City Council Agenda Packet 07-10-1995AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIii.
Monday, July 10. 1885 - 7 p -m -
Mayor. Brad Fj,ie
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 26, 1996.
3. ComE&ration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens eommenw/petitions, requests, and complaints. peN De ae -;
6. Consent Agenda:
6A Consideration of adopting a resolution approving the 1996 Heartland
Express Management Plan.
6B. Consideration of accepting bids and awarding contract - School
Boulevard, Project 9"3C.
mss. Consideration of adopting assessment agreement - School Boulevard,
Project 96-03C.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of ordering storm sower improvement project
for the Maplewood Circle area.
T. Consideration of public works building project change orders.
8. Consideration of accepting sealcoatfng bids and awarding contract.
9. Consideration of adopting Meadow Oak 4th Addition development
agreement.
10. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 28,1995 - 7 pin.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
Councilmember Shirley Anderson requested that the language of the motion
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting be changed from 'as amended'
to "as corrected."
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 12,1995, AS PRESENTED, AND THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 1995, AS CORRECTED. Motion
carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that an update to the
Mississippi Shores site plan revealed a conflict between the
development and a portion of the old Broadway right-of-way. O'Neill
noted that correction of the problem will require the vacation of a
portion of Broadway. O'Neill also noted that a public hearing will
need to include vacation of a utility easement in conjunction with the
realignment of a sanitary sewer line located near the north aide of the
future structure.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CUNT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON VACATION OF A PORTION OF HART BOULEVARD FOR THE
MISSISSIPPI SHORES SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT AND VACATION OF
A UTILITY EASEMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REALIGNMENT
OF A SANITARY SEWER LINE LOCATED NEAR THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. The public hearing date is set for July 24,
1995, at 7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 1 O
Council Minutes - 8/26/95
C i ize w co mPam/ketitiena mquPs a. nd romp ain
None.
rnnaant ager a;
Councilmember Herbst requested that item 6C be deleted from the consent
agenda and placed on the regular agenda for discussion.
5A. •o aid ration afa syynlemantal resolution regarding thp, iaauanw
sale andd liy A of the senior hot ningrevenue bondw (Miaaissioni
Recommendadon: Adopt a resolution clarifying that the bonds will
be referred to as the senior housing revenue bonds for the Mississippi
Shores project. SEE RESOLUTION 8648.
5B. Consideration of brat. mase for sumpp nuninApnfinn.
Recommendation: Approve the first phase plan for sump pump
inspections as outlined.
5D. Vnnsideratinn ofan a aamant a;raa+r+ent between Wrigbt rotsn ysand
Che City of Monticello for )z*d waste compoat facilityat Mnni ippi
PBtk•
Recommendation: Approve the easement agreement between
Wright County and the City of Monticello for the operation of the yard
waste compost facility on a portion of Montissippi Park 6nm July 1,
1995, to June 30, 2005.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRIM
ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS NOTED IN THE
CONSENT AGENDA, EXCLUDING ITEM 5C, CONSIDERATION OF
PURCHASING A LAWN MtOWER FOR THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. Motion
carded unanimously.
Page 2 O
Council Minutes - 6/26/95
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak requested that Council
consider adopting a resolution modifying the TIF Plan for TIF District
No. 1-19 (Mississippi Shores), which would increase the TIF budget by
$42,000. She noted that the HRA agreed to the modification so that 90% of
the tax increment could be spent on the senior housing project, and the
remaining 10% ($42,000 budget increase) would provide for HRA
administration costs and/or allow the HRA to reimburse the City its HACA
loss if the project does not meet the requirements of a qualified housing
district.
There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public
hearing.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TD ADOPT A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE
PLANS FOR TIF DISTRICT NOS. 1.1 THROUGH 1.18 AND DISTRICT NO. 1-19.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-47.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that a recent series of amendments
to the sign ordinance inadvertently resulted in the removal of language
which controls sign size, and Council was asked to adopt an ordinance
amendment reinstating this language. He noted that the Planning
Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance amendment at a special
meeting held prior to the Council meeting.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHMUY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS
PRESENTED WHICH REINSTATES OPTION A AND OPTION B LANGUAGE
RELATING TO SIGN SUE REGULATIONS. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 272.
Page 3 0
Council Minutes - 6/26/95
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Riverstreet Station is seeking
a conditional use permit which would allow establishment of a sign system
for a building that contains three or more business uses. Presently,
Riverstreet Station contains eight business uses. After further review of the
sign ordinance and site conditions, the applicant modified their original
application by primarily utilizing a pylon sign versus wall signs as originally
contemplated. The original variance requests were withdrawn due to the
new pylon sign request.
The proposed sign system includes development of a pylon sign containing
information advertising the antique mall and the names of the businesses
located in the facility. According to city code, Riverstreet Station is allowed
58 sq ft of sign area on a two-sided pylon sign. In addition to the pylon sign,
a 38 sq ft wall sign would be placed on the south side of the structure, which
is well within code requirements.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT ALLOWING A SIGN SYSTEM WITH MORE THAN THREE (3) BUSINESS
USES. '!he motion is based on the finding that the sign system proposed is
consistent with city code in all respects and is consistent with the character
of the business area in which it is located. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that on March 13, 1985, Council
considered storm sewer and drainage easement improvements to the rear of
approximately 12 lots near the Maplewood Circle area. It was the view of
some of the Maplewood Circle residents that the City should be involved in
the project, as the previously -constructed lots around Maplewood Circle were
not properly graded to the easement line, and the current drainage swale is
now on private property rather than in the easement area. After discussion,
a motion was passed by Council on March 13 to deny calling for a public
hearing for improvements, and it was requested that property owners work
together to solve the drainage issue. It was also suggested that the City
could act as a mediator for a neighborhood meeting in an attempt to resolve
the situation.
Page 4 0
Council Minutes - 6/26/85
Simola went on to note that some of the residents of the area are again
requesting that the City consider this as a public improvement project, with
all or a portion of the cost of the project being assessed to the property owners
since they were unable to resolve the issue privately.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
JULY 10, 1995, AT 7 P.M., FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING STORM
SEWER AND GRADING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE AREA
OF THE MEADOW OAK DEVELOPMENT. The estimated cost of the project is
$10,000. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of mntrnct wiiti HDR fnr t�edaL of Waatpwatar Facilities Ptan,
Public Works Director John Simola reported that at their last meeting,
Council directed staff to negotiate a contract with HDR that would allow
work to begin on the additional study for amending the Facilities Plan but
would include a fail safe clause should the City decide to take a direction
other than the oxidation ditch or sequencing batch reactor alternatives. The
proposed contract would allow the City to move step by step through the
amendments to the Facilities Plan and the design and construction of the
facility.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MONTICELL0 AND HDR AND EXHIBIT A. SCOPE OF SERVICES,
TASK 1, THE FACILITIES PLAN, AS PRESENTED FOR A LUMP SUM OF $18,000.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. Co aid rr+tion of Ella for the month of i ne.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY SHUMEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE
MONTH OF JUNE AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously.
12. 1 nma mov d from mnaen ag n a for digrusminn.
BC. Conaidnratinn nfjWrrhaaing Lawn mower fnr parka d gaCL ICUt.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that this item was tabled
by Council until the search for a bucket truck was completed. Since
staff recently purchased a 1987 Ford 1 -ton bucket truck, Coundl was
again asked to consider approving the purchase of a new front -
mounted, heavy-duty commercial mower for the parks department.
Page 5 (D
Council Minutes - 6126/95
Council discussed whether the City should purchase a mower now or
wait and purchase a larger mower in the future after additional park
areae an developed in conjunction with new residential prgjects now
in progress.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIPLEY ANDERSON
AND SEODNDED BY BRIAN STUMPF T D PURCHASE A TORO MODEL
OM825-D 72' MOWER FOR $12,488 PLUS TAIL. Motion carried
unanimouslY.
18. athematt=
A. Councilmember Herbst requested that a policy be established
providing for Council review of major changes to employee job
descriptions.
Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that the Sports Federation
has selected a site other than Monticello for their facility. He also
noted that the group searching for a site for construction of an outlet
mall is still evaluating a number of cities, including Monticello. City
staff hes been working with the developer by providing information on
potential methods for Hnencing the fiveway interchange necessary to
support the development.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Mnnager
Page 6 a)
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
5n. Consideration of adojrtlnQ 1998 Management P an for he nnNee to
(J.0.)
A_ .F .RF.N .. N11 BA . GRA iNTn;
Council is asked to review the attached Monticello Heartland Express
Management Plan, whereupon City staff will submit it to the State of
Minnesota for processing. Following is a brief review of the status of the
operation and a summary of proposed changes to the system for 1996 as
noted in the updated management plan.
The Monticello Heartland Express has been in operation since November
1989 and continues to be a well -used city service. Demand for the Heartland
Express appears to have plateaued; however, it is expected that with the
addition of the Mississippi Shores senior congregate housing facility, future
ridership among the elderly should increase. Following is a quick summary
of statistical information based on the first six months of use of the
Heartland Express.
BUDGET
Year-to-date expenditures on all operation costs are alightly less than
projected for this date. It appears that the annual system operation cost will
come in at or slightly under the budget, which is set at $67,229. Sometime
during late summer or early fall, the City will need to go out for bids for the
1996 service contract, as the current contract with Hoglund Coach Lines
expires in 1995. Working through this process will require dome additional
staff and attorney time.
STATISTICS
It is projected that total ridership for 1995 will be slightly leas than projected.
It was expected that around 15,500 people would utilize the service. It now
looks like ridership will amount to 13,500. The main reason for the shortfall
is due to the fact that the Big Lake Nutrition Center went out of operation
early in the year. The Monticello Heartland Express normally provides
many rides to this site. As you know, in the past few weeks, the Monticello
Senior Center has been offering a program that will take the place of the Big
Lake Nutrition Center program. A rebound in ridership is, therefore, likely
due to the start of the Monticello program.
Council Agenda - 7110/95
It is also projected that the bus will travel more miles in 1995 than expected.
Thio is probably due to the fact that the city of Monticello is spreading out,
and the bus is having to travel longer distances to meet the needs of the
users. The trend is that the passengers -per -mile statistic is likely to drop in
years to come as the city gets larger.
COST PER PASSENGEii
The 1895 budget projected a cost per passenger of $4.34. Due to the fact that
the bus is running longer distances with fewer passengers, it appears that
the cost per passenger will end up near $4.78 for 1995. Slightly offsetting
this negative is an increase over the projected revenue from passengers. The
1995 budget projected $.65 per ride. It appears that the revenue per ride will
amount to about $.72 per ride. Finally, the 1995 budget projected that fare
revenue would amount to about 15% of the total revenue needed to operate
the system. Year-to-date projections are very consistent with this budget.
