City Council Agenda Packet 08-14-1995REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCEL
Monday, July 24, 19M - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
Approval of minutes of the regWaxinmting held JWX 10.1998.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM
PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
JULY 10, 1998, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimnugly.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. conaideratinn of ending a Mrtinn of thp cost to reconatr uct 4 h Street
h=kaxiink.
Assistant Administrator O`Neill reported that many of the boards need
to be replaced at the 4th Street hockey rink, and the Hockey
Association and Parks Commission are requesting that Council
approve thnding of a portion of the cost to reconstruct the existing rink
by replacing rotted boards, reducing the hockey rink size by 2696, and
by developing a smaller temporary hockey rink. The temporary rink
could be used by the general public to avoid conflicts between hockey
players and recreational skaters. The proposal calls for the City
ftmding the majority of the materials and the Hockey Association
providing labor.
Council members expressed concerns regarding yearly installation and
removal of a temporary rink and suggested that staff review the site to
see if the hockey rink layout can be changed to allow two permanent
hockey rinks.
City Engineer Bret Weise noted that some communities are paving
hockey rinks, which allows use of the area during the summer for
street hockey or basketball. Council agreed that paving the hockey
rink areas would be good investment, as it would allow year-round use
of the property.
Page 1
Council Minutes - 7/24/95
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO AU'T'HORIZE THE HOCKEY
ASSOCIATION TO REMOVE THE EXISTING BOARDS AT THE 4TH
STREET PARR, TO APPROVE EXPENDITURES OF 57,600 TO FUND THE
COST OF THE REPLACEMENT BOARDS, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO
REVIEW THE SITE AND RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION ON A POSSIBLE LAYOUT FOR TWO PERMANENT
HOCKEY RINKS. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Co sideration of amejW ung mm�mnhenmig n;�taa sewer study.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that this item has been
withdrawn from the agenda in order to allow Orrin Thompson and
Tony Emmerich additional time to review the study. Stall' will place
this item on the August 14 Council agenda.
Ci v ns m m ntsJnptibons_ moues s na a complain
None.
C Haan . agars a;
5A. gambling license-
Rt- Hands CRtholir, (:h+rch.
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the
temporary two -daffy license. SEE RESOLUTION 95.49.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA. Motion carried unanimoualy.
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the site plan for the
Mississippi Shores Senior Housing pr*d included a small portion (5,100 aq
R) of the old Broadway right-of-way, which is no longer needed for road right-
of-way; therefore, Council needs to vacate this portion of old right -of --way to
allow the senior housing prgject to move tbrward. O'Neill noted that Council
also needs to decide whether to sell or give the land to Presbyterian Homes.
The City has previously sold vacated land at a coat of 8.87 per square foot.
Page 2
Council Minutes - 7/24/95
There being no comment from the public, the public hearing was closed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION
OF HART BOULEVARD AS PROPOSED AND DIRECT STAFF TO OFFER THE
LAND TO PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AT A COST OF $.67 PER SQ FT, WHICH
WOULD RESULT IN A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3,417. Motion carried
unanimously.
Public Henring=Conaideratinn of vacation of a storm water and utility
ensement in a niunctinn with dev 1 nmaent of the Mia . . i Shores inr
Hnnging EMiect•
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that in order for the Mississippi
Shores senior housing building to be constructed at the proposed location, it
is necessary to move the sanitary sewer line slightly to the south. In order to
complete this part of the project, it is necessary for the City to vacate the
existing utility and storm drainage easements and to obtain new easements
following the new sanitary sewer alignment.
There being no comment from the public, the public hearing was closed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE VACATION OF THE UTILITY
AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AS PROPOSED. Approval is contingent on City
acquisition of easements necessary to accommodate sanitary sewer
realignment. Motion carried unani.rn ualy.
Cnn 'n +v :en of Public hp cin^nn Maglnwood Circle airm aewer n�y'eet,
It was the consensus of Council to continue the public hearing on the
Maplewood Circle storm sewer prgject to August 14, 1995.
Puhlir henrin8 on ado on of pronoaed asseagmant rail for dphoanent utility
Mlla wnd rtifiration nfana gamont roll to Ca +n i A +di nr,
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing.
