00
tz 197.60 t: 217.43 tz 198.19
COMPUTER
SMITH
1
OFFICE
3229.00
4376.00
t: 209.89
tz 284.38
1876.00 1940.00 1899.00 1896.00 2299.00
tz 121.88 t: 126.10 tz 123.44 t; 123.24 tz 149.44
260.00 366.00 319.00 416.00 669.00
t: 16.26 tx 23.73 t: 20.74 tz 26.98 tx 36.99
Council Agenda - 2113195
». Consideration of &denting a resolulton annroving plans and
paeciflcations and ordering advertisement for bids on Eastwood
Knoll imorovements - Protect 94.02C. (R.WJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the January 9 meeting, OSM was authorized to prepare plans and
specifications for the sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets for the
Eastwood Knoll residential subdivision. This property is the former
Outlets C & D of Meadow Oak Estates that the City has turned into a 30 -
lot residential subdivision for, hopefully, higher -valued homes.
With the plans and specifications now complete, City Council is being asked
to continue on with the project by approving the plans and specifications
and ordering advertisement for bids to be returnable March 10, 1995. It is
anticipated that the Council would then consider reviewing the bids at the
March 13 Council meeting for consideration of awarding a contract for the
improvements.
In a related item, I have been recently notified by the Wright County
Auditor's Office that they are now processing the tax forfeited parcels in the
Meadow Oak Estates subdivision, which includes the lots the City needs to
extend the road within Eastwood Knoll to Meadow Oak Avenue. The
County Auditor's Office was aware that the City needed to acquire these
properties for the right-of-way extension as soon as possible, and we should
be able to obtain the necessary lots by early April in plenty of time before
construction would commence.
Assuming the Council continues with this project and authorizes
advertisement for bids, we will then be able to come up with a better idea of
the pricing that will be necessary to recapture our investment in this
property along with the improvement coat. A marketing approach will have
to be agreed upon, which I assume will include establishing a price for each
of the lots and listing of the properties with local real estate agents.
Adopt the resolution approving plans and specifications as prepared
by OSM and order advertisement for bids returnable March 10, 1995.
Under this alternative, the Council is in agreement with continuing
this project for early spring construction, assuming the bids come
within budget. So
24
Council Agenda - 7113/95
Do not adopt the resolution at this time.
Under this alternative, the proposed improvements could be delayed
until a later time or until a private developer can be found to
purchase the subdivision. As Pm sure you are aware, we have not
had much luck in attempting to sell the entire unplatted property to
a single developer, and that is why we are proceeding with platting
and improving the property ourselves.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Council is still in agreement with proceeding with this development,
it is recommended that the resolution be adopted authorizing advertisement
for bids. Hopefully the timing will be early enough to obtain good bids on
the project allowing for an early start this spring on construction. Once the
improvement costs are known, we will be in a better position to establish
pries for the lots and can then determine a marketing strategy.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution. Plans and specifications will be available Monday
evening from OSM.
25
RESOLUTION 98.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON
EASTWOOD KNOLL IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on January 9, 1995,
the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of
Eastwood Knoll subdivision with sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer,
bituminous streets, and appurtenant work and has presented such plans and
specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper
and in the Construction L3ulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making
of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published for at least 21 days, shall specify the work
to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Clerk until 10 a.m.
on March 10, 1995, at which time they will be publicly opened in the council
chambers of the city hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will then be
tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7 p.m. on March 13,
1995, in the council chambers of the city hall. Any bidder whose
responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an
opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids
will be considered unless sealed and Sled with the Clerk and accompanied
by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the
Clerk for 5% of the amount of such bid.
Adopted this 13th day of February, 1995.
Mayor
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 2/13!95
18. Consideration of anoroving agreement of understanding with Wright
Countv concerning Citv acauisition of tax forfeited Gille Auto
nrooerty. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City recently received notification from the MPGA that our efforts to clean
up the Gille Auto property site has been successful, and they have agreed that
we have addressed all contamination on the property that we are aware of and
the site is now considered clean.
As some of you may recall, the Wright County Board, in September 1993,
agreed to turn over ownership of the tax forfeited Gille Auto parcel to the City
because of the work we were doing to expedite the clean up. At the
recommendation of the Attorney General's office and our City Attorney, we
hesitated to accept the state deed at that time until the clean up had
proceeded and the underground fuel tanks were removed. The delay was to
avoid potential liability for being the owner of the property with the fuel tanks
still in the ground.
As part of the Wright County Board's action, the City of Monticello would
obtain ownership to the property and be allowed to recover from a potential
sale all of the cost we had incurred in the property for the clean-up. If there
were any funds available above our cost for the clean-up, the County would
then receive up to approximately $12,000 to cover the back real estate taxes.
Likewise, if there were any additional funds remaining from the sale, they
would then revert to the City of Monticello. At this point in time, the City has
approximately $30,040 invested in the Gille property for clean-up efforts. It
is unknown at this time whether any of these funds will be reimbursable
through the Petro Board, as the site contained very little contaminated soil,
and it may be hard to establish that a leak had occurred at this site. Without
a leak occurring, the Petro Board may not reimburse any of our costs. As far
as the taxes are concerned, there is approximately $11,291 in back taxes,
excluding penalties and interest, that aro owing in addition to our $30,000
expense. The County has also spent approximately $758 for their security and
clean-up efforts. As a result, if everyone is going to recapture their cost for
clean-up, back taxes, and other miscellaneous charges, we would need proceeds
over $42,000 from the future sale of this property.
Before the County actually obtains a deed from the Department of Revenue for
the City, they would like the Council to approve a Memorandum of
Understanding concerning how the proceeds will be divided in the future when,
and if, the City sells the Gille property to a private party. The agreement has
26
Council Agenda - V13l95
been prepared by Brian Asleson, Assistant County Attorney, based on the
County Board's previous actions. I have reviewed the Memorandum of
Understanding and agree to the proposed allocation of future proceeds in that
the City will be first in line to recapture our $30,000 expenses, and then the
County would be next for collecting up to $12,000 for taxes and miscellaneous
cost if we sell the property for that amount. Any proceeds obtained above
$42,000 would then remain with the City as our payment for handling this
process. In the unlikely event that the proceeds of the sale do not even cover
our $30,000 expenditure, the County has agreed to pick up half of the cost not
covered by the sale.
Assuming the City Council is still in agreement with obtaining the deed for
this property, Council may want to discuss what method you would like to use
for selling the property to a private party. While it is estimated that it could
take three to four weeks to receive the deed frum the Department of Revenue,
it should also be noted that it could take up to six months or longer for a quiet
title action that will need to be done to obtain clear title to the property.