In summary, the Monticello Heartland Express is on keel and operating in a
manner basically consistent with the 1995 management plan. The 1996
management plan is almost identical to the 1995 plan.
As noted above, the 19% management plan is very similar to the plan
approved in 1995. The budget document supporting the plan reveals a 4%
increase in projected costa to operate the system. It also shows no expected
increase in ridership and a mileage projection based on experience in 1995.
Total cost of operating the system proposed for 1998 is $70,322. Of the
amount, the federal and state government will pay 8096 of the coat, which
equals $42,193. Fare revenue is expected to amount to $11,000. City taxes
will pay the balance, which is projected to be $17,000. This distribution of
cost is consistent with how the system has been funded in the past.
1. Motion to adopt the 1998 Heartland Express Management Plan.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the 1996 management plan.
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the 1996 Heartland Express Management
Plan. The Heartland Express has established itself as an important service
in the community, especially to the elderly. With the development of
Mississippi Shores, the need for the Heartland Express is likely to increase;
therefore, City staff recommends that Council continue to support operation
of the program.
D. SUPPORTING DATA,
1996 Proposed Management Plan and Budget Narrative; 1996 Preliminary
Budget; 1995 service analysis statistics.
MANAGEMENT PLAN
MONHCELLO HEARTLAND ESPRIE 19M
A. ORGANIZATION
The Heartland Express is organized and monitored by the City of Monticello
under a contractual arrangement with Hoglund Coach Lines of Monticello. The
1995 management plan, contract bid specifications, and budget are based on the
service demand and delivery experience gathered during 5 1/2 years of service.
Selection of the service provider for budget year 1996 will result from a formal
bidding process to be conducted in the fall of 1995. The 1996 management plan
assumes a 4% increase in service costs. If negotiated service fee of 4% or less
cannot be established with the existing provider, then a bidding process must
be executed to identify a service provider for 1995. The balance of this plan
assumes that Hoglund Coach Lines will continue to provide service in 1995.
The service provider, which today is Hoglund Coach Lines, operates the
Monticello Heartland Express and is responsible for the day -today operation
of the transit program. Gordy and Jerry Hoglund, owners of Hoglund Coach
Lines, are responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of the
transit system.
The service provider is responsible for hiring, establishing wages, and
terminating all employees working in conjunction with the Heartland Express.
The City of Monticello s Assistant Administrator, Jeff ONeill, will represent the
applicant in negotiating an assistance contract with the State. The Assistant
Administrator, with the assistance of the Bookkeeper and Computer Analyst,
will be responsible for monitoring the ongoing operation of the system and will
assist the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee and the City Council
in development of the Monticello transportation system operation policy. In
addition, the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee will provide
marketing and operations support for the program in the form of in-kind
contributions of time.
Hoglund Coach Lines, as the present transportation service provider, currently
provides bus service to the Monticello School District and to other organizations.
The transportation company atafi consists of 35 driven and 1 dispatcher. Two
employees in addition to existing staff have been employed to service the
contract with the City of MontioeHo. Of the additional staff required, one is a
Rill -time driver and one works part-time. Each part-time driver works
approximately ten hours per week.
5piA
MGNTPLAN.96: 7/7/95 Page 1 of 8
The transportation service provider is responsible for filing required reports to
the Transportation Regulation Board.
B. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOALS: The main goal for 1996 is to maintain a client base through
delivery of an efficient and effective transportation service.
1. Coat Efficient'
Establish a service level designed to encourage ridership while
maintaining reasonable operating costa through efficient use of
employees and a single 25 -passenger vehicle.
1996 Projected Estimated miles: 32,000
1996 Projected Cost per mile: $2.20
1996 Projected Hours per employee: 1,160
2. Service Effectiveness
Target elderly and handicapped markets with a variety of marketing
campaigns to attract initial ridership. Establish user -oriented system
featuring a minimal call -ahead requirement of one hour.
Achieve a ratio of .48 passengers per mile.
3. Cost Effectiveness
Make efficient use of transit dollars by establishing cost per passenger at
$4.64.
Establish revenue to cost ratio of 16%.
C. LEVELS OF SERVICE
1. Service Area and Pen �1� ntinn
The Monticello Heartland Express is intended to service the population
residing within the city of Monticello, the areae immediately adjacent to
the city known as the Orderly Annexation Area, and a portion of Big
Lake and Becker Townships, which are populated areas lying adjacent
to Monticello across the Misaissippi River and within the Monticello
School District boundaries. The population of the city of Monticello is
MONTPLAN.96: 711/95
,5A6
Page 2 of 8
estimated at 5,527. The Orderly Annexation Area and township area
population is estimated to be 4,000. These areas are outlined on
Exhibit A.
The Big Lake Nutrition Center program has been discontinued and
replaced with a program that operates out of the Monticello Senior
Center. Riders formerly going to Big Lake for this purpose will now be
given rides to the new local nutrition center site. Transportation to and
from Kjellbergs West Mobile Home Park, which is outside the city limits,
is now being offered. Also, transportation to churches and businesses
located in the township but directly adjacent to the city is provided at no
added charge. The coat per ride directly to individual mobile home unite
within the Hjellbergs West Park costs $2 per ride. No other
transportation outside the areas mentioned is anticipated.
Of primary impurtanw is maintenance of a transportation service level
that is attractive to city of Monticello riders, as the City of Monticello is
the primary source of local revenue for this program. Therefore, except
for service outside the city noted above, extension of transportation
service to areas outside the Monticello city limits will be phased in as the
service demand and concurrent impact on service delivery becomes better
understood. Extension of service level beyond city limits will be
considered by the City Council when it can be demonstrated that service
expansion will not diminish capability of the system to offer a desirable
service level to Monticello citizens. In addition, it must be demonstrated
that the City portion of the cost to deliver service to the outlying areas
can be recovered through a anabination of user fees and through added
cost efficiency created by new ridership. At such time that the bus
service is expanded into outlying areas, the City Council of Monticello
will establish bus fares that reflect the added cost of servicing outlying
areas that do not contribute to the local share revenue generated by
taxation.
The City will administer through contract a "dial•a•ride" service which
will feature a minimum one hour call -ahead requirement. The program
marketing effort will stress the importance of calling ahead sooner than
one hour before the ride is needed.
The City will be providing 2,300 hours of service between January 1,
1998, and December 31, 1898, which is equal to 9.2 -hour a day service,
five days per week, not including holidays. Sunday service may be
provided during the months of January, February, March, November,
M(INTPLAN.96: 7/7/'96 Page 3 of 8
and December. Service is to be provided between the hours of 8:15 a.m.
and 10:30 a m This service will be provided if the total cost is funded via
private donations. Any hours above 2,300 will be funded entirely by the
group or organization requesting the service. On the average, 8.5 -hour -a -
day service is planned for Monday through Friday. 1n addition, if
additional revenue becomes available, such funds could be used to
expand transportation hours. The cost to operate the bus beyond the
basic 9 -hour day would be financed entirely by the local share. Source of
such funds might include donations firom the Lions Club, M.S. Society,
City of Monticello, or others.
The budget calls for a total of 2,300 service hours per year. These hours
will be used as follows:
Summer month hours of operation - 8:15 am. to 6 p.m. plus .25
hours/day for bus prep time results in 8 hours per day. Total
summer hours equal to LM.
Winter month hours of operation - 8:16 a.m. to 6 p.m. plus .25/day
for bus prep results in 9 hours per day. Total winter hours equal
to IM5.
Surplus hours equal difference between total summer and winter
scheduled hours minus budget amount (175 hours) will be used for
special events and used to bring a second bus on line during peak
demand periods.
D. FARES
The proposed fare struc bm calls for abase fare of $1.00 per one-way ride. This
fare will apply to all city of Monticello riders, including elderly, children over
the age of 8, and able-bodied adults. Children under 6 years of age may ride
flee with a parent or guardian. Reduced fares will be available to all potential
users of the system through the purchase of ticket books. Reduced fares can be
obtained when tickets are purchased in bulk through ticket books per the
following table:
Base rate: $1.00
10 -ride ticket book $ 7.50 ($.76/ride)
40 -ride ticket book $26.00 ($.62/ride)
35 -ride ticket book $25.00 ($.7lhide)
yAD
MGNTPLAN.96: 7/7/95 Page 4 of 8
It is a distinct possibility that the price of the 40 -ride ticket book will adjusted
resulting in an increased fare from $.62/ride to $.7 ]/ride. This would be
accomplished by reducing the number of tickets in a book to 35.
Bus drivers will sell ticket books on the bus but will not make change for
individuals paying the base fare.
Ticket books will be sold on the bus, at city hall, the senior center, and at the
school district offices. The City Bookkeeper will be responsible for coordinating
ticket printing, distributing ticket books, and collecting ticket book revenue.
Fare structure for outlying areas shall be established by the City Council at
such time that it is determined that it is feasible to serve outlying areas.
A major thrust of the marketing effort will be focused on the primary
users of the system, which are the elderly and handicapped.
Approximately 750 citizens over 60 years of age reside within the city of
Monticello, of which a significant portion participate in programs offered
by the local Senior Citizen Center. This center will be a major trip
destination point and will also be the primary distribution point for
marketing information regarding the program. Successful development
of the senior market will occur if the Senior Center resources are properly
used in promoting the program. In 1995, approximately 40% of the users
included elderly and handicapped.
The remainder of the transit market includes mostly children. In 1994,
it was found that children utilized the system in cortjunction with after
school and summer recreation activities. In 1994, approximately 31% of
the ridership consisted of children. Continued marketing efforts will be
made to communicate the service to this segment of the population
through cooperative efforts with the School District.
Twenty peronnt of the local households are considered to be "low income'
as defined by the State of Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development. Ibis represents approximately 340 households within the
city of Monticello. A portion of these households utilize the bus
transportation program for economic reasons. An additional focus of the
marketing effort will include communicating the program to this group
through standard means and through organizations that have frequent
contact with this segment of the population. Local social services such as
the Food Shelf, the "WIC" program, Wright County Social Services, and
local churches will be utilized as the medium by which the program can
bre marketed to this special group.
SAIr
MGNTPLAN.96; 7/7/88 Page 5 of 8
Much of the work force that resides within Monticello commutes to points
well outside the city limits.
2. Mnr�tiag •on n
Standard methods for promoting the transportation system will be
utilized. The City of Monticello will strive toward development of an
eftient marketing program by utilizing many of the techniques now in
place in other communities. Such techniques may include but not be
limited to the following:
' Of secondary importance in development of an advertising
campaign is utilization of the local newspaper. A series of
advertisements may be developed to promote the system.
• Continued development and refinement of information brochures
describing the transportation service. Brochures will be
distributed to various organizations for further distribution.