In the report prepared by the City Administrator, Council was asked to adopt
an assessment roll for utility billing accounts which are delinquent more
than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll to the County Auditor for
collection on next year's real estate taxes if not paid by November 30, 1995.
Page 3
Council Minutes - 7/24/96
There being no comment from the public, the public hearing was closed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRUIN STUMPF TO ADOPT THE ASSESSNIENT ROLL FOR THE
DELINQUENT CHARGES AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unwnimnusly.
SEE RESOLUTION 96-60.
County Commissioner Judy Rose and Darrin Lahr of NSP, representing the
Economic Development Partnership of Wright County, were present to
request that the City of Monticello renew its membership in the Partnership
at a cost of $1,000 base fee plus $.10 per capita. Rose and Lahr noted that
although there is some duplication of efforts between the City's economic
developnment department and the Partnership, the Partnership's network
helps attract new industries to Wright County, which in turn can benefit
MontiosUo.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT IMBST AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP IN
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY
CONTINGENT UPON THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PAYING
THE $.10 PER CAPITA AMOUNT AND THE CITY PAYING THE BASE FEE OF
$1,000. Motion carried unanimously,
11. f n aid ration nfg=Unggn incren_se ta the indivirlual nenaion for Vol nn ver
Firefighter Ital'
Members of the volunteer fire department requested that the City Council
consider increasing their retire>nent benefit from the present $1,300 per year
of service to $1,326 per year. It was noted in the Administrator's report that,
although interest earnings and state aid should be able to fund the increase,
the City Council would be liable for the difference if the projected revenue is
not sufficient to cover the pension liability.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO GRANT AN INCREASE TO $1,926 PER
YEAR TO THE INDWIDUAL PENSION FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER RELIEF
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson. Tom Perrault,
Clint Herbst. Abstaining: Brad Fyle and Brian Stumpf, as they are both
members of the Relief Association. Motion passed.
Page 4
Council Minutes - 7/24/95
12. Review of HflR ul+ni 1 m mn nd +m on w aiwater trentmpnt Plant
dedgadata•
Council was asked to review the technical memorandum regarding design
data for expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Public Works Director
John Simola reported that community growth projection on which the 20 -
year design capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant is based is projected
on average at 75 single family and 26 multiple family unit starts per year for
a total of 101 unite. Projections also include institutional and commercial
growth, additional dry industry, and a 25% increase in flow from Sunny
Fresh Foods.
Simola also noted that it is the view of HDR and staff that there may be some
excess capacity built into the proposed facility; however, downsizing the
plant at this time would be costly and would delay the project, as the cost
analysis has already been prepared. Simola reported that it is staffs
recommendation to proceed under the original projections.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
AND AUTHORIZE HDR TO PROCEED WITH THE PREPARATION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE FACILITIES PLAN BASED UPON THE INFORMATION
IN THE MEMORANDUM. Motion carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that staff has prepared a proposed
policy regulating final occupancy for home sites prior to completion of site
improvements. The proposed policy would require funds to be placed in
escrow with the City if the builder can demonstrate that a hardship exists
which prohibits completion of the project prior to final occupancy. An
additional $50 reinspection fee would also be required.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ADOPT POLICY ON A PRELIMINARY BASIS
ONLY AND DIRECT CITY STAFF TO MAIL THE POLICY TO BUILDERS
WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY FOR INPUT AT AN UPCOMING MEETING.
Motion carried unanimously.
Page 5
Council Minutes - 7/24195
14. Cannidpratinn of mirrhaaing g awi 6box anel an ad itio al laser printer fnr
riy hal .
Council was asked to consider purchasing a second laser printer, switchbox,
and cabling for city hall. It was reported that the current laser printer is
connected to four workstations via a small switching device; however, one of
the four ports was lost due to a recent lightning strike. In addition, the
Assistant Administrator does not have direct access to a printer, and the
Economic Development Director's current printer needs replacing. In order
to provide laser printer access to all computer users, it was proposed by City
staff that Council consider purchasing a switchbox for $1,180, an IBM 4019
laser printer estimated at $2,600, and cabling for $160, for a total of $3,830.