While the City could sell the property with a quit claim deed, an eventual
buyer will want a warranty deed or I assume will offer much less than what
the property might be worth if we can only provide a quit claim deed. Since
this process could take six months or longer according to our City Attorney, the
Council could market the property in a number of ways, including having it
listed with local real estate agents, request sealed bids for the property, or you
may want to look at a request for proposals, requesting how a developer might
want to develop this property before selling it to them. This would he similar
to what we did with Outlot A in Country Club Manor in which we have
tentatively agreed to market the property to Mr. Hornig for apartments. While
a decision does not to have to be made at the Monday night meeting, if the
Council has a preference on how they would like to see this property developed
or sold, the staff could use some direction to begin attempts to get the property
back on the tax rolls as soon as possible.
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between Wright County
and the City of Monticello concerning the City's acquisition of the Gille
Auto property site and the distribution of fiords from a sale.
Under this option, the Council is comfortable with proceeding with
obtaining ownership and the agreement mainly outlines for both parties
how the finds will be distributed after we sell the property.
Council could request that the agreement be amended in some fashion.
27
Council Agenda - 2113/95
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on previous Council action, I am assuming the City wants to continue
with the idea of obtaining ownership and marketing the property ourselves.
The Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the County is in accordance
with our understanding of how proceeds were to be distributed when a sale did
occur. It is my recommendation that the Council approve the Memorandum
of Understanding as presented and request that the deed be obtained from the
State.
If the Council does have a suggestion on how you would like to market this
property, we could discuss it at the meeting or it could be considered at a
separate Council meeting in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DAT& -
Copy of proposed Memorandum of Understanding; Letter from the MPGA
concerning site closure. t
SA c�c
28
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
4-ft-
za.
January 4, 1995
Mr. Rick wolfeteller
City Administrator
250 East Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
RE: Petroleum Tank Release Site File Closure
Site: Former Oillie Auto Property, Monticallo
Site ID#: LEAKO0006549
Dear Mr. wolfeteller:
we are pleased to let you know that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) Tanka and Spills Section (TLS) staff has determined that your investi-
gation and/or cleanup has adequately addressed the petroleum tank release at the
site listed above. Sawed on the information provided, the TiS staff has closed
the release cite file.
Closure of the file means that the TiS staff does not require any additional
investigation and/or cleanup work at this time or in the foreseeable future.
Please be aware that file cloouro does not nececoarily moan that all petroleum
contamination hoc been removed from this site. However, the US staff has
concluded that any remaining contamination, if present, does not appear to pace
a threat to public health or the environment.
The MPCA reserves the right to reopen thio file and to require additional
investigation and/or cleanup work if now information or changing regulatory
requirements make additional work necessary. If you or other parties discover
additional contamination (either petroleum or nonpetroleum) that was not
previously reported to the MPCA, Minnesota law requires that the MPCA be
immediately notified.
You should understand that this letter does not release any party from liability
for the petroleum contamination under Minn. Otat. ch. 115C (1992) or any other
applicable state or federal law. In addition, this letter does not release any
party from liability for nonpotrolcum contamination, it present, under Minn.
Stat. ch. 1158 (1992), the Minnesota Superfund Law.
If future development of thio property or the surrounding area is planned, it
ohould be ascumed that petroleum contamination may still be present. If
1 petroleum contamination is encountered during future development work, the MPGA
staff should be notified immediately.
520 Lafayette Rd. N.: S1. PaW. MN 5515"194:(612) 296.6300 (rate): (612) 2924=1 TM
Repbnal offices: Dututh • Brainerd • DsvW Lakes • Manha0 • Rotheater
Fcual ODOartu^4)' Enpbyer • PrYeae on raeyH40 OaDar 0 q Wq t04 fil»n hem paps
Cl' eY tbreu+nan.
/8A
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
Page 2
January 4, 1995
To make arrangements to review a file for specific information regarding
petroleum contamination that may remain at this leak site, please call the TLS
File Request Program at 612/297-8499. The -Leak/Spill and underground storage
Tank File Request Form' (TiS Fact Sheet 616) must be completed prior to
arranging a time for file review.
Thank you for your response to this petroleum tank release and for your
cooperation with the MPCA to protect public health and the environment. If you
have any Questions regarding this letter, please call me at 612/297-8594.
Sincerely,
esoic(�a 8be z
Project Manager
Cleanup unit II
Tanks and Spills Section
JH:omm
cc: Jerry Wein, Monticello Fire Chief
Chuck Davie, Wright County Solid Waste Officer
Stan Halinooki, MPCA, Brainerd Regional Office
William Cole Stem, Agaooiz Hnvironmental Systeme, Inc.
v
A Z
943 y�
sees
Wyman A. Nelson
Canty AU.—y
Thomas N. Keuy
Chief- Crim,.. Dh isis
Brian J. Asleson
Chid - Gait D
February 5, 1995
WRIGHT COUNTY
Office of County Attorney
Wright County Government Center
10 2nd Street N. W., Room 150
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313.1189
Phone: (612) 682.7340
Toll Free: 1.804362.3667 Fax: (612) 682-6178
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway, P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Re: Former Gills Auto Sales Property
Dear Rick:
Assistants
A— L dbhaayt
rh a C. ttiv
rem dein.
Sma X Ssldbers
AsslohnWe Coordinator
Enclosed you will find a propoaod Memorandum of Understanding
between Wright County and the City of Monticello regarding the
above-mentioned property. Your letter of January 9, 1995 was
considered by the County Board in January, and this office was
directed to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding for both parties
to sign.
As I explained to you over the phone, it was felt that the
Memorandum of Understanding would be useful since it may be some
period of time before any proceeds of sale are received for this
property, and it may be some period of time before the City
receives any reimbursement for the clean up of the property.
Please let me know if you have questions or concerns regarding
thin. Also let me know if you have suggested changes, since I
could quickly make them prior to your next council meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you on this.
vetruly yours,
Or n J. le n
Assistant t County Attorney
BJA/med
Enclosure
cc: Darla Groshens, County Auditor w/enclosure
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
&MEEK COUNTY OF WRIGHT
AND CITY OF MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, the site of the former Gille Auto Sales, Parcels No.