• Development of an attractive image by maintaining a clean and
attractive bus. Service image will focus on providing "coach"
service rather than bus service.
• Clean and efficient operation of the transportation service will be
goals which will allow the system to market itself through ward -of -
mouth advertising.
• Local schools and the local library will be asked to participate in
marketing availability of service to youngsters.
' The city newsletter will continue to be an important tool for
advertising the system.
• Posters will be used to a greater extent to advertise the bus.
• A larger siga/diel-a-ride phone number will be painted on the bus
for maximum exposure.
": T J: l:.
The proposed marketing plan is relatively inexpensive in terms of Dost of
advertising and supplies; however, it does require considerable effort in
terms of man-hours. Much of the marketing effort requires personal
contact and one-to-one advocacy which is likely to reap significant
0-
5OF
F
MGNTPLAN.98: 7/7/98 Page 6 of 8
rewards in terms of ridership. Fortunately, volunteers and man-hours
are available to sufficiently market the service to groups and service
organizations.
COORDINATION VM E EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONS
The degree in which this program is coordinated with the Annandale Heartland
Express and the 3herbume County Heartland Express is limited On occasion
a Monticello rider will be transferred to a Sherburne County system vehicle for
Umnsport to pointe in Sherburne County. This type of occurrence is rather rare.
Likewise, on occasion a Sherburne County rider is transported to a drop-off
point in the Monticello transit area, with the Monticello system then
transporting the individual to a specific point in the city. In sum, system
integ ation and coordination is not emphasized. Discussions between the three
transportation providers in this area are now underway with the goal of
improving system integration and efficiency.
The Monticello Heartland Express will be coordinated with an existing
volunteer driver transportation program originating Brom Wright County.
Coordination of transportation service will allow volunteer resources to be used
for other longer distance driving duties such as transporting individuals to
metro locations and back
G. EXPENSE CONTRACT
New, revised expense contract with the service provider was established in
October 1992. This contract is attached for information only. A new service
contract for 1996 must be established via a bidding process scheduled for fall
1995. The budget has projected a 4% increase to the 1998 contract cost.
H. REVENUE CONTRACTS
From time to time, requests are made by various organizations for Monticello
Heartland Express service outside the standard hours of service. Financing of
the hourly cost and mileage of added service is provided by the organization
requesting the service. Such service is provided to all residents and not for the
exclusive use by the organization requesting service.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
None are planned.
6AG
MGNTPLAN.96: 7/7/86 Page 7 of S
J. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service
expense contract, which includes a vehicle maintenance program requirement
that is consistent with state requirement& Please see the tiansp Ution service
expense contract for details.
K DRIVER SELECTION
The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service
expense contract, which includes a driver selection process that is consistent
with state requirements. Please see the transportation service expense contract
for details.
L. INSURANCE
The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service
expense contract, which includes an insurance requirement that is consistent
with state requirements. Please see the transportation service expense contract
for details.
M. TIME DISTRIBUTION RECORD
The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service
expense oontrad, which includes maintenance of time distribution records in a
manner that is consistent with state requirements. Please see the
transportation service expense contract for details.
MGNTPLAN.96: 7/7/95 Page 6 of 8
MONfICELLO HEARTLAND EXPRESS BUDGET SYSTEM NAREtATiVE
Personal Services
The Monticello Heartland Express budget calls for administrative, management,
and supervisory services in the amount of $2,163. This amount will pay for time
spent working on the system by the Assistant Administrator, Computer Analyst,
and Bookkeeper.
Fringe benefits in the personal services category amount to $820. Total personal
services expense is projected at $3,662.
Adminia-raL+'ve Aw e
Under tariffs and traffic expenses, it is projected that the City will spend $200 on
tickets to be used in cogjunction with the transportation program, and $600 for
advertising. The budget includes $200 for legal fees and $140 for miscellaneous
travel expenses, which results in a total of $1,140 budgeted for administrative
charges.
V hi la Char"a
Gasoline and oil purchases made by the transportation service provider are covered
under vehicle charges. Based on a projected total mileage of 32,000, it is expected
that gasoline costs will amount to $5,120.
Orwr 6Qx%a ChAMU
The City will be entering into a new contract for service in 1996. The purchase of
service rate through the contract is estimated at $23.80/hour. The management
plan calls for 2,300 hours of transportation service, which results in a projected
purchase of service charge of $54,700. In addition, a mileage/maintenance expense
of $.1872 per mile is included In the operations charge, which is estimated at
$5,800. Total operations charges amount to $60,500.
Ina �rnn n a� r a
The transportation provider is required to provide insurance coverage in the
amounts of at least $1,000,000 per claim and at least $100,000 per occurrence. The
operator also provides comprehensive coverage for each vehicle and collision
coversge to provide replacement funds in the event of substantial loss. MN/DOT
and the City of Monticello are included as additional named insured on the
operator's insurance. All insurance charges are thus paid by the contrnctor and are
part of the purchase of service fee.
54 -.P
BUDGEW.NAR, 7/7/95 Pago 1 of 2
Ta ea and Fepa
No funds have been budgeted for taxes and fees, as no such expenses are expected
given the design of the Monticello Heartland Express.
Total operating expenses for the Monticello Heartland Express program during the
12 -month period from January 1, 1896, to December 31, 1996, are projected to equal
$70,322.
QUamUng Revenumi
It is expected that passenger fares, including revenue contracts, will amount to
$11,000 based on a projected ridership of 15,500. This projection is based on a
small increase in the coat of bus fares.
None are projected.
For the 12 -month period from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 1996, it is expected
that capital expenses will amount to $0. Operational expenses will amount to
$70,322. Fare revenue will amount to $11,000, which creates a total operating
deficit of $59,322.
[o
BUDGE 96.NAI 7/795 page 2 of 2
11,
PW 2. J F-",JWir.,m
SYSTEM NAME: City of Monticello
MONTH(NUMSEF
7
BUDGETED
Operating Expenses
AMOUNTS
Personnel Services
Personnel Services
1010 Admin. Mgrrs, 6 Supervisor Salaries
$2.189.20
1020 Operators' Wages
$0.00
1070 Maintenance and Repair Wages
$0.00
1040 General Oeke Support Wang"
$1120.66
1050 Operations Support wages
$0.00
1060 Fringe BeWits
$578.24
1ODD TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
$7,582.00
Adndnsuatrve Charges
a.�ana..:affin
1110 Marogement Fees
$0.00
1120 Taffft and Traffic Expense
$200.00
1170 Adrertising. Marketing. 8 Prmrotio W
$600 00
1140 Lepel, Auditing 8 Prolesak al Few
$200.00
1160 Security Costs
$0.00
1160 Office Supplies
$0.00
1170 Laeesa/RerdaN (Admin. Fedl.)(SPECIFY)
$0.00
1180 Utilain
$0.00
1160 Other O1mcs Admin. Charges (SPECIFY)
$140.00
1100 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
$1,140.00
Vehicle Charges
1210 Fuel and Lubricants
$6,120.00
1220 Maintenance and Repair Malertal(VahkJe)
$0.00
1270 Contract Service Melntenance Labor
$0.00
1240 Tim
$0.00
1250 Other Vehicle Charges (SPECIFY)
$0.00
1200 TOTAL VEHICLE CHARGES
$5,120,00
Operations Charges
1710 Purchase of Service
$61,700.00
1720 Depredation
$0.00
1770 Mileage Relmbureamard for Pass. Service
$5.80040
1740 Repair and Maintenance of Other Property
$0.00
1750 Leaeae/Rental(Garsgss,Vah,otcKSPECIFY)
$0.00
1760 Other OpmllomCharges (SPECIFY)
$0,00
1700 TOTAL OPERATIONS CHARGES
$110.600.00
Insumnoe Charges
.�.........n,.
1410 Public Llsbilhy A Prop, Damage on Veh,
$0 00
1420 Public Liability 8 Prop. Damage - Other
$0.00
1400 TOTAL INSURANCE CHARGES
$000
Taxa and Fears
••••_••••••••••
1610 Vehicle Reglannlon 6 Permit Fees
$0.00
1620 Federal Fuel IS Lubricant Tara
$0.00
1670 State Fuel $ Lubricant Tanta
$000
1540 Other Taxa S Fan SPECIFY
$000
1600 TOTAL TAXFS AND FEES
$0.00
1600 Tool Operating Erpatse(1npa)
f....eeO..hp
$67,229.00
1600 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE(Calculatsd)
$70,72200
m..a.n....a.
BUSSl1D WK4. 0747198
L
-I/�
11,
�c /M du��.t � / Y�(,
�• �' Y!x!!Mlln6y,Arr01,IrM..:
SYSTEM NAME: City of Monticello
MCINTH(NUMBEF
7
P�
BUDGETED
Operating Expenses
AMOUNTS
Personnel Servlces
BUDGETED
AMOUNTS
Revenue
2010 Ferabox Revenues
$11,000.00
2020 System Revenues
$0.00
2000 TOTAL REVENUE
$11,000.00
Federal Grants
...�..n......
2110 Federal Operating Grants (SPECIFY)
$0.00
2120 Federal Capital Grants (SPECIFY)
$0.00
Capital Expenses
1710 Vehicle Expertses
$0.00
1720 Lift. Remp Expenses, ate
$000
1730 Radio Epuipnw. Expeme
$0.00
1740 Fere Box Expenses
$0.00
1760 Otror Capital Expense SPECIFY
$0.00
1700 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES
$0.00
Passenger Statistics
2610 Total Number of Disabled Passengers
351
2511 Total Number of Ek" Paaseron
7,133 I
2512 Total number of Adult Paesngets
4,105
2613 Total Number of Student Passerom
0
2514 Total Number of Children Passengers
3,911
2500 Taal Number of Passengers
16,600
2515 Total Number of D41 A Ride Pasengers
15.500
2616 Fhced Route Passengers
0
2517 Total No of Volunteer Driver Passengers
0
Operating Ste islks
2530 Teel Vehicle Hours (Bus/Van Servloe)
2,300 00
2631 Total Volunteer Odw Hours
0.00
2640 Total Vehicte Miles (BusNen Service)
37,000.00
2541 Total Volunteer DAva Miles
0.00
BUSBUD.WK4, 07007/95 cat.