Council expressed concern regarding the high cost of the IBM laser printer
and noted that individual smaller printers could be purchased for lees.
After discussion, it was tho consensus of Council to direct City staff to obtain
additional information regarding the cost and maintenance of smaller,
individual printers with an option for color printing and report back to
Council.
16. Co aid ration of 'lln fnr the month of 1 .1Y,
After discussion, a motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to approve the bills for the month of July as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
16. Q1he= rriatiem.
A. City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that he recently spoke with
Franklin Dena of the Monticello Township Board regarding removal of
the super -elevation section on Gillard Avenue where the road makes a
sharp right angle turn. He noted that Donn expressed concerns about
cars sliding off the road if the elevation is removed. Weise noted that
it has been susggested that traffic could be slowed down on Gillard if
the banked turn (super elevation) was removed where Gillard makes a
right angle turn.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to authorize the City
Engineer to work with the Township on improvements to this section
of Gillard Avenue.
Page 6
Council Minutes - 7/24/95
B. City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that, because the River Mill
subdivision was platted in a manner which bisects the drainage
pattern between the storm water culvert that provides future drainage
control for the area and the majority of the storm water located
primarily west of the driveway, certain improvements are necessary in
order to connect the storm water culvert to the drainage system. He
noted that City staff has negotiated a method of dealing with the costa
in order to have the improvements installed by the developer's
contractor. Total construction cost is estimated at $27,000, with
$15,500 to be paid by the developer and $11,500 paid by the City.
Atter discussion, it was the consensus of Council to authorize the City
Engineer to proceed with the trunk storm sewer modification in the
River Mill subdivision as noted in his memo of July 20, 1995.
There being no fiuther business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Pap
City Council Agenda - 8/14195
3A. Conalderat[on of navlra at Ptiblie Works. US.)
As part of our conditional use permit, at the completion of Phase II of the Public
Works building expansion, we are to pave and curb the parking area to the
south of the main entrance, the areas immediately in front of the shop and
storage facility and the rear areae around the salt ahed and the existing pole
building. A copy of the proposed plan is enclosed for your review. We are
currently in the proms of obtaining prices for class 5, curbing and black -
topping this area. We are obtaining separate prices on the class 5, black -
topping and curbing, the entire package could run around $30,000. In addition,
there was some talk about paving the entrance on the east side of the property
in the area of our storage bins; this has not been included but the City did
budget some money for this a couple years ago so it could be added. Basically
what we're baking for is approval of the concept originally approved under the
conditional use permit and whether or not you want to ad the paving of the east
entrance. A rather large gravel area has been reserved to the east of the facility
for temporary storage of materials and equipment. This is not really a parking
area but a temporary storage area which is used only periodically for short
durations. Should we pave this area, it is very possible that the bituminous
surfacing could be damaged during the staging of materials and equipment.
S. AMERNATIVE ACTIONS
The first alternative would be to approve the concept of the paving
required by the conditional use permit and authorize City Stall' to
proceed after obtaining two quotes for each of the portions of the work to
be done
The second alternative would be to add paving on the easterly driveway
area in the area of the bine to alternative 01.
The third alternative is not to proceed at this time but to delay any
paving until 1996, at which time we will be doing some additional
bituminous work in the area by adding a lbw parking stalls to the west
of our iliddlity and overlaying a portion of the area between the buildings.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that City Council
authorize us to proceed as outlined in alternative it or alternative #2. I hope
to have a couple of Quotes on the paving portion by Monday evening's meeting.
City council Aptoft - 8/14/95
There are sufficient funds available to accomplish the paving.
Copy of site plan for paving areas.
VENCLF, GTOR140 PACU"
AMA
alarm ANA
WATSR
olop
mom
AA—
com, t AM
aapa
0
City Council Agenda - 8/14/95
5. Continnn_et(on of n hln i�hea_*Ing on Maplemmod G rile storm sewer
mmlea. as.)