155-500-033400 and 155-500-033402, hereinafter referred to as the
Gills site, has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for
delinquent taxes; and
WHEREAS, the outstanding taxes, excluding penalties and
interest, at the time of the forfeiture, totalled $11,290.91; and
WSESEAS, at the request of the City of Monticello, the Gills
site was removed from the County Auditor's tax forfeited land sales
list; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has incurred significant costs
in cleaning up the Gills site, including the removal of underground
fuel tanks; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello now wishes to acquire the
Gills site for economic development purposes, including possible
sale to a private party, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
469; and
WHEREAS, the Wright County Hoard of Commissioners, on
September 28, 1993, approved of this clean up and acquisition, in
concept, but the need to clarify certain details still exists;
NOW, THEREFORE, the County of Wright and the City of
Monticello agree as follows:
1. That the Gills site is to be conveyed to the City of
Monticello, as per Minnesota Statutes Section 282.01, Subd. 1,
contingent upon the appropriate application for conveyance being
completed and upon the approval of the State Deed by the Department
of Revenue.
2. That the basic sale price for the Gills site is to be
waived, with the understanding that the City of Monticello may
develop the property or reconvey the property to a private party
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469.
3. That any fees for the State Deed and any other
miscellaneous costs related to the acquisition shall be paid by the
City of Monticello.
4. That upon sale of the property by the City of Monticello
to a private party, any proceeds of sale shall be applied as
follows, in the priority listed:
A. The City of Monticello may recover any unreimbursed
costs of clean up, as listed on the attached "Schedule A".
B. The County of Wright may recover security and clean
up costs totalling $758.21.
C. The City of Monticello will contribute towards the
outstanding taxes at the time of forfeiture, totalling
$11,290.91, excluding penalties and interest. Further, that
any amounts paid by the City under this paragraph will be
distributed to the taxing districts in the proportions
required by statute.
D. The City of Monticello may retain any funds in excess
of those needed to satisfy the requirements of the above three
paragraphs..
5. That in the event that any proceeds of sale are insufficent to
cover the unreimbursed costs of clean up, as detailed in paragraph
4A above, the County of Wright shall reimburse the City of
Monticello one half of those remaining costs.
a. That the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding may make
such modifications and amendments as v111 properly carry out the
spirit of this agreement. Such modifications and amendments shall
be in writing.
Dated: , 1995- COUNTY OF WRIGHT
By
Chairperson, County Board
By
County Coordinator
Dated: , 1995 CITY OF MONTICELLO
BP r
BY
I.
II.
"Schedule A"
PROJECT COST SUMMARY AS OF 10/94
GILLE AUTO PROPERTY CHARGES
PAST COSTS
A.
Mowing
$1,851.16
B.
Environmental Cleanup
$6,851.80
C.
Braun Intertec Engineering Fees
$660.00
D.
Cleanup charges (RufrAuto)
$1,500.00
E.
Misc. penalty & interest & sales tax
$726.10
SECTION TOTAL
$11,589.06
RECENT ADDITIONAL COSTS
A.
Demolition and stockpile contaminated soil (Veit)
$6,260.50
B.
Well abandonment (Renner)
$379.00
C.
Technical assistance (Agassiz Environmental)
$336.00
D.
Advertisements
$122.48
E.
Legal fees (Paul Weingarden)
$187.50
SECTION TOTAL
$7,087.98
SUBTOTAL
$18,677.04
TANK REMOVAUCLEANUP COSTS
A.
Fuel tank removal & contaminated soil excavation
$8,947.00
(Schluender)
B.
Agassiz • Final report/cleanup review
$2.415.90
GRAND TOTAL TO DATE
$30,039.94
C
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
19. Consideration of adored" a formal position on Vonco Demolition
Landfill expansion or000sal - Bia Lake Townshio. (R.WJ
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you are aware, the Voneo Demolition Landfill located across the river in
Big Lake Township has applied to the PCA for an extension of their permit
to operate their landfill and also a modification to basically double the size
of the facility. The PCA recently held (February 7) a public informational
meeting at the Big Lake High School, which allowed local citizens the
opportunity to provide input regarding the permit request. I had attended
that meeting to see what type of comments were being made by the citizens.
The PCA also has extended to February 14, 1995, at 5 p.m., the deadline for
accepting any additional written ciIDuleiAts regarding this permit expansion.
When this topic was first discussed in early January, the City staff provided
written comments to the PCA basically indicating our concern with heavy
truck traffic using County Road 75 (Broadway), along with the general
concern we had with the visual impact this development may have on the
scenic Mississippi River. A copy of that letter is enclosed with the agenda
for your reference.
Many comments made at the public informational meeting were related to
the facility's close proximity to residential development (Sleepy Hollow) and
concerns over possible ground water contamination with all of the
residential homes having individual wells. While concerns also were noted
on the visual impact with the surrounding neighborhood, the PCA generally
indicated that the permit application apparently meets all state Hiles and
regulations regarding demolition landfills, and the permit would probably be
recommended for approval. The question probably still to be decided by
both Big Lake Township and Sherburne County is whether or not they have
to grant permission for an expansion, but that remains to be seen whether
they can legally deny Mr. Veit his request.
The purpose of this agenda item is simply to find out whether the City
Council wishes to make any additional formal comments to the PCA
regarding this landfill permit expansion. As I noted, we have already noted
our concern with truck traffic that the ihcility is causing in Monticello and
also our concerns over the visual impact this facility might have on the
scenic river. If the Council would like any additional comments to be
presented or would like to present a formal resolution, we must do so by
Tuesday evening at 6 p.m. While there are certainly other concarns
expressed by Big Lake Township and Sherburne County residents such as
29
Council Agenda - 2113196
concerns over possible ground water contamination and the impact on
domestic wells in the area, along with concerns over storm water run-off
from the site to other parcels surrounding the landfill, many of these
concerns are hard for the City of Monticello to raise since they do not
directly affect the City of Monticello. The logical ones have already been
expressed in our staff letter to the PCA concerning the visual impact the
facility would have on city residents and from the river, along with our
specific concerns on truck traffic using County Road 76 instead of a state
highway.
L.—,4LTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council could adopt a resolution or request that additional comments
be mailed W the FCA prior to the 6 p.m. deadline, Tuesday,
February 14.
Council could determine that appropriate comments were already
forwarded to the PCA and additional comments are not necessary at
this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
From my viewpoint, I believe the appropriate comments have already been
made to the PCA that am legitimate concerns of the City of Monticello
concerning this landfill permit expansion. The obvious visual impact and
concern over any impact it may have on the Mississippi River along with
our concerns over truck traffic using County Road 76 seem to be the
appropriate comments. If the Council would like additional concerns to be
noted, staff is certainly willing to do so by the deadline.
Copy of letter to PCA.