,� /,-,rIP2r2 rnq.Auror,IMI.r
Tie M /.3w coIt Cf
SYSTEM NAME: City of MonWeilo
MONTH(NUMBEI 1.3
BUSBUD.WK4: 07/07/95 SAM
BUDGETED
Operating Expenses
AMOUNTS
Personnel Services
2510
Total Number of Disabled Passengers
351
2511
Total Number of Elderly Passengers
7,133
2512
Total number of Adult Passengers
4,105
2513
Total Number of Student Passengers
O
2514
Total Numberof Children Passengers
3,911
2500
Total Number of Passengers
15,500
2515
Total Number of Dial A gide Passengers
15,500
2516
Fixed Route Passengers
O
2517
Total No. of Volunteer Driver Passengers
O
Operating Statistics
2530
Total Vehicle Hours (Bus/Van Service)
2,300.00
2531
Total Volunteer Driver Hours
0.00
2540
Total Vehide Miles (BuwVan Service)
32,000.00
2541
Total Volunteer Driver Miles
0.00
BUSBUD.WK4: 07/07/95 SAM
C.V. 1995 SERVICE ANALYSIS j
Prepared by: MNDOT OOIa of Tramtt
System Name: Ctty of Mon a0o
MONC95 INK 1: 07MMS
SerNoo
Cow
Revenro/
Passengers/
Cost;
Cwt/
Raven»I
Month
-
Exparmas
---
Ravartws
Passargm
Kaes
Was
Passenger
Pauorger
Moo
Mlle
Nae
•
Expenos
-
v
January
m $5.277.07
$176.30 v�v
1,173 ¢-
189.0
2.786.0 �w
1.50 ween
0.11 v�w=v
0.12 seer
$1.86
$27.92
9.03%
February
$5.002.30
$1.231.50
1.176
180.0
2.709.1
1.28
1.01
0.44
$1.87
$28.12
21.33%
March
$5.618.26
$860.00
1.171
207.0
2.858.1
1.62
0.73
0.11
$1.90
$27.28
18.05%
April
$5,011.97
$101.00
876
180.0
2,199.1
0.71
0.18
0.35
$2.02
$28.03
7.95%
Mey
$6.6m"
$768.00
1,0"
+.68.0
2.193.6
5.1e
0.75
0.13
$2.21
$270
11.50%
Juno
$5.111.80
$1.081.00
1,221
188.0
2,182.1
4.43
0.89
0.16
$2.18
$27.35
19.86%
subtotal
$31,950.28
$1,037.80
6.686
1,152.0
15,829.2
1.76
0.72
0.12
$2.02
$27.73
15.11%
Ady
$0.00
$0.00
0
0.0
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
August
$0.00
$0.00
0
0.0
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
Sapwnbw
$000
$0.00
0
0.0
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
October
$0,00
$0.00
0
0.0
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
November
$0.00
$0.00
0
0.0
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
December
$0.00
$0.00
0
0.0
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
Subtotal
$0.00
$0.00
0
0.0
0.0
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
ERR
Toed
Cwt
631,950.28
$1,837.80
6,689
1,102.0
10,029.2
1.78
0.72
0.12
92A2
$27.73
mvvaaavmon
10.11%
Y -TO vwvv
mmamavave wvmvmvnav
wmvvmmvv
ave:vvvvww
vvvvvvvwvav
wvwvw®w
owvvw�vw
wwvvwvwv
vvmvammnv
mwanvvvwv
PROJECTED
$63,900.06
$9,670.60
13,378
2,301.0
31,858.1
1.78
0.72
0.12
$2.02
927.73
16.11%
1998
BUDGET
$67,229,00
$10,075.00
10,600
2,300.0
20,000.0
1.31
068
0.66
$2.10
929.23
t1A9%
PERCENT OF
BUDGET
vovwvvvvwv avvvavvvvwv
17.5% 18.0% 13.2% 50.1%
vmwvvvww wvwvmww vvvvmvvww weer
66.5%
110.1%
sewer vvwvmvvew
111.3%
76.]11
81.1%
- v..vavavv®
91.9%
mvveaavmao
101,0%
MONC95 INK 1: 07MMS
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
se. Cnaadderationof acme tinQbi o nnd stwgirdincr Fndect. School
Ba—levard, Project 9BA?G. (J.OJ
A RFFFRF.N( F. ANT) BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider accepting bide and awarding the project for
the School Boulevard project, 95-03C. Bids were received for the project on
Jwme 16, at which time ten bids were opened. Barbarossa & Sona submitted
the lowest bid in the amount of $1,020,718.95. The bids were checked for
mathematical accuracy and tabulated. The Engineer's estimate for the
project was $1,123,919.40.
A few details remain to be completed before the City should sign the contract.
The roadway and utility easements need to be provided by the developer, and
the State of Minnesota must first provide approval of the plana which would
allow the roadway to be included in the State Aid Funding Program. There
should be no problem in obtaining the utility easements. The preliminary
plat, which includes all of the necessary easements, has been submitted and
will be reviewed by the City Council at an upcoming meeting in August.
Easements identified in the plat will take the place of the easements over
unplatted land that the City will need to have in hand prior to authorizing
the project to proceed.
Bret Weise has informed me that plan approval from MN/DOT will likely be
provided shortly.
B. ALT RNATIVF. ACTIONR;
1. Motion to accept bids and award the contract to Barbarossa 8z Sona in
the amount of $1,020,718.95 subject to the following
1. All roadway and utility easements necessary to construct the
project must be provided by Tony Emmerich.
2. Approval of plane by MN/DOT State Aid officials.
The alternative above assumes that the City Council has approved the
assessment agreement, which is being done simultaneous in
conjunction with approval of the consent agenda.
2. Motion to deny acceptance of bids and do not award the contract.
C_ STAFF CO PNMATION;
SUO recommends alternative 01.
n_ SLIPPORTINO nATAi
Letter Aram City Engineer, Bid tabulation.
Re: Street Utilities and Appurtenant Work
School Boulevard and Oakwood Drive
City of Monticello Project No. 95-03C
OSM Project No. 5579.00
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Bids were received for the referenced project at 10:00 A.M., June 16, 1995, and were
opened and read aloud. A tptal of 10 responsive bids were received. Barbarossa & Sons,
Inc, submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $1,020,718.95. The bids were checked for
mathematical accuracy and tabulated. The Engineer's Estimate was 51,123,919.40.
We recommend award of the contract to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. in the amount of
$1,020,718.95 contingent on approval of the plans by Mn/DOT State Aid.
The Bid Tabulation and Bid Extension are enclosed.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIA , INC.
EJA 1►.—
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Project Manager, Amodate
Enclosures
c: Rick Wolfsteller, City of Monticello
nm
56 A-
I .WAShcrm.1CdaMRRd1Y LTO
��X =tnc.
.XKI Park [lace Ea4
5775 Waloata [4 rukvard
Klirurapu65, MN 55416.1228
Jul 5, 1995
July
612-595.5,775
1-WXJ 755 5775
1'AX 5955774
fnµincers
Architects
Planners
Surve�ws
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Monticello
P.O. Bou 1147
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Re: Street Utilities and Appurtenant Work
School Boulevard and Oakwood Drive
City of Monticello Project No. 95-03C
OSM Project No. 5579.00
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Bids were received for the referenced project at 10:00 A.M., June 16, 1995, and were
opened and read aloud. A tptal of 10 responsive bids were received. Barbarossa & Sons,
Inc, submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $1,020,718.95. The bids were checked for
mathematical accuracy and tabulated. The Engineer's Estimate was 51,123,919.40.
We recommend award of the contract to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. in the amount of
$1,020,718.95 contingent on approval of the plans by Mn/DOT State Aid.
The Bid Tabulation and Bid Extension are enclosed.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIA , INC.
EJA 1►.—
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Project Manager, Amodate
Enclosures
c: Rick Wolfsteller, City of Monticello
nm
56 A-
I .WAShcrm.1CdaMRRd1Y LTO
BID TABULATION
FOR
STREET UTILITIES & APPURTENANT WORK
SCHOOL BOULEVARD 6 OAKWOOD DRIVE
CITY PROJECT NO. 95-03C
CITY OF MONTICELLO
BIDS OPENED: 10:00 A.M. ORR•SCH ELEN-MAYERON
JUNE 18, 1995 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
COMTRACTOR
Barberossa & Sora
Latour Constructlan
NoMdale Constnx:tlon
R.L. Larson Excavatlrq, Inc.
Ryan Cordmcllr, a Inc.
Arcon Corntructlon
Randy Kramor Excwalft Inc.
Bonino Excavating, Im
O.L. Coruractinp, Inc.
S.J. Louls Constntctlon
BID ADDENDUM
SECURITY NO.1
TOTAL BID
' $1,020,718.95
$1,047,534.40
' $1,069,225.21
$1.124.215.58
' 51,139,999.70
$1,141,447.62
' $1,199,344.58
' 11,373,7/8.35
11,432,794.93
' 51,737,162.87
ENOINEERB ESTIMATE _ _ $1,129,919.40
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON
1 JUNE 18, 1985.
BY:
Brat A. Welsst P.E:__
OSM Proles No. 6579.00 y 'Danlos Corrected Figure
S.VMATNQC%=TA@
J
Council Agenda - 7/10195
City Council is asked to adopt an assessment agreement governing the terms
and conditions associated with special assessments pertaining to the School
Boulevard project. As you know, the School Boulevard project was initiated
based on Tony EmmericWs request. According to plan, the City is to complete
construction of the project and pay for the construction cost via financing
obtained by the City through a recent bond issue In turn, Emmerich will
pay the City back via payment of special assessments. The assessments will
be levied against the Wein Farms North, lflein Farms South, and the 110 -
acre commercial) ndustrial area known as the Monticello Business Center.
See the attached finance plan for a summary of the assessment program.
Council is not as familiar with simple assessment agreements because
usually when a public improvement project is completed, it is done in
conjunction with the platting of property. The platting process is governed
by a development agreement. This development agreement usually includes
a section regarding financing, which is the `assessment portion' of the
development agreement. With this particular project (School Boulevard),
land is not being platted at this time; therefore, the agreement is relatively
simple and, therefore, focuses on the financing of the project only.
The next step in the development process for Emmerich is to complete the
platting process, which will likely be done in conjunction with the sale of
large tracts of land to commercial or industrial prospects. In conjunction
with the sale of land, it is expected that Emmerich will complete the platting
process. At such time that the land is platted, then a development agreement
will be prepared, and the assessments against the original unplatted parcel
will be assigned to the newly -platted parcels.
For the short-term, in conjunction with the assessment agreement, the City
will be acquiring roadway and utility easements for all the areas necessary to
build the sanitary sewer, water main, street, and storm sewer improvements.
At such time that the property is platted, the utility easement areas will be
incorporated into the plat.
As with other public improvement projects completed by the City and funded
via the special assessment process, the City will be requiring a letter of credit
in the amount of 60% of the projected assessment against the properties
improved by the development. In this case, the total assessment based on the
original feasibility study is estimated at $908,000, which requires a letter of
credit in the amount of $843,900. The letter of credit will be used to secure
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
payment of assessments on an annual basis. If assessments are not paid,
then, according to the assessment agreement, the City can draw on the letter
of credit to pay the unpaid balance of the assessments due for that particular
year. The final assessment agreement will incorporate estimated costs based
on the bid.