A. F.FFRF.N . ND BA . QRt) TND;
Over the past few weeks we have re -surveyed the proposed location for ditching
and storm sewer improvements to the Maplewood Circle area. We have called
for locates and met with Bridge Water Telephone Company and Jones
Intercable on this site. We found the 10 -foot existing easement contained a
cable TV line and telephone line and that an additional telephone line was
found just west of the easement on private property. It appeared that the only
way to keep the TV and telephone in service without a significant interruption
in service would be to dig out the telephone and TV lines as the project
progressed, using a backhoe to actually dig the ditch and back slopes at the
same time. The telephone company agreed to pay for the additional cost for
digging out the cables. At the completion of the grading operations, the utility
companies would then trench in their cables below the ditch bottom.
After looking at the project and discussing it with a few of the neighbors, we
proposed to keep the entire ditch bottom and easterly and southerly back -slopes
within the easement. We will accomplish this by snow fencing the entire
easement line so that we do not encroach into the neighboring properties, such
as Tim Churchill's lot 2 and Richard Jarvis' lot 3, the two property owners
concerned about damage to trees. In doing this we would not even have to move
the lawn abed located on Steve Safar's property on lot 1. We would still have to
relocate the two trees on his lot, however. The benefits of doing this is that we
do not encroach into the properties on that side beyond the easement and, of
course, the project is much more economical without having to do any further
grading in that area but the downside is that there will be a one to one slope on
several locations on that side. Property owners then themselves can determine
in the future whether or not they want to regrade portions of their own lot to
lessen the slope. Both Steve Safar on lot 1 and Mike Krier on lot 8, (where the
actual flared end section of the storm sewer pipe will be located between three
and four feet below the ground), did not appear to have a problem with the
depth and location. The owners of lots 8, 7, and 8, on the west side of the
proposed ditch would all give us additional temporary easement to do the
grading and sloping at no cost.
Tom Bose and myself also looked at the area of lot d, which drains into the
project area. I believe Julia Heinrichs had Questioned how much of her lot
drains into the project. After reviewing the situation, we feel that Tom's
original numbers for the square footage are fairly accurate, if anything, they
would be on the low side and a little bit more of the lot actually drains toward
City Council Agenda - 8/14M
the rear.
We are attempting to obtain prices from local contractors and have those
available for Monday night to see if we are within our original projections.
Hopefully, we will have at least one bid or quote so the project can proceed.
The first alternative at the close of the public hearing would be to order
City Staff to proceed with the project based on the facts that the project
is needed, will benefit the neighborhood, will be paid for by the
benefitting property owners with the exception of the engineering and
administrative costs which the Council indicated they would delete. Also
that the project is under the original published cost of $10,000.
The second alternative at the close of the public hearing would be not to
order the improvement.
C- STAFF RFdY)1tMMDATICN;
If the current estimated cost of the project is still within the proposed budget of
$10,000 which I anticipate it will be, I would recommend we proceed with the
project. As stated at earlier Council meetings, it is unlikely that this problem
will be solved with full cooperation of all the neighbor s on their own. The
utilities alone are somewhat insurmountable for property owners to work with
on an individual basis and, to accomplish regrading and individual spot grading
here and there will cause mo:e problems and this issue will be before you again.
n_ Si7PPORTINn DATA
Copy of the area of benefit map along with a list of property owners with lot and
block number. Additional coat information will be provided at Monday evening's
meeting as it becomes available.
Oak
fie
la
Lat
77T-
4jp
'4r
doj* •
-0
77 4,9
Naadow Gan•
j
MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE RESIDENTS
BLOCK 2, LOT 5
BLOCK 2, LOTS
Deborah Zwithng
Gary Sandman
2747 Maplewood Cirde
2760 Maplewood Cirds
Morrtioe0o. MN 55982
Mw&cdlo. MN 65962
BLOCK 2, LOT 7
BLOCK 2, LOT 8
Howard 6 Lyrm Lenzen
Moe Krlar
2760 Maplewood Cirde
2800 Red Oak Leve
Mmboe0o. MN 56982
ModBodlo, MN 55962
BLOCK 2, LOT 9
BLOCK 2. LOT 11
Greg TwWa
Barb Hamiltm
2781 Meadow Lane
2821 Meadow Lane
Mmrdoe0c. MN 65962
Montlodlo. MN 66962
BLOCK 2, LOT 10
BLOCK 2. LOT 12
Lfts Hames ft.