30
250 Eau Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Morro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
ShcL'y Burman
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ground Water and Solid Waste Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
Dear Shelly,
January 4, 1995
This letter is written to provide comments from the City of Monticello an the draft
permit action to reissue a permit to allow operation of a solid waste management
facility. Following are City comments following the format outlined in the public
notice.
The solid waste facility is located within a quarter mile of the northern boundary of
the City of Monticello. The presence of the debris pile will impact the view of the
Mississippi River area Noise generated by the facility is within earshot of a quiet
residential area.
Heavy truck traffic from the site commonly uses CSAR 75 as a shortcut to and from
I-94. The shortcut route brings heavy trucks through a sensitive residential area,
which negatively impacts the enjoyment of the area for residential uses. In addition,
the turning movements at the intersection of the shortcut (CSAH 75) and Highway
25 are difficult for large trucks. Accidents and traffic delays impacting local and
regional traffic is a common result.
The development of the debris pile at the proposed location and height, is inconsistent
with the spirit of the wild and scenic waterway regulations and inconsistent with the
goal of long term protection the Great River Road corridor. Therefore, the City of
Monticello requests that the elevation of the debris pile be established at a level that
will not negatively impact the view of the Mississippi River and adjoining native
environment.
Shelly Burman
January 4, 1994
Page 2
To avoid obtrusive noise, heavy equipment activity should be limited to daylight
hours only with no activity on the weekend.
The permit should stipulate that track traffic using I-94 should be required to use the
Highway 25 fi-eeway access and prohibited from using CSAR 75 (Broadway) access.
This requirement would eliminate turning movement problems for trucks turning
right off CSAH 75 and on to State Highway 25. It would also benefit Wright County
and the City by removing a portion of the heavy truck traffic that uses CSAH 75 as
a shortcut through a sensitive residential area.
Sincerely,
MY OF MONTIrELLO
e D &-ZO
Jeff ONeill
Assistant City Administrator
JOS
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
zo. Consideration of imurovgments Lo the intersection of CSAH 75 and TH
28 to reduce turning conflicts. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the fall of last year, Councilmember Shirley Anderson requested that staff
contact Wright County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
look at the possibility of improving the intersection of CSAH 76 and TH 25
with the possibility of adding left turn lanes on CSAH 75. I spoke with Dave
Montebello at the Wright County Highway Department about this intersection,
as well as improvements to railroad crossings at CSAR 39/Elm Street and
Walnut Street. Dave Montebello, who is the Assistant Wright County Highway
Engineer, responded on October 31, 1994. He indicated that he would be
working with Tony Kempenich, the MN/DOT Traffic Engineer, and they would
have some information for us by the middle of January. I received the County
and MN/DOT's response regarding the intersection from Dave Montebello on
January 30, 1995. For your information, Dave Montebello will no longer be the
Assistant Wright County Engineer after the 16th of February.
By referring to Dave's letter, which is enclosed for your review, one can see
that the County and State did a study in early December of the intersection
and reviewed accidents for the years 1989 through 1993 at that intersection to
look at what possible conflicts exist and what could be done about them. The
report shows ten separate options for reducing the conflicts. One of the options
is the existing condition, which really does not reduce any conflicts. To sum up
the report, three of the alternatives involve putting in left turn lanes on CSAH
75, which would mean the removal of the streetscape nodes one block either
aide of TH 25 and the removal of parking in that same area. Although this
represents the beat alternative for moving traffic through the intersection, it is
unlikely that it would gain significant community support, at least at this time.
Consequently, some of the other alternatives involving light phasing changes
and/or timing may improve the situation for the near future; but a long-range
solution will have to be looked at to be ready for the time when the operation
of the intersection degrades to a level that is intolerable in the community.
One bright spot on the horizon may be the addition of another bridge across
the Mississippi River. It is possible within the next eight to ten years that a
bridge may be proposed sono place between the City of Elk River and
St. Cloud to take some of the pressures off Monticello and Clearwater.
The first alternative would be to accept the report and, upon review,
instruct staff to work with MN/DOT and the County on the timing and
phasing of the existing lights and/or additional lights to make
improvements where we can to the flow of traffic through the
intersection, especially the left turns from CSAH 78.
Council Agenda - 2113/95
The second alternative would be to select one of the other options and
ask MN/DOT to begin pursuing that option.
The third alternative would be to do nothing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
work with MN/DOT and the County in attempts to improve the existing signal
system or add lights and improve the timing in the interim as outlined in
alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the October 31, 1994, letter from Dave Montebello; Copy of the
January 30, 1995, report from Wright County and MN/DOT.
32
JNTv O,e
� 2
4y
7850
October 31, 1994
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
1901 1fighmny 25 North
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Jct. T.N. 25 and CR. 138
Telephone (612)682.7383
Facsimile (612) 682.7313
John Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway, Box 1147
Monticello, Mn. 55362
Re: CSAH 39 Rail Crossing Surface Improvement
Operational Problems - CSAH 75/TH 25 Signal
Comments on Small Area Problems Study
WAYNE A FINGAL90N. RE
Hi{6.ar FAg t e.
692.7388
DAVID K MONTEBELL0. P.E.
Aadsteat Hight ay Eati.-
6827387
RICHARD E. MARQUE -M
Right at War ACmt
8857388
Dear John,
The purpose of this letter is to address the above referenced issues which we briefly
discussed by phone today.
CSAH 39 Rall Grade Cro ins Sarface Improvement:
As we discussed by phone the County has $8000.00 in our 1995 budget for this
surface improvement. We have not had time to address this issue with the
Burlington Northern Railroad. In the past the County has paid for the surface
materials and done arty of the bituminous restoration work. The railroad comparry
has supplied all of the equipment and manpower to do the installation at their
expense. As 1 indicated to you in our phone conversation this seems to have
streamlined the process - less paperwork and quicker response times. As I indicated
to you the County Would be willing to let the City coordinate this work and pay for
the materials since the City would is looking at doing a similar project on one of the
local City streets. Please let me know when you want to formalize this as we should
probably have a letter of understanding prior to proceeding with this work.
CSAH 75 Left -Turn Prablem nt TH 2i Slannl:
We briefly discussed the problem by phone and I did contact Torry Kempenieh,
Mn/DOT Traffic Engineer to get his thoughts on this as well. A formal study would
have to be done to determine what channeliration could be done to create separate
left turn bays for the CSAH 75 traffic. This would involve looking at turning
specific turning movement data, physical site configurations such as street widths,
intersection locations, and parking areas to determine what Impacts there would be to
the area to develop protected left turn areas. In my discussions with Tony
Kempenich he indicated that changes to the signal phasing alone would not be a good d
Equal Opporhwity / Affin�atim Action Employer ZO /'
idea due to the additional delays it would cause to all of the traffic at this
intersection. I know you requested a specific time frame for some preliminary
answers on this issue. I would hope that by the middle of January we would be able
to address this in detail and present some options for your consideration and
discussion.