Finally, a portion of the assessment expense relating to School Boulevard
will be assessed against the laein Fanny plat and Mein Farms South in
acoordanoe with the development agreement governing 13ein Farms.
Please note that according to the finance plan, City expenses for oversizing
amounts to $392,000, which includes 20% of the cost of School Boulevard for
oversizing. The City will recover a significant portion of this expense when
the area develops and pays the trunk fees. The prejected reserve from trunk
fees for sewer, water, and storm sewer from the Ocello site is expected to
amount to $290,000.
B. kLTERNATM ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt the assessment agreement governing payment of
special assessments financing the School Boulevard project. Motion to
approve the assessment agreement is subject to:
Review and final approval of said agreement by the City
Attorney.
Developer providing the City with a letter of credit in the
amount of 60% of the assessment expense.
Developer providing the necessary roadway and utility
easements.
City Council should select this alternative if it intends on going
forward with the School Boulevard project. Please note that the
project cannot be awarded to Barbarossa and cannot be initiated until
such time that the details relating to the assessment agreement and
the execution of said agreement are completed.
Motion to deny adoption of the assessment agreement governing
payment of special assessments financing the School Boulevard
protect.
This alternative should be selected if the City Council is not
comfortable with the concepts as noted above.
Council Agenda - MOM
C_ STAFF RECO NDATTO :
Staff recommends that Council select alternative #1 subject to the conditions
as noted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA•
Copy of preliminary finance plan (final plat to incorporate contract bid
amounts): Assessment agreement to be provided at the meeting.
EXHIBIT C
KLEIN FARMSISCHOOL BOULEVARD
t.
FINANCE PLAN
1 ��
1
hr b.q 9. rrw rr.r.
D.•. C r=�•r�
• Orr a
rw r0. rrw
Or. D
4 rr. Y.�>rw
Or. O.r
lti•
rGi1 M� awr. (.. a.�. (..
w.•. a..n
..a
coDr
ora. u.r
........
"-- rr.0
r..... r..wy.� w.(ire
tit.
liv •In
no
e.... 1. ..
m r.ws wovavn
f.r..T lrr�
•.r.. rnYlWr1.
Yr
1
•1\
y
a\
n� ra\
h\
M rr..lwr
sr or..i.
ur rm
•
uYm
0
Y Y
Y
x o.rao..ra
ar. oa
•�.®
e...nl�.uwar
wa.rY
WfiY
r *,.. a...r �•o..oa
W.r Yw.lr•r DwMl
ar. mD
@a.W
ari®
IA.O
w�
am �Y
wom
I�fIW
tl
u o
wl Yt rr.atl
Yx1 o IY.am D
rrr
wwu
tL
)..r Ar Wi
s.a�
tll OT
Yn
a11Ob
1Q lm
ap
tl 0
a>!Iw w,.Y
Ynr D ws0 D
WYI
�
�
:r /f..s�
1•W a.a.Yw
sr
r
ICr
Y
YYrr
I.r ri
fr
rW
Y D
amr mry
Inr o Inrm o
aar
......oa\r Ye
lY
r
{T!
arW r
rw
tl
ar all
Ie ur wab
Yl,r
Iinl
w
C s•r�
- tR.11.r
uYr.rn
a0\
ant®
Yvm Ym.0
rrl.•
wnls ar.n-
tl
wrlm mr.fol
Irr•rr
Grl.
DY••IO err\IY
ICrO4 /DtY1um
rT
it r.r
i
Yr
tl
�
Iir rO w.am
YOf] TILT.
r
unr
M.LI
�
• O 0
•rw rwrrr...�.
Mrr11r.
.T
.w
w .w
.• tl
r
r
-+w Y.•I.a.yrnll.M
La M...a.�r.r rrl.Nr
Ylr wlra
wa0m Y
.
War
In Or
Yrs
aa.n
Ytlr
iw
Ii.)) Ir tlr
Its aW
uY�
�
r Om
i L•W.I�.wr nl.IwM
W® •nr
Wr
r1Y
Ylr
wrl VW
rn
Y�100
1. r.Irr..r nt.l•r
Ilaa Om Wr
wYr
Wr
In.w
ra I�r NI
w•Yi
wIm
t bl W.nlrlrr /I.MY.
Ir)I D» W®
IiYYe
Wim
i ]M M•Ilt rr�rY
�
nra 001 Y®
YnOm
rm0
Or. Y..•r�lrmltl•rar
I�YOm tltr
wYro
WaoD Wr0
b. Mnrrrl r�O.Y
Gnr.D.•rrrW 1.•i•.r
YD>ODe r0
w•)�
YYOY
Yir
Y•n
a1 w•
wIn
I�I�mO In�mi
b I. Ya IrOYf
\aaY
1 IAC av' - '
lir a7A�
a
ar Mq
Wlm
rYd
p
IM Oh
;�•n
�. hl Iia 1n
1)•m
Irr.m aw.n Ira.)
j G.r.l
ra
wW
Inn. wa arr
rw
wr re IIrtA Ib it
G.•rrn�lu.
I
IIo1 aa•1
rr
tr cru
�L�.�19�JSI1
hi wren
aIMT Ilr nl
wYr
nllh
IwW
n1i �L,rT
wYrvl
w ao
wrrn
wr.eo w.n an. Ya�
e� Drwa w..n uw
I I
I
•1 •rm
r
006.dWrao ArYwa
KLE 1 N . AGR : 5/10/95
56A
Pogo 150
JUL. -07' 95 (FRI) 11 56 OLSON/USSET ?.A. TEL:612 925 5879
D rJ,
Am Fr FOR AaasWQK� am •AzM
This Agreement mads and
, 1995 by and betty
municipal corporation (hereinafter
LLC, a KLnnasota limited liability
•Developer•).
WWMZAS, Developer is the ova
property within the corporate list
attached RxhLbits A and B (identif
and intend to construct thereon aL
residential purposes in the near f
WHEREAS, as part of the const
parties acknowledge and agree that
public improvements must be constr
necessitated by residential develol
A. Sanitary Saver imps
e. Watormaln improvema
C. Stars Sewer improve
D. Bituminous Streets;
E. Concrete Curb and C
into this day of
the City of Konticallo, a
ity) and 8 i R Development
mpany, (hereinafter
of certain unimproved real
of City as described on the
i hereafter an •Premises')
.e family homes for
ze (the "Project*); and
tion of the Project, the
is necessary that certain
ad adjacent to the Promises,
at of the Project, to -wits
mantel �l
I
to;
WHERRha, the parties acknowledge that the public
improvements as constructed by City shall •orvice other areas of
City which shall result in benefit to property other than the
Promises; and
WRZRZLS, City is willing to coastruat the public
improvements as hereinabove described on the condition that
Developer agrees to pay an agreed upon percentage of tho cost
attributable to the improvement to the Premises, and City agrees
P. 003
JUL. -07'95(FRI) 11:56 OLSONASSET P.A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 004
to pay and/or assess other bensfi property owners for the
coats incurred in excess of said t; and
IM, i., in consideration of the mutual proaiess
hereafter continued, the suffio _ I of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereby agsru as follows
1. Developers hereby petition City and City agrees to
construct and install the followinq public improvements in order
to Gamic@ the project,
A. sanitury Barer z to;
D. Natermain Improvosn ;
C. storm sever repro nts;
D. Bituminous streets;
B. Concrete Curb and Gu ter.
2. Developers hereby waivesir sight to notice and
1
public hearing to be held on said ovemsnts pursuant to M.B.
1439.091 and $429.061 and CO11 at the construction of the
above improvement and assessment 01 the costs of said public
improvements against the premises ir, accordance with City spacial
assessment policies as hereinaltsribed.
1. As to said public improv ta, DOvoloper agrees to pay
percent of the cost of @aid public improvements, int.�.�•'t
accordance with the attached 8xhibil C, which details the 611 ��-«•Id
estimated cost of the Project and the Developer's estimated share
as to each part of said improvesentr, which the parties agree is
the benefit to the Premises attributable to said public
iapravemants (for the purpose of thea OsAibit C, anhibit A is
identified u ocello aorto and ocallo South, and Exhibit B is
identified as Klein South).
JUL. -07' 951FR1) 11:56 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P.005
City agrees that it shall be ponsible for the percentage
difference between this estimated coat and the total cost of the
public improvements, or shall have the right, at its option, to
assess other benefitted properties for said excess amounts.
4. Developers acknowledge thait their share of the total
estimated cost of the public isprL to hereinabove described
as detailed on Exhibit C which City shall asses against the
Premises is $747,=50.00 for construction, engineering and
contingencies. Developer undars that this is an estimate
only as determined by City's smigirm r and that the actual figure
may be higher or lower, depending on various factors. Upon
completion of construction, City's anginsor shall determine the
Developers share of the I ,,— , in accordance with the
percentage of costs as stated in pa3agraph 3. Developers agree
that City may assess such amounts against the promises in
accordance with the provisions of tkis agreement.
a. Developer acknowledges thait the promises is the primary
bonofittod property from the public improvements and further
acknowledge that, but for the project, City would not construct
any of the public improvements.
6. Developers acknowledge that the total amount of the
coat of the public improvements which are the responsibility of
Developers as provided in this Agredmant shall be levied as a
special assessment against the PcenJoss on a per lot basis by
dividing the total assessment by thd total number of residential
lots as platted in the future as to RahLbits A and B. The
-3-
JUL. -07' 951FR1) 11:51 OLSONIUSSET P. A. TEL:612 925 $879 P. 006
assesamant shall be adopted by the City Council upon the
completion of construction of all ol the public improvements
't (' . 5-,P.heroin described, together with intArest at a rata to --be
The assessments shall be payable commencing
�- months frog the date of compla ion of all such i. „,.. . nte,
and shall be paid in full within years thereafter.
7. Doe lepar hereby waives a 1 rights of appeal that they
havo by virtue of KLnneseta Sta $339.081 or otheurviss, to
challenge the amount or validity or amounts of the assessments,
or the procedure used by the city is levying the assessments, the
benefit to the premises or lack thereof by virtue of the
improvements, or any other defense vailable to Developer, either
at lar or equity, to the aeeessmen of the promises as
contemplated heroin. Developer he roloasco tho city, its
officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related
to or arising out or the levying or said assessments.
a. Nothing contained herein shall prevent City from
assessing the Dramisea for public Laprovemento other than those
spocifically described within this igreament, all as provided by
law.
9. This Agreement shall be nstrued in accordance with
the provisions of Minnesota lav, shall be binding upon the
parties hereto, their successors assigns.
lo. Developers have reviewed is Agreement with the
assistance of counsel and anter int_ this Agreement as their from
act and dead.