Dan Vermes a (renter) CBI Inc. c. (owrw)
HC99, Box 914A
2841 Meadow Lena P.O. Box 1292
Cross Lake, MN 68442
Mont mb. MN 55982 Mapto Grove, MN 65811
BLOCK 9, LOT 1
BLOCK 8, LOT 2
S. Safer & P. Weber
Th Churdd8
2840 Red Oak Lane
905 Meadow Oak Orin
Mondodb, MN 55962
Mmtloe0o, MN 55962
BLOCK 9, LOT 9
BLOCK 9, LOT 4
Richard Jarvis
Juk Heinrift
915 Meadow 0ak Drive
925 Meadow Oak Drtm
Mordioe0o, MN 65982
Mwrdc@Bo, MN 56982
c%m"Wswrwtwoaer mom
6.
City Council Agenda - 8/14/95
W.O.)
A Glorious Church requests a renewal of their conditional use permit
allowing development of a church facility. For most of the City Council
members, this is a familiar request, as A Glorious Church received their
original approval for a conditional use permit in 1990 and received a renewal
of the conditional use permit in May of 1994. Due to the fact that it has been
over a year since A Glorious Church received their moat -recent approval, it is
necessary for the organisation to come before the Planning Commission and
City Council again to request an update or renewal of the conditional use
permit.
According to Dan Gassler, there have been no major changes to the plan as
proposed; therefore, the application material provided with the previous
approval is submitted with the current request. There is one change from
the previous request. As you may recall, A Glorious Church requested that
the paving portion of the project be delayed until a year after the building of
the facility is completed. Gassler has indicated that the church has funds
available to complete the entire project; therefore, he is not asking to be
allowed to delay construction of the paved surface.
$_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONR:
Motion to approve conditional use permit based on the conditions and
findings noted in the approval granted on May 3, 1994, which are as
follows:
A. City approval of a parking lot, landscaping, and screening plan.
Adequate screening of the parking lot area Aram abutting
residential uses and landscaping must be provided. The screen
must be at least 6 ft high and achieve 90% opacity. The screen
must consist of either a berm, solid fence, or landscape
plantings. Installation of the parking lot screen shall occur at
such time that the adjoining residential property is platted
(now).
B. City approval of drainage plan must be obtained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
City Council Agenda • 8/14195
City approval of landscaping plan must be obtained prior to
issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan should
include 30 overstory trees to be planted along the perimeter of
the developed portion of the property and spaced approximately
35 R apart. Additional development will precipitate additional
plantings.
D. City approval of exterior treatment of structure must be
obtained to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. Steel
exterior materials shall be limited to lei of the available wall
surface.
This alternative could be approved based on the finding that the
church facility as proposed with conditions as attached is consistent
with the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the existing and
future character of the adjoining Rrl none. This is the alternative
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Motion to deny the conditional use permit.
C. STAFF RF.COB®VNDATION;
Staff and Planning Commiasion recommend alternative til.
n. SUPPORTING nATAi
Application materials; Meeting minutes Brom previous approvals.
31
«►.-. i � , `.moi.-��i�~� .�i''e 'ow. +r
lr-- 4t
tr' . +.....r.
4 — — ° I -T - tiro' qr, wa•»
F7=DENNIS BATTY
A CHS IITTCECTSS
r�A GLORIOI
0000 OMM0�0 C1160K PARKWAY MALS., wwwaeorA /0420
sal -600 -SON
2
F
ci ,t
'I
-.0 E%.µ- RAVER
._N,eT MONT lcuuo EXIT
TO Tw1N GIT18-5
% CM LaTL1005 CN UIZc H
T so? W IL" LOC b.T i Oa L"O U T
,50CPP<_ IZ 1" • Aclo I
Fj
8aD ►pPa.ax.
r
IL
i1 • , r
r
L' '11.10 ►Pix.
i
lu
a►4sa.