FSI...a'. _ ice M air_:
You indicated that the City's comments on the draft small area problems study for
the TH 25 corridor were that the reap was difficult to read and that the
corresponding written documentation needed to be more descriptive. As 1 indicated
to you in our phone conversation the area involved is quite large and the maps had
to be scaled down to fit into the report. We will attempt to address your concerns
through better labeling and descriptive text. In addition, we will attempt to provide
a full scale photo or drawing to you for any public meeting.
1 hope this has addressed your concerns adequately. If you have any further comments or
concerns please contact me.
Sirtce y,
� it&vl�
Dave Montebello, P.E.
Assistant County Engineer
PC: Wayne Fingalson, County Engineer
Pat Sawatzke, County Commissioner
Fermi Robinson, SRF Inc.
File
OJNTY OQ
WRIGHT COUNTY
iZDEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
lr 111 Wright County Public Works Building
6 r7� 1901 Highway 25 North
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
7680 Jet. TK. 25 and C.R 138
Telephone (612)682.7383
Facsimile (612) 682.7313
January 30, 1995
John Simola
Public Works Director
250 East Broadway, Box 1147
Monticello, Mn. 55362
Re: CSAH 75fTH 25 latersectiun - Turning Conflicts
Request for left -turn lanes CSAH 75
Dear John.
WAYNE A. FtNGA180N, P.E.
High -7 Enalorr
6827388
DAVID R MOMEEI10. P.E.
Aniawt Hiahway Envi
6627387
RICHARD E. KARQUEM
Right of Wey Aamt
6827386
lbu had mentioned some operatioiml concerts with respect to the CSAH 75 and TH 25 intersection
in the City of Monticello. We have looked into this issue and the following letter summarizes the
issue and some potential solutions.
Based on these discussions with you it is my understanding that problems occur during peak traffic
periods when traffic on CSAH 75 is prevented from making a left tum due to conflicting through
traffic movements. Since there is no separate left tum lane, this results In a back-up of traffic on
CSAH 75 and requires other through traffic to divert to the right hand through lane. Left turners
must sit and wait till the through traffic clean prior to being able to make the tum.
Since our initial discussion, we have completed a peak hour turning movement count, reviewed
accident data for the years 1989.93, and also worked with MNDOT to review alternate intersection
configurations. Accident statistics show that there were 59 accidents in or tree this intersection in
the past five-yean. Of these 59 accidents 27% were left turn accidents. 25% we, right angle
accidents, and 22% were rear end accidents. While 39 accidents over five years is not an extreme
number considering the level of traffic that passes through the intersection, it does Indicate that the
main problems at this intersection are with the conflicts between left turning and through vehicles or
vehicles that aro sitting in traffic and not able to advance through the intersection. One positive
aspect to the accident data was that 83% of them accidents were property damage accidents not injury
type accidents.
Another problem with the intersection Is the turning ndi. The rads am insufficient to allow for
proper turning of lunger vehicles. larger vehicles tend to either tum from the through lanes or will
spill over into on coming lanes. This reduces the capacity and safety of the intersection.
It Is our reeling that If one Is to Improve the Intersection the Improvement should try and
address the left turn problem, and rodl problem. In addition, the late -ruction improvement
should not sacrifice capacity to address these needs as this area will continue to grow.
We looked at trn(10) options for reducing the conflicts with CSAH 75 left -turners and attaining the
above goals. The traffic division of MWDOT St. Cloud and Brainerd assisted us by running the peak
hour traffic counts through an optimization prognm.(See Geometric Phasing Summary For TH
25/CSAH 75) Option one is the existing condition. Options 2.5 would add a protwive left turn
Feud Opportunity / Affinutim Action Ehiptoytr /� /s
lane with slightly different signal operations for each option. Option 6 and 7 would have existing
geometria, but would change the signal operation to have eastbound 75 and westbound 75 operate at
different times(split phase). Options 8-10 looted at three lane concept for CSAR 75 eastbound and
westbound. Ibis would require narrowing traffic to single lane prior to entering left and right
turalanes at the intersection.
Upon reviewing each of the options we made some general comments concerning how we felt these
options would address the existing operational problems and to what extent that they would mate the
intersection operate better.
Anahsls;
Options 6 R 7 would improve safety to for the left tureen, but would nearly double the overall
tragic delay to the intersection. This option would require tittle or no capital improvements as the
changes could be made to the existing signal. Mn/DOT does not support this type of signal phasing
as it Is very inefficient. Since the intersection delay/vehicle would be increased by 30% to 20.3
seconds/vehicle these options were not considered to be an improvement to traffic Bow.
Options 8-10 were considered with respect to the goals and were rejected due to the fact that they did
not consider long term traffic growth and they would increase the overall Intersection delay. Trac
on CSAH 75 will increase as the area continues to grow. This is a concern when options for
reducing the number of through Ives are considered. The three lana concept would reduce some of
the Impacts to parting for CSAH 73 on the southeast and northwest sides of the intersection.
However, theft would be significant impacts to CSAH 75 traffic How on the approaches to the
Intersection due to lane drop and tum lane transition areas. It is our feeling that this is not the
proper course to follow and that the existing condition Is better than this alternative.
Options 2.3 would Improve safety and traffic flow by adding left turn lases to the CSAH 75
approaches. The problem with adding left tum lanes would be the impact on the parting and turning
radi. However, this option would provide the necessary capacity and w&ry for motorists and would
allow for future traffic growth. The operation of the signal would likely be changed to provide
protected-permlssive left turn movements. This would ftdace the overall Intersection delay from 13.3
seconds per vehicle to 12.2 seconds per vehicle. If one of the optiom(2.5) Is considered further the
following issues would have to addressed in much more detail.
1. Removal of on street parking on the Bre block either side of the intersection.
2. Removal of the street-scape nodes In the first block either side of the
Intersection.
3. Reconstruction of the four -foot median to accommodate left turn lanes.
4. Modification of signal to provide additional signal heads Por left turning
movements.
S. Reconstruction of turning rads R movement of signal poles. Especially the
NB TH 23 to eastbound CSAH 73 movement, Ibis turning movement would
(9D
become much tighter due to shift in median to south. Them is currently 58
vehicles that make this right turn in the peak hour.