JUL. -07' 95 (FRI ) 11: S7 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 007
11. This Agreement has been executed for the purposes as
stated herein, and in part in furtburance of the terms and
conditions of a Development Agreement between the parties dated
May 12, 1996, within Paragraph 6(b), the terms and conditions of
which Development Agreement are ins rporated by reference herein.
IN WI118S8 WMEREW, the partiew have hereunto set their
hands the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MONTICIM"
By$ iyt
Its: Its
state of Minnesota)
)aa
county of Wright )
The foregoing instrument eras acknowledged before me
this day of , 1997, by
and tla and
of City of Monticello, a municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corpaittion.
gotary Public
*II i K DEVELOPMENT LLC
Byt
Its:
State of Minnesota)
)ss
County of Wright )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ms
this _day of , 1997, bj
Minnasota�limited liability company, on behalf of tthheaant LLC, •
corporation.
Notary Public
-6-
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
Public Hearing for N
imIUMMynents. (J.S.)
With additional information being provided by City staff and input from area
residents at the June 26, 1995, meeting, the Council voted to hold a public
hearing on the proposed project on July 10, 1995. The project involves a
small amount of storm sewer and re -grading of drainage ditch easements in
the Maplewood Circle area. The estimated construction cost of the project is
$7,170, with an additional $1,434 for administration and engineering, for a
total cost of $8,604. These estimates are not based upon quotes or bids but
typical construction costs which we have experienced in the city in the past.
The Council elected to add an additional $1,400 to the project cost for the
possible addition of retaining walls and/or tree protection on areas where
elope easements cannot be obtained. Notices were sent to the 12 lots affected
by the project indicating a project cost of approximately $10,000.
The purpose of the public hearing is to discuss the proposed project with all
interested and affected property owners. The Council will discuss the merits
of the project and whether or not it should proceed with or without majority
support of affected property owners. There is indication that some of the
property owners wish to work with the City for the project in an attempt to
lower the cost by doing some of the work themselves. There was also an
indication that property owners would like some assistance from the City in
funding the project. This could be as simple as waiving the engineering and
administration fees or kicking in a portion of the cost of the project or having
the public works department do a small portion of the project as time allows,
such as the street patching and/or storm sewer installation. Although the
Council does not have to indicate at the public hearing if they will share in
the project or not, I believe the residents are at least looking for a consensus
Brom the Council as to if they would be willing to participate in some way,
shape or fora.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council can direct staff on how to
proceed in regard to how much participation by the City staff or public works
department there will be. City staff can then develop a work plan and obtain
the necessary quotes to proceed with the project. The Council can instruct
us to bring back the quotes at a subsequent meeting or merely proceed as
long as we can stay within the proposed budget, An assessment hearing can
be held at the conclusion of the project once all costs are known.
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
In lieu of the retaining walls where property owners may not wish to give a
slope easement, the City could consider paying for slope easement in these
areas to offset some of the assessment to those individuals. They may then
be more agreeable to going ahead with the project. Unlike retaining walls,
slope easements expire at the conclusion of the project and do not require
regular maintenance.
The first alternative, at the conclusion of the public hearing, would be
to move forward with the project by obtaining quotes, setting forth a
work plan to involve the public works department on a small scale,
and to negotiate slope easements where possible in lieu of retaining
wall construction and to proceed as long as the project can come within
the anticipated budget of $10,000.
The second alternative would be to, at the close of the public hearing,
proceed with the project by obtaining quotes for all aspects of the work
not being performed by the residents and negotiate slope easements
where less costly than retaining walls and bring this information back
to the Council at a later date for approvals.
The third alternative would be not to proceed with City involvement on
the project at this time.
r CT FF <, .OMMF.NDATION;
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City proceed
with the project as outlined in either alternative 01 or 02, as I feel the project
cannot proceed without City involvement and the project is in the public
good. It would also be beneficial for the City Council as a consensus to give
some indication on how they might handle the cost of the project at the
assessment hearing to indicate what participation, if any, may be given by
the City toward the project overall cost.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA;
Please refer to the information packet provided at the June 26 meeting for
information about specifics on the project.
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
,P. :
The construction of phase R, the Public Works Department Expansion and
Renovation, is in the final stages of building construction. A few issues have
come up regarding additional changes in construction, and staff is requesting
some additional painting on the front addition. Rather than go through
Shingobee Builders for the additional painting, we are going to work directly
with the painting subcontractor, Greg Cloutier. Greg offers the same three-
year labor and materials warranty as the original specifications, and we
would save the markup from Shingobee, which is at least 10%. This is
preferred by Shingobee, as they would like to complete this project within the
next couple of weeks with as few changes or loose ends as possible.
The following is a list of changes needed to be made to be considered for
change order #2.
The plans did not include fire chafing (fire stop) on the top of the
masonry wall between the new wash bay and the old maintenance
shop. The plane did show it on the other interior walls. Due to the
di. iculty now in inatalling the fire chafing, Shingobee Builders is
requesting an additional $260. This is a code requirement, and we
have no choice in regard to having the work done.
The second change involves the location of the roof drain for the new
roof on the maintenance shop and the roof on the wash bay. The drain
runs into the vehicle storage building and out the east wall. The plans
show the roof drain installed close to the driveway going into the wash
bay on one shoot, and on another sheet they show tho splash block in
the middle of the area between the door to the wash bay and the
vehicle storage (which is the preferred location). The existing location
will cause the water to run over the entrance to the wash bay and is
unacceptable. We did not catch We in time, as the subcontractor,
Anderson Mechanical, requested to stay late to mala this installation,
and the work was performed in the evening when no one from the City
was present. The plana dearly state that the subcontractor is not to
scale off the drawing but to use shown dimensions. In this case, no
dimensions were shown; consequently, if we want the pipe moved, it
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
will result in additional costs. The subcontractor, Anderson
Mechanical, has to remove the pipe to install a sleeve between the
wash bay and the vehicle storage, so we are talking about an
additional 12 R of pipe and insulation. Shingobee Builders has agreed
to patch the old hole through the east wall of the vehicle storage
building and punch a new hole for the new location of the pipe at no
cost to the City. We are currently working on the price for this change
and should have it by Monday evening's meeting, but we do not expect
it to be significant.
City staff deleted a 7 -ft deep 1 -in water line from the plans for
watering the landscaping in the front of the new building. We did so
for a credit assuming that the exterior hose bib on the east corner of
the building would suffice for watering the landscaping. We recently
determined, however, the plans show that the hose bid is connected to
soft water rather than hard water, and we cannot water the
landscaping with soft water. We expect these two to be a wash in
regard to cost, but we have not yet been able to got that information
from the subcontractor.
Some of the concrete block bond beam reinforcements were omitted on
the plans. The contractor installed the required reinforcement (re -bar)
at a cost of $325.
The following are additional painting costs going directly to Shingobee's
subcontractor, Greg Cloutier of Popp's Painting.
The front addition to the building contains some plain block stripes in
between the rock face block. City staff would like to have these
painted white to match the rest of the building. The coat to do this is
$585.
City staff was under the impression that the door and window frames
for the front addition were to be sherwood green, matching all of the
trim on the building, the skylights, and the mechanical enclosure on
the roof. The plane, however, called for bright aluminum, and the
painting was deleted as a cost saving item. This evidently was a mis-
communication between the architect and City staff. The cost to paint
the exterior of the door frames and windows with Sherwood green,
including a primer and a three-year labor and materials warranty,
would be $780. The cost to paint the interior of the window frames
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
and doors would be an additional $780. At this time, staff requests to
at least paint the exterior of the doors and window frames. As I
understand it, field painting is cheaper than shop -applied paint.
The six skylights for the building were also to match the sherwood
green. Upon reviewing the shop drawings, the architect shows what
he thought was a match; however, that color turned out to be an aqua
blue called 'mountain green.' Consequently, the cost to paint the
exterior of the ak"ts with Sherwood green would be $510. The
difference in color is quite obvious as you come off of Elm Street onto
Golf Course Road. The architect tells us the color of the existing
skylights in the vehicle atorage building was not available fiom the
supplier of the new skylights.
So far we are pleased with the quality of work being performed by Popp's
Painting, and we have authorized them to paint the existing office and water
department building using materials that we had on hand for two years for
that purpose. The cost of two coats of paint on that building is $1,130, and
those funds are coming out of the shop and garage budget Our workload has
not allowed us to find time to paint this building in the last two years;
therefore, this appeared the only way to get the job done. The City
Administrator and Public Works Director have authorized Popp's Painting to
proceed with that work already.
QV The first alternative would be to authorise change order q2 for the fire
installation, relocating the rain leader and re -piping the exterior hone
bib to hard water, and the bond beam. And to further authorize
additional painting for the white stripes, the exterior of the door
fumes and windows, and the skylights at a cost to the City of $1,875.
This alternative would also request the architect to explain the plan
problems and/or share in the cost of corrections.
The second alternative would be to add the interior surfaces of the
aluminum windows and door fumes for an additional $780 and have
that work completed now.
The third alternative would be not to approve the change order and
additional painting as outlined but to modify them as requested by the
City Council.
12
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
C- STAFF 12MMMRNDATION;
It is expected that we will have costs of relocating the rain leader and the
trade-offs for the landscape watering connection for Monday evening's
meeting. I have also requested that a representative from the architectural
firm, OSM, be available at Monday evening's meeting should the Council
have any direct questions regarding the change for the fire stop, material
between the wash bay and the maintenance bay, or the painting of the
skylights. Currently, City staff favors alternative #1 or alternative 02.
None.
13
Council Agenda • 7/10/95
The bids for our annual sealcoating project are due Monday, July 10, 1995, at
2 p.m. Consequently, that information will be provided at the Council
meeting. 'ibis year's project consists of 41,751 sq yds of sealcoating in the
eastern portion of the community, which includes the Cardinal Hills and
Briar Oakes subdivisions. We expect the bids to come in less than our
budgeted amount of $27,500.
After review of the bid information at Monday evening's meeting, the
following alternative actions can be considered.
The first alternative would be to award the annual sealcoating prgjed
to the lowest responsible bidder, keeping the expenditures within the
allowable budget amount of $27,600.
The second alternative would be to award to the lowest responsible
bidder even though the bide are slightly over our budgeted amount of
$27,600, malting the difference up with the state -aid maintenance
funds.
The third alternative would be not to award the project at this time.
C_ STAFF RECOMMENnATION:
Staff is assuming that we will have a low responsible bidder within budget
range as outlined in alternative 01. However, we would hold our
recwmmendation until review of the bids at the Council meeting.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA-
None. Please refer to your information provided in the June 28 agenda for
maps of tho areas to be seWmated.
14
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
Ming
. (J.O.)