6. Review of roadway cmwas and drainage due to modification in median and
lane configurations.
Summary:
If the goal is to improve the overall operation of the intersection it Is our feeling that options 2-5
represent the but alternatives. However, these alternatives do come with a high price and some
significant impacts. While the existing situation may not be desirable, it may not be bad
enough(existing level of service B) to gain the community support that would be required to
implement this type of solution. If this is the use we feel that the existing intersection configuration
is the but alternative. However, them may be other operational modifications such as. changing of
existing signal timing to Wow for more clearance time on completion of the CSAR 75 phase and
possible signing modifications to warn through motorists to use right lane. These operational issues
need to investigated further to determine how much effect they would have. It is my initial feeling
tint these type of changes may ease the left turn problem slightly but they won't solve It.
The intention of this report is to provide information to you for the purpose of further discussing this
issue internally at the City. If further action is requested by the City this work will have to be
prioritized against other projects throughout the County. In addition, Ma/DOT must be involved in
any modifications to the signal and intersection configuration.
If you have any questions concerning this Information please contact me.
Sincerely,
Daw Montebello, P.E.
Assistant County Engineer
Enclosures: Leak Hour Turning Movement Count
Accident Infbrmatlon
Mn/DOT Geometric & Signal Analysis
PC: Wayne Fingalson, County Eagioar
Tbny Kempenieb, MA/DOT District Traffic Engineer
Bill Cordell, Traffic Technician
File
TURNING MOVEMENTS
P.M. PEAK HOUR COUNTS
CSAH 75 @ T.H. 25
CITY OF MONTICELLO
142
418 184 —i
CSAH 75 92
� PEAK HOUR = 4:15 - 5:15 P.M.
T.H. 25
WA
46 441 146
J I LO
sir
141 556 58
755
T.H. 25
L 42,
N
i
CSAH 75
4-- 280 805
12/07/94
Bill Cordell
by: Dwight Redden
GEOMETRIC AND SIGNAL PHASING SUMMARY FOR T.H. 25/C.S.A.H. 75
All scenarios assume a number of right turn on reds. See the individual
analysis sheets.
20 G
Intersection
Delay
See Veh
LOS
Existing
Geometries and Signal Phasing
13.5
B
T.H. 25
phasing as is
12.2
B
Z•
CSAR 75
- 1 Lt lanai 2 Thru Lanes
Five phase signal (protected left on T.H. 25
only)
T.H. 25
phasing an is
15.7
C
CSAR 75
- 1 Lt lanai 2 Thru lanes
Protected/Permissive phasing (CSAR 75 only)
y
T.H. 25
phasing (protected/permissive)
12.4
B
CSAR 75
- 1 Lt lanai 2 Thru lanes
Protected/permissive
s
T.H. 25
phasing as is
16.3
C
CSAR 75
- 1 Lt lanai 2 Thru lanes+
Eight phase operation
G
T.H. 25
phasing as is
20.3
C
CSAR 75
- 2 Thru lanes
EB lead Lt/WB lag phasing
.�
T.H. 25
phasing as is
20.3
C
CSAR 75
- 2 Thru Lanes
EB lag Lt/WB lead phasing
B
T.H. 25
phasing as is
27.6
D
CSAR 75
- 1 Lt lane
(3 -lane) 1 Thru lane 8
Protected Lt phasing
9
T.H. 25
phasing as is
14.0
B
CSAR 75
- 1 Lt lane
(3 -lane) 1 Thru lane
Permissive Lt only
/C.
T.H. 25
phasing (protected/permissive)
17.6
C
CSAR 75
- 1 Lt lane
(3 -lane) 1 Thru lane
Protected/permissive
All scenarios assume a number of right turn on reds. See the individual
analysis sheets.
20 G
MNTM 25 066.00.60E
1 1 3 86 2635
3/21/91 09 N
3 02 30 01 05 01 99 01 01 03 02 01 01 04
01 N 01 01 42 01 910000027
01 V 01 00 99 01
02 E 01 00 99 01
MMTH 25 066-00.608
1 2 3 66 2635
11/01/91 16 M
2 02 30 01 05 01 00 01 03 OA 03 01 01 Or.
01 N 01 00 61 01 913050137
02 N 01 99 99 99
02 N 10 46 61 01
MNTM 25 066.00.606
1 2 3 56 2635
4/10/92 13 N
2 02 30 01 02 01 00 01 01 OA 03 01 01 04
01 N 05 07 99 O1 921010086
35 M 05 07 99 01
NNTH 25 066.00.606
1 2 3 86 2635
1/27/93 16 C
2 03 30 01 01 01 00 01 01 04 04 01 01 04
01 S 11 00 00 01 930270146
02 01 13 02 01
MNTM 25 065-0.606
1 1 3 86 2635
8/05/93 17 N
2 02 30 01 01 01 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 04
01 S 09 13 03 99 932170083
01 S 11 00 11 99
MNTM 25 066-0.608
1 3 3 56 2635
11/12/93 17 N
2 02 30 01 02 01 00 01 04 03 02 01 01 04
03 M 06 07 00 01 933160439
01 N 05 07 00 99
MMTH 25 068+00.611
1 1 3 56 2635
8/04/92 13 M
2 D9 30 01 0/ 01 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 02
01 N 11 00 00 01 922170176
01 M 01 13 00 01
MMTH 25 068+00.617
1 2 3 56 2635
5/02/92 13 M
2 03 30 01 01 01 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 04
14 S 01 03 13 01 921230035
01 S 11 00 00 01
CSAN 75 015-00.079
1 2 0 86 2635
2/11/92 15 N
2 03 30 01 01 01 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 06
01 W 11 00 99 01 920420132
01 N 01 03 13 01
APPA
••••"'••"•
INJURY
......••••• PROPERTY
RATES
VOWME FATAL A
........... ....... .......
8 C
....... .......
TOTAL DAMAGE TOTAL ACC. SEV.
....... ........ ....... .__. ..._
20990
0
2 2
6 10 49 59
1.5 2.3
1
PAGE 7
••.•. INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS
. BY DIAGRAM AND SEVERITY ••••• DEC 30.1994 MM/DoT Nils AA•4C
.TERSECTION AT: MNTM 25 068.00.601 JCT TM -25 WITH MAN 75 EFFECTIVE DATE
01/01/76 CATEGORY 33715
MM/DO1 CONSTRUCTION DISTRICT -•-
3 COLRITY
••-••••-• 66/WRIGHT
MM/DOT RAINTEMANCE
AREA --••-•••
38 NIMICIPALITY ... 2635/NONTICELLO
PATROL STATION .................