City Council is asked to consider adopting a development agreement which
outlines terms associated with installation of utilities to the Meadow Oak 4th
Addition. As you may recall from a previous review of this matter a few
weeks ago, the Meadow Oak 4th Addition consists of 13 lots that were platted
in the early 1980's. At the time of platting, there was no development
agreement in place that required extension of streets and utilities to the
platted lots. The time is now ripe for development of the property according
to Kevin Cook and Dave Schulte. They are requesting that Council grant
permission to install utilities on a private basis.
The development agreement proposes terms and conditions that are very
similar to the River Mill agreement. In terms of the financial guarantee, the
agreement requires establishment of a disbursement agreement, which
assures the City that funds are available to complete the project as outlined
in the approved plana. Under the disbursement agreement, funds are
provided by a local lending institution, which are not released to pay
contractors until such time that the City has reviewed the invoice outlining
work completed. After review and approval of the pay estimates by the City,
the money is then released by the bank to the contractor.
The agreement calls for close inspection of the improvements by the City's
Construction Inspector. As you may know, the development plan for the
Meadow Oak subdivision called for residential lots that are less than the
standard 12,000 sq ft minimum. In exchange for allowing smaller lots, the
City required dedication of pathways and other common open space areas. In
addition, a concession was made as to the side yard setbacks. Each property
is allowed one 10 -ft and one 5 -ft side yard setback. Current code outside of
PUD areas requires that both side yard setbacks be established at 10 ft.
Wetland areas will be impacted by the project; however, according to rules
governing wetlands, the site is exempt from the rules identified in the 1991
wetland legislation. See attached Exemption 24.
Finally, the development agreement submitted is in draft form only. Late on
Thursday, Paul Weingarden informed me that he would be unable to provide
the updated draft in time to be placed in the City Council agenda.
is
Council Agenda - 7/10/95
Motion to approve the development agreement subject to the following
conditions being met:
1. Review and approval of the grading plan by the Army Corps of
Engineers to determine consistency with Army Corps of
Engineers wetland regulations.
2. Approval by the City Engineer of the final utility plans.
Final revision and updates as deemed necessary by the City
Attorney.
Motion to deny approval of the development agreement.
City Council should select this alternative if it feels that the public
improvement project should be done by the City rather than done by
private parties and inspected by the City, Selection of this alternative
would not be consistent with the general policy of the City, which has
been to provide developers with the option of doing projects privately
or via the City, Chapter 4219, process.
t:. STAFF O MF.NDATION:
Staff recommends alternative # 1. The development agreement as proposed is
consistent with what the City Council has approved in the past for the River
Mill project. In addition, the Pollution Control Agency has indicated that due
to the small size of the development, they are willing to grant the sanitary
sewer permit necessary to support this projem The PCA is satisfied that the
City is moving forward on a timely basis to resolve wastewater treatment
plant capacity problems and that it is acceptable to allow this small
development to occur.
Draft copy of development agreement done to date; Exemption 24.
16
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
MEADOW OAK 41H ADDITION RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 1895, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a
municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota (the
'City,'), and (the *Developer").
R.FCITAi Q:
WHEREAS, the City has approved the t of th all 4th
Addition (the `Subdivision'), said land legally d 'bed a fo bit
attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Pro , w . Subdi of
13 single family residential units and areas for _ purposes;
WHEREAS, Developer intends to con
maintain streets, storm sewer, water main,
activities in acco:danoe with the plans and
all at the sole cost and expense of Develg96
WHEREAS, the City has by
final approval to install improv
within Agreement and that D
contained herein.
for, and
y, and drainage
after described,
, 1895, granted
'Developer enter into the
the terms and conditions
`the premises and the mutual
it is hereby agreed as follows:
The Developer agrees that the Subdivision shall
be de the exhibits attached hereto, which are
here by nos as if fully set forth herein. The exhibits
Exhibit Plat
Exhibit - tective Covenants
Prior to to of City authorization to proceed with commencement of
Developer must Me protective covenants and pay to City any
utstanding expenses incurred by City for plat and other
e opment purposes, including but not limited to engineering, legal, and
other professional staff fees.
The protective covenants must be approved and executed in aocordance with
City and County ordinances and filed in the office of the Wright County
Recorder at Developer's expense no later than July 17,1895. A A-
MaTHADD.AOR:60M5 Page i
Failure to file the protective covenants by this date shall render this
Agreement null and void in its entirety.
2. Repr+esentatinnw of I?evploner. As inducement to the Citys approval of the
engineering specifications and authorization to proceed with construction
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 uthority
to enter into this Agreement.
B. That the intended use of the property' rs' i development.
C. That the Subdivision complies wi city, Y. '^ fed
laws and regulations, including bu ziot limi to City
ordinances and zoning ordinances.
D. That to the beat of Developer's kno t>be ubdivision does not
require an Environmental Anse nt r an
Environmental Impact Statem , ut a same if
required to do so by City or en y pursuant to law
and shall reimburse City in by City in
connection with the p do ncluding staff time and P
attorneys' fees.
E. The Subdivide lies all w and protection legislation.
9. agrees it shall construct, install,
a4- It Lain blic ' ents (Developer Improvements') on
610 y, a y s sole cost and expense, in accordance with the
fol a 'bits:
C evelvdent Plan
rtlu p — truction Plan
eveloper Developer Improvements shall be performed in
accordance wi the plane, specifications, and preliminary engineering
reports app or to be approved by the City Engineer and the City prior to
common t of construction and, thereafter, in accordance with all City
ations, ordinances, and the requirements of this Agreement,
I include, but not be limited to the following:
`�..1. Street and pathway, grading, graveling, surfacing, and stabilizing
which shall include curbs, gutter, and driveway approaches.
2. Pathway grading, graveling, surfacing, and stabilizing.
M04THADDAGR: 6M5 Page 2
3. Storm sewers, including all necessary catch basins, and
appurtenances.
4. Water main, including all appurtenances.
6. Sanitary sewer, including all appurtenances.
6. Setting of lot and block monuments.
7. Surveying and staking.
8. Site grading consistent with landsca th on Control
Policy Residential Lots regulation.
9. Establishment of post office eluate s and box with ps
of four or more in the single family . _ al area, providhat each
group shall be no closer than 200 f y other group.
10. The City shall install street name and other traffic
control signs at all locationsde necess by , at Developer's
cost and expense.
4. Permits. Upon execution of Agre Dev r and other necessary
parties shall promptly appl r all ts, ala, licenses, or other
documents from any an eoes gove ental agencies (which may
include the City, Wri ty . A, an ) so as to enable Developer to
construct the Develo pro , me erein contemplated. Developer
its best to oil
a as soon as reasonably possible.
u b is m City, Developer acknowledges and
tit r wer fee shall be incorporated into each
builds issu in an amount estimated at $660, which
Dov fair` reasonable. No grading or building permit shall
ued b Be plans or application are in comformity with the
ty eompreh Y0 , this Agreement, and all local, state, and federal
regulations. y shall, within fifteen (16) days of receipt of plans or
building pe applications, review such submittal to determine whether
the fereaoi auirements have been met.
sterns said plans or applications are deficient, it shall notify the
r in writing stating the deficiencies and the steps necessary for
ction. Issuance of a grading or building permit by City shall be a
conclusive determination that the plans or applications have been approved
as to the requested activity by Developer and satisfies the provisions of this
section.
M04THADDAGR: 629MS Page 3
qC1
The City may 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
sewer and water systems, installation of erosion control measures, and
roadway development sufficiently completed to support access by emergency
vehicles, snowplows, and garbage tricks, to be determined by the City
Engineer in his sole but reasonable discretion. Until such approval is
granted, no dwelling maybe occupied on either a temporary or ent
basis, except that model homes may be occupied by sale re 61 for
marketing and related purposes. p
Notwithstanding this provision, if the Dev 'r is in
Agreement as hereinafter defined, in ad ' n to an I
by this Agreement, City may refuse to issW4 cert'
lot or parcel in the Subdivision until Dev s
herein.
Pse- -o i r•icrion Act vi o& The Develofkt4 or
pre -construction meeting with City w a
construction of the Developer Imp
all necessary governs
unavoidable delays, D
Improvements within
to of
the di
shall schedule a
iedule for
Upon obtaining
permits, subject to
construction of the Developer
ents- Developer shall
vision Items and Developer
vith the terns of this Agreement. Developer
workmanship and materials respecting such
firer Improvements for a period of one year
the same ('Guarantee Period').
e Develops *W air or replace, as directed by the City and at the
eveloper'e so and expense, any work and/or materials that become
defective, in so a but reasonable opinion of the City or its Engineer,
provided a City or its Engineer give notice of such defect to Developer
within nths following the end of the Guarantee Period. The
or Do
velopea'e contractors, shall poet maintenance bonds or other
ecceptablo to City to secure these warranties.
In Wr llon of Imp=nm n . 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 improvements until final certification of acceptance is
qD
U04THADD.AGR: 6r N5 Page 4
approved by City for all Developer Improvement items and expiration of any
applicable warranty period. Inspections by the City are to be logged and
reported bi-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 ensure that the
construction work meets with approved City standards as a condition of City
acceptance.
Developer shall cause its contractor to furnish City wi sch a of
proposed operations at least five (b) days prior the meat of the
construction of each type of Subdivision Its De rovements.
The City shall inspect all such work items and ction fo
compliance with approved specificatiom o re q;,
final certification of acceptance is approv Ci d exp'
applicable warranty period. y
9. Acceptance of im, =mant, Upon notifi t7 loper that any of the
Developer Improvements have been co m ted, (10) days City
Engineer shall inspect the Developer vemen ' 0 . sole
discretion, determine if the Devel roveme been completed
in accordance with the plans, s e attached hereto.
If the City Engineer dete s the a De Improvements have been
completed in accordance said quire ts, the City Engineer shall give
the Developer written of City's ptance of the Developer
Improvements wi en (7 s efi a as of the date of the inspection.
If ty E e Developer Improvements) is not
in a th am requirements, the City Engineer shall
no r i ' the deficiency and provide a reasonable date
upon cy. Failure by the Developer to cure within
the od constitute an Event of Default.
10. . Developer agrees to complete the
ubdivision I d Developer Improvements on or before September 1,
1998. The co otion date as provided herein is subject to unavoidable
delays as he r defined, in which event the completion date may be
extended a period of such unavoidable delays.
urpose of this section, unavoidable delays mean delays which are
ed 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 authorized or contemplated by this Agreement.
M04THADD.A(1R; 829M5
Page 6
-Iv
In the event 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 but reasonable
discretion.
11. Ownership of ImSmxenzaU. 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 public
easments and public right-of-ways as shown on the S viai at shall
become City property without further notice or action. y days
thereafter, and before any security as herei_ _ , Developer
shall supply City with a complete set of re ^ cible " and
"DEVELOPMENT PLAN' plans in a fo ptabl th ne
without charge to City, which documents 1 e the p
12. Mpan 11n. The Developer shall properly oil, earth, or debris on
City -owned property or public right-of-wa m construction work
by the Developer, its agents, or assigns.