2610 URBAN AREA ••••• D000/RURAL
......•••••
INJURY ......••••• PROPERTY
OI AGRAN CODE
.......................
FATAL
.......
A 8
....... .......
C TOTAL DAMAGE TOTAL %
....... ....... ........ ....... .......
OO/MOT APPLICABLE
0
0
0 0 0 1
1 1.7 %
01/REAR END
0
0
1 2 3 10
13 22.0 IS
02/SIDESWIPE • PASSING
0
0
0 0 0 5
5 8.5 %
03/LEFT TURN
0
0
0 1 1 15
16 27.1 %
O4/OFF ROAD • LEFT
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0.0 %
05/1IGHT ANGLE
0
1
1 1 3 12
1S 25.4 IS
06/RIGNT TURN
0
0
0 0 O 2
2 3.4 It
07/01! ROAD RIGHT
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0.0 IS
05/NEAD OM
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0.0 %
09/SIDESWIPE OPP"INO
0
0
0 0 0 2
2 3.4 %
90/0TMEA
0
0
0 2 2 1
3 5.1 %
90AMKMUA1
0
1
0 0 1 1
2 3.4 IS
TOTAL
0
2
2 6 10 49
59 100.0 IS
%
0.0 %
3.4 IS 3.4
% 10.2 11 16.9 1 63.1 % 100.0 IS
D
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
21. Consideration of aouroval of 1898 Countv State Aid Hiahwav
Maintenance Agreement with Wright Countv. U.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Each year the City Public Works Department performs snow and ice removal
and springtime sweep -up on certain County State Aid Highways within the
city. In an agreement with Wright County, the County reimburses the City
each year for those services based upon the actual County cost of maintaining
its own highway system the previous years. Payments to the City are based
upon a per -mile cost for each type of maintenance performed.
Those County State Aid Highways currently maintained by the City are
primarily County Road 75 from Willow Street to East County Road 39, which
includes the four -lane portion, and West County Road 39 from Kampa Circle
near the public works building to County Road 75. Based upon the 1993
average annual cost, our 1994 reimbursement is $5,806.14.
This maintenance agreement allows us to maintain a higher level of service to
the community in keeping our main arteries open. Our snow plowing
operations are usually originated at midnight while the County usually starts
two to four hours later. We often have to travel the County State Aid
Highways to get to our own areas of snow plowing consequently, we have
taken over winter maintenance for County Road 75. One exception in this area
which is double covered is the area between the High School and East County
Road 39. The area in front of Bondhus always ices over in the winter time;
consequently, both the City and the County have joint responsibility for
sanding this area.
The first alternative would be to approve the maintenance agreement
with Wright County as proposed. A copy is included for your review.
The second alternative would be not to continue to maintain those
portions of the state highways as outlined in the maintenance
agreement. I believe this would result in a lower level of service to the
community and would not be in our best interest.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
approve the maintenance agreement as enclosed and outlined in alternative 01.
Q. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Maintenance Agreement for 1995.
33
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright Cwuy Public works Building
1901 Highway, 25 North
Buffalo. Minnesota 55313
Jct. T. H. 25 and C.R 138
Telephone (812)682.7383
Faeeimile (612) 682.7313
December 28, 1994
Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: 1995 Maintenance Agreement
Dear Mr. Ilex.
r
WAYNE A. PINGAISON, P.E.
Hish..r Eng—
6817388
DAVID K MOMBEn1A, P.E.
Aoia"t Iseh-q Enei-
6827387
RICHARD E. MARGUL-M
Eigbt d W.y Aamt
6617388
COPY
It is once again time to renew our annual municipal agreement for the maintenance
activities on the road(s) listed on the enclosed agreement.
You may remember that the costs used in computing the reimbursement for the
maintenance agreements in the highest average annual cost per mile for either the rural or
municipal roadway segmenta in the previous year. This is consistent with state -aid
procedures. In most eases maintenance activities are mora costly in municipal areas
therefore these are the routine maintenance costs that are used in computing the cost per
mile for reimbursement. 7b give you an idea of the cost for each maintenance activity we
have shown the 1993 average coat per mile for each activity in the 1995 maintenance '
agreement.
1 have enclosed two copies of the 1995 agreement for your review and approval by
the City Council. Please return both copies of the executed agreement. Afar approval by
the County Board, one of the copies will be returned to you for your files.
A check reimbursing your city for the maintenance activities covered under our I9S4
agreement, has been sem to you under separate cover.
If you have any questions conceming this or if you note any discrepancies please
don't hesitate to contact our office.
Happy New Yearl
Sincerely,
way Fingals
neer
Cou y Highway
Enc.: (2) 1995 Mein. Maintenance. Agra.
Equal tpportwuy / A(Cm"ve Action Employer `i I
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 1995
THIS AGREEMENT made and enured into by and between the City of Monticello hereinafter referred to as
the ' -ity' and the County of Wright hereinafter referred to as the 'County'.
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate certain roads and streets within
the City as County State Aid Highways, and
WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State Aid Highway within its limits as
identified in County Board's resolutions of August 28, October 8, November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and
January 7, 1958, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to the best interest of all parties that the duties and responsibilities of both the City and
the County as to maintenance on said County State Aid Highways to be dearly defined,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the following highways.
MAINT.
PLAN ROAD SEGMIE MILES COST/MI.0 TOTALCOST•
C. CSAH 75 Willow St. to E. Jct. CSAH 39 3.74 863.93 $3,231.10
(Includes four lane portion.)
D. CSAH 39 From City Public Worlds Bldg. to 0.32 215.98 69.11
W. Jct. of CSAH 75
B. CSAH 75 Four lame portion 3.10 715.98 2.219.54
B. CSAH 39 From CSAH 75 to Kampa Cir. 0.40 715.98 286.39
ESTIMATED TOTAL - $5,806.14
That routine maintenance shall consist of the following: (Maint. Plan)
C. (CSAR 75) - Snow and ice removal.
D. (CSAR 39) - 25% of the snow and ice removal.
B. One-time spring sweeping only.
*Based on 1993 average anrwal costs.
That when the City deems it desirable to remove arrow by hauling, it shall do so as its own expense. The City
shall also be responsible for all snow and ice removal on sidewalks and other boulevard related maintenance outside the
curb or street area.
That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance.