13. velope , at its expense,
prepare any streets located in ran owing and other
maintenace that Developer ' s Ci rior to formal
acceptance by City of such te. pre shall include, without
limitation, ramping any oles nese to avoid damage to
snowplows or other ve street ' ntenance. Should damage
occur to City ano to ' or oth hick , ring the course of snowplowing
or o er mainte raced formal acceptance of the street by
C' + ch a used oper's failure to properly prepare or
1e1i1a a open a 1 pay all such damages and shall
i hol eas for all such damage, coat, or expense
in with ereto.
14. P+aicnl. The Developer shall provide and comply with
sion and ntrol provisions in the landscape plan and City policy
requimments 'bed in paragraph 3(8) and as otherwise required by
City. As deve ment progresses, the City may impose additional erosion
and drainag , ntrol requirements if, in the sole but reasonable opinion of
the City eer, they would be useful and appropriate in controlling
Yt` erosion. Developer shall promptly comply with such erosion
control plana and with such additional instructions it receives
15. Hold Hair dnae Agi=rinont. Developer acknowledges that its failure to
implement the plans and exhibits as contained herein may cause flooding
and/or damage to adjoining property owners. In such event, Developer
M04T11ADDAGR: &M3 Page 6 1 F
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 recognize 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 persona 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
authorized to undertake any corrective action it deems neces prevent
or minimize any such flooding and/or damage. In such nt, eloper
agrees to hold City harmless and indemnify C' y from all third
parties for damages arising out of said co 1 acti by , and agrees
to reimburse City for all out-of-pocket in sing ou
of the corrective action, including but not ted to ce dry
landscape disrupted soils located within u
16. InairnIIce.
A. The Developer will provide and
taro be maintained at
all Limen during the process of
cling` per
Improvements until six (6)
r accep of all Developer
,
Improvements and, from
a eat of the City
furnish with proof of ent o
(i) Comprehe gene
iabilit nsurance (including
operatio liabilit
operations of subcontractors,
comple perati and ual liability insurance)
toge th an
retractor's Policy with limits against
in
eath, and property damage (to include,
bu We to
es caused by erosion or flooding)
which out of the Developer's work or the work of any
r bodily injury or death shall not be less than
for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each
ce; limits fol property damage shag not be less than
00 for each occurrence. The City, City Engineer, and
veloper's Engineer shall be an additional named insured on
'd policy. Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage
with the City upon request.
(ii) Worker's compensation insurance, with statutory coverage.
17, Security for Gust of Impmomnnts. For the purpose of financing the
construction, installation, and maintenance of the Developer Improvements,
and to pay all associated costs and expenses of City as described in
paragraph 18, Developer shall, upon execution of this Agreement` execute
qG
M04THADDAGR: &19/e5 Page 7
18.
and deliver to ('Lender") a Note and Mortgage
encumbering the property in an amount not less than $ . 'lhe
proceeds of this loan shall be escrowed by Lender and disbursed only in
accordance with the terns and conditions of a certain Disbursement
Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated by reference
herein.
No work shall be commenced under this Agreement until the Note, Mortgage,
and Disbursement Agreement have been executed and certified g&es filed
with City.
ReggongjhLtg for fajaW.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs ' by ' e
with the development of the Subdi n, ' bu
construction of Developer Improv gal, planning, ring,
and inspection expenses incurred in n with approval and
acceptance of the Subdivision plat, on of this Agreement,
and all reasonable costs and exile a City in
monitoring and inspecting dev eat of 'cion.
^VT
B. The Developer shall pay ' bmi �by the City within
thirty (30) days after pt. t paid on time, the City
may halt all plat dev pmen ork bills are paid in full.
C. The Developer Id City its officers and employees
harmless from y i third parties for damages
sustained in from Subdivision plat approval
dev Tho r shall indemnify the City and its
rs ees for costs, damages, or expenses which the
pa in consequence of such claims, including
e at s. Provided that nothing herein shall require
ind the City, its officers or employees from any
ON or m the consequences of their own negligence.
The shall reimburse the City for its costs incurred in the
enforce nt of this Agreement, including engineering and reasonable
alto 'fees.
Developer represents and
t (except for associating with other individuals or entities), prior to
completion of the Developer Improvements as certified by the City:
A. Except only by way of security for, and only for the purpose of
obtaining tinanaing necessary to enable the Developer or any successor
in interest to the Property, or any part thoroof, to perform its
obligations with respect to the construction of the Developer
U04THAINUOR:6I79 5 Page 8 1
20
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, of 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 written
approval of City.
B. In the absence of specific written agreement by the City
contrary, no such transfer or approval by City be ed to
relieve Developer from any of its obliga 'one. I t that City
approves a substitute developer and pe erred to said
substitute, the City agrees to relieve evelo ty from
performance as described in this co ct. 1
assume all responsibilities and rig f th eveloper
contract. '
EVenta of Default Defined. The following nts of Default' under
this Agreement and the term 'events of ult whenever it is
used in this Agreement (unless the othe s), any one or
more of the following events:
A. Failure by the Develo ob tially perform any
covenant, condition, do r on its part to be observed
or performed and e f this ement, or the Disbursement
Agreement by ee ity, th veloper, and Lender.
B. If the Dev shall a its inability to pay its debts
neral beco shall file a petition in bankruptcy, or
MA an or the benefit of its creditors, or shall
t to ent of a receiver of itself or of the whole or any
file a petition under the federal bankruptcy
laws.
D. If the D Weloper is in default under the Mortgage and has not entered
into adrk-out agreement with the Lender.
JW Developer shall W to begin construction of the Developer
provements in conformance with this Agreement, and such failures
aro not due to unavoidable delays as defined in this Agreement.
The Developer shall, after commencement of the construction of the
Developer Improvements, default in or violate its obligations with
respect to the construction of the same (including the nature and the
date for the completion theroon, or shall abandon or substantially
M0ITHADDAGR:8/ NS Page 9 1
suspend construction work, and such act or actions is not due to
unavoiable delays as determined by the City Engineer in his sole but
reasonable discretion and any such default, violation, abandonment, or
suspension shall not be cured, ended, or remedied within the time
provided for in this Agreement.
21. Notira/Romedies on DefaLt. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, the City
shall give written notice of the Event of Default to Developer by United
States mail at its last known address. If the Developer fails to am& the
Event of Default within fifteen (15) days of the date of qlailed 60ce, in
addition to any other remedy provided in this 4greem thout
waiver of any such right, City may avail i e following
remedies for so long as the Developer is inult: ��: _, ::. 1)
A. Halt all plat development work an on of De
Improvements until such time as of Default ie
B. Refuse to issue building permits or rmits as to any parcel
until such time as the Event cf D t i
C. Apply to a court of compete on toe atinuation of the
Event of Default.
D. Exercise any and all a ails ty pursuant to the
Disbursement nt. Eve o Default is the failure of
Developer to cc ct, ' 1, or correct the Developer
Improvements eco wi plane and specifications and this
Agreemen may nstruction or work and apply to
rider to the ent Agreement to reimburse City for
n on shall be a license granted by the
r act, but shall not require the City to take any
n. nsents to such action by City and waives any
r ve against City for damages in the event City
exe OA hts in accordance with this provision.
T Agreement by written notice to Developer at which
time rens and conditions as contained herein shall be of no liiriher
4?,
effect and all obligations of the parties as imposed hereunder
force
null and void.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs,
successors, or assigns, as the case may be.
MaTHADD,AGR: GUMS Page 10 -1
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 not be a
waiver or release.
D. Future residents of this Subdivision s t to be third
party beneficiaries of this Agreeme
E. This Agreement shall run with th d be A e
Developer, its successors and ass' evcloper
expense, record this Agreement in f the Wright County
Recorder. After the Developer has a work required under
this Agreement, at the Developer' ue will execute and
deliver to Developer a release i rdabltl
F. All parties to this Agree a the ve been represented
by counsel and have in t freely and
voluntarily.
22. Notice& Requiredno ' the velo be in writing and shall be
either hand dehive
per, ed to the Developer by United
Sta mail, pos
paid address:
City
ting either hand delivered to the City
r or
ity by United States mail, postage prepaid, to
the a as
, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 68382.
IN WIT
ity and Developer have signed this Developer's
nt the day
t written above.
C OF MONTICE
Fyle
By:
Rick Wolfsteller
Its City Administrator
M04THADDAOR: 8/NM Page 11 9K
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)as.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foreoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
,1885, by Bradley E. Pyle and Rick Wolfsteller, the
Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
COMPANY NAME.......
M0ITHADDAOP.&WO Page 12 1
06/09/93 (REVISOR I PEA/JC AR2120
1
area -atter -it -is -a it a red r -ether -then -ea -age ice* to rel -lend -ter
2
ten-yearsr-anteso-it-ia-tieat-repleced-ander-the-requlrement9-ef
u 3
Minnesete-Statatear-seettan-le36TPiir-paragraph-tgtr--*E-the
4
!seal -government -snit -approves -en -exempt tont-the-landowner-meat
5
execute -and -the-tees±-gaverement -an et-mast-reeerd-a-nettee-of
6
this -re strletion-tt-the-met land-ts-in-a-eityr
7
Subp. 24. Exemption (24). A replacement plan for wetlands
B
is not required for:
9
1241 development projects and ditch improvement projects in
30
the state that have received preliminary or final plat approval,
11
or infrastructure that has been installed, or having local site
12
plan approval, conditional use permits, or similar official
13
approval by a governing body or government agency, within five
14
years before July 1. 1991. In the seven -county metropolitan
15
area and in cities of the first and second cleat, pleL approval
16
must be preliminary as approved by the appropriate governing
17
body.
is
Subdividers who obtained preliminary plat approval in the
19
specified time porlod, and other project developers with one of
20
the listed approvals timely obtained, provided approval has not
21
expired and the project remains active, may drain and fill
22
wetlands, to the extent documented by the approval, without
23
replacement. Those elemento of the project that can be carried
24
out without changing the approved plan and without draining or
25
filling must be done In that manner. If wetlands can be avoided
26
within the terms of the approved plan, they must be avoldod.
27
Por county, joint county, and watershed district ditch
2E
project@, this exemption applies to projects that received final
29
approval in the specified time period.
30
¢ubp, 25. Czenption 1251. A replacement Dian for wetlands
31
is not reaulred fart
32
1251 activities that result in the dralnlna or flllina of
33
len than 400 square feet of wetlands.
34
This exemption applies if the total wetland loos by
35
drainina and flllina will be leu than 400 square feet oer vast
36
per landownerq and the qumulative impact by all peragno on A
23 1 ppioiie
w�
9 M