That the City shall Indemnify. save and hold harmless the Courcy and all of its &gents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of whatever nature or character arising out of or by
reason of the execution or performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by the City. It is f mhcr agreed
that any and all fltll-time employee of the City and all other employees of the City engaged in the performance of any
work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall be considered employees of the City
only and not of the County: and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Workmen's Compensation Act of
the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims nude by any third panics
as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employee while to engaged on any of the wort or
se- 4ces provided to be tendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the City.
(Sheet I of 2)
214
That the County shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of actions of whatever nature or character, whether at law or
equity, arising out of or by reason of the execution. omission or performance of the wort provided for herein to be
performed by the County including, but not limited to, claims made arising out of maintensnce obligations of County.
.ngiaaring, design, taking or inverse condemnation proceedings. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees
of the Country and all other employees of the County engaged in the performance of any work or services required or
provided for herein to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of the County only and not of the City;
and that any and all claimis that may or might arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any
act or omission on the part of said County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be
rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the County.
That in December of 1995 , the City shall receive payment from the County for their wort. This amount shall
be based on the 1994_ average annual cost per mile for routine maintenance on Municipal County State Aid Highways.
The average annual cost per mile will reflect only those costs associated with the areas of ranine maimenance for which
the City is responsible.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
1 hereby cenify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by
the City Council of said City on '19—.
City Clerk
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
COUNTY OF WRIGHT Name of City
Chairman of the Board Date
ATTEST:
County Coordinator Date
C
(Shat 2 of 2)
21 C.
10
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
22. Consideratign of "tting a Dtiblic hearing for the Citv of Monticello's,
Wastewater Facilities Plannina Renort. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the workshop held two weeks ago, the City Council reviewed several
alternatives for expanding our wastewater facility operations with Jon Peterson
of OSM and Larry Anderson of RCM. The alternatives ranged from expanding
the existing plant with at least two different types of proteases or just updating
the existing plant and building another sister plant or "B" plant somewhere in
the township and pumping that water back to the Mississippi River and
hauling the sludge back to the "A" plant for further treatment. One of the last
alternatives looked at was the possibility of building an entirely new plant and
eventually abandoning the existing facility. Further discussion centered
around the possibility of phasing the expansion of the existing plant, as these
alternatives offer the most attractive cost.
Also at the last workshop, the Council set an additional workshop for 6 p.m.
Monday evening, February 27, 1995, just before the regular Council meeting to
further discuss some of the alternatives and financing of those alternatives. In
addition, we discussed the possibility of applying for low interest financing
through the PCA to cover not only our design work but the actual construction.
It was proposed that we hold a public hearing on the plan for its approval on
March 27, 1995, to comply with PCA regulations that the plan have a public
hearing prior to approval. In order to meet the 30 -day requirement, we would
have to order the public hearing prior to the workshop on the 27th;
consequently, this is why it is on this agenda. As stated at the meeting by the
engineers, the numbers appear to indicate that the City of Monticello may need
to complete construction within the next three years. Also as discussed at the
workshop, there are some intermediate things that the City can do to buy some
additional time such as looking at our inflow and infiltration and such as
looking at some of the interim improvements originally recommended by
Professional Services Group. It appears that we will have to move ahead and
do something, but whether we move into a full phase design of the entire plant
or not is yet to be determined.
The fust alternative is to order a public hearing for March 27, 1995, for
review of the City of Monticello's Wastewater Facilities Planning Report
The second alternative would be to delay the ordering of the public
hearing for the Facilities Planning Report until such time the City
Council is comfortable with the complete report.
34
Council Agenda - 2/13/95
The third alternative would be to order the public hearing; but if the
workshop on February 27, 1995, proves not to be entirely fruitful, the
Council could cancel the public hearing at that time.
C. STAFF RECO
As Public Works Director, having gone through the last expansion of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant, I feel that we need to take enough time to be
sure that everyone is comfortable with the decisions made and the directions
we're taking. The Wastewater Facilities Planning Report is not yet a complete
and final document; and although we need to move ahead, I don't think an
additional few weeks at this time would hurt us. Consequently, as Public
Works Director, I recommend alternative #2.
D. SUPPOiR'ING DATA
None.
35
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Month of January 1994
PERIM A USES
This
Same Morltim LW You
Thus Year
PERMITS ISSUED
Month Dec
last Year To
Dale
To Ova
RESIDENTIAL
Number
7
5
5
7
Valuation
$3#8.700.00
619.000.00
$19.000.00
S3r5.700.00
Fees
$3.634.43
$209.30
1208.30
$3.934.43
SurWrpos
$173.57
$9.8
$925
$173.57
COMMERCIAL
Number
0
0
0
0
Valualbn
Fan
Surcharges
INDUSTRIAL
Number
0
11
0
Valuation
$3500.00
0
Fear
$35.00
$35.00
Surcumm
$1.75
$1.75
PLUMBING
Number
5
1
1
5
Fees
$220.00
$13.00
$13.00
$220.00
Surcharges
$2.50
$0.50
6050
$2.50
MECHANICAL
Number
4
NA
IN
4
Fees
$158.00
$158,00
Surd'a"
$2.00
$2.00
Other
OTHERS
Number
2
0
0
2
Valuation
$ODD
$0,00
Foes
$200.00
$200,00
SurWroos
$0.00
$0,00
TOTAL # P ERMI TS
is
7
7
Is
YOTALVALUATION
sw 00.00
00
$225.00
$22.500.00
546.70000
TbtAI NEEJl
>i421U.43
$151.30
0257.35
I 4
T7dTAL-WRU6IA0ETS
p78.01
511.5_
$1150.
_
$179,01
CURRENT MONTH
Ftt`J
NIMBER O
DATE
PERMIT NATURE
Numbs
Ppmn
swMam
Valualon
YNa voal
V91 Yoai
Sln o�oml rte-
A
$3.2-1803
6153.27
--JWfOpAO
# --D
0110o4
0
0
MWI•Fomlty
0
0
CommaWol
0
0
h1tlmAVla1
0
0
Res. Darnall0
0
Siam
0
0
Pubao Blags
0
0
ALTERAT W WRC-PAIR
DwcWrgs
3
9419.40
$20.30
440. t OD 00
3
5
Com morcW
0
0
Intlumial
0
1
PLUMBING
AD Trym
5
$22000
5250
5
t
MochNOCal
4
$155.00
$2,00
4
0
AD Trym
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
Swimming Pwt5
0
0
DoCks
0
0
MOVING PERMIT
2
5200 LD
2
0
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
0
0
TOTALff-
'_ is
_$4,21 17a07
10
MONTHBLG WKt