_ (Lt"
It
�'`. �'^�•' fit•
t`� • - eta �'„�t.� 'i .+ � � is _
v
Np P
Ra�CRTYt
o�
ON
vi E�yN� wElbt'
La"'GEPr � �O�K
r�
M
. Qty=t''„vt�•,rl'C„LSZt�ir ^— i.t,:wf3M'L � �q .._ ��� 'O) �I
t S i 61
1 j _
� � 2
eq
.1 u ComW '4
�� p,a. ZA
s AWP \L\
W
3
GyQr'"'��5
Pte. p�
S4
p`L6 G ."rAt tOU 1
a a t:.sua
44.9
w
,t
! J M . j• �� R 1
;• - Z� Lam- : ° , .*' 4•. y.� ..
• • •;^�:;`-:�+; :: 4.'••L'••},� ° . : � w� ' rte,,,. Vi''`i
OOt , 4w { i, ..•
COP p _ Council Minutes . 5/23/94
Consideration pf a conditional use oermit allowinir a church facility to
ooerate in an R-1 zone. AoDlicant. A Glorious Church.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed City Council that A Glorious
Church requests that Council grant a conditional use permit allowing a
church facility to develop in an R-1 zone. The request is nearly identical to
the request approved by the City Council on November 13, 1990. O'Neill
noted that the only aspect of the site plan proposal for the facility that has
changed since the previous approval is a request that installation of parking
and landscaping be deferred one construction season subsequent to the
season in which the church facility is built O'Neill noted that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit request as
requested. It was their view that this precedent allowing deferral of
parking and landscaping is acceptable because it is limited to church
facilities in R^1 zones and does not apply to other institutional and
commercial developments in other zoning districts.
Warren Smith noted that the City loses its leverage to require parking lot
and landscaping improvements once an occupancy permit is granted. Dan
Gassler recognized Smith's concern but noted that his congregation has had
success with its fund raising relating to development of the church. It has
paid off the cost of the property and associated assessments and is now in
position to develop the facility. Gassler expressed his confidence that fends
will be available to complete the parking lot and landscaping within the
requirements of the conditional use permit as proposed by the Planning
Commission.
After discission. a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve the conditional use permit request as recommended
by the Planning Commission with the additional requirement that an
easement be provided to convey storm water &am the south edge of the
property to the County Road 38 ditch system. The precise location of the
easement is to be defined jointly by City staff and church representatives.
Motion carried unfinim usly.
F1
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/3/94
Public Rearina—Consideration of a conditional use permit allowinq
a church facility to operate in an R•1 zone. ADplicant. A Glorious
Church. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to consider granting a conditional use permit
allowing A Glorious Church to develop a church facility at a location along
East 39. The request is nearly identical to the request approved by the City
Council on November 13, 1990. Those of you that were on the Planning
Commission at that time recall that the request was reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission on November 7, 1990.
The only aspect of the site plan and proposal for the facility that has
changed is the request by the church that they be allowed to install the
parking and landscaping during the construction season suI uent to the
season in which the church facility is built. Due to limitations to obtaining
bank financing for church facilities, it is difficult for the church organization
to gather the funds necessary to do the church construction and the
completion of the site improvements simultaneously.
Allowing the development to occur without developing parking immediately
would be precedent -setting; however, according to the Planner, the
precedent would be limited to church facilities in the R-1 zone. The
precedent could not be applied to justify deferral of parking and landscaping
improvements for a business in a B-3 zone. Nonetheless, allowing deferral
of parking and landscaping does set a precedent for other churches
developing in R zones, and perhaps the Planning Commission does not want
to open up this door. I do not have a complete recollection of what the City
has done with other churches; however, I do recall that the Baptist Church
on 4th Street was allowed to defer completion of their parking facility for a
number of years; however, they were not allowed to operate without
installation of a screening fence, which they did construct.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
A I I
►ve i. Motion to approve the conditional use request with the following
V �conditions (same as 11/7/90 except for "E"):
•
A. City approval of a parking lot, landscaping, and screening plan.
Adequate screening of the parking lot area from abutting
residential uses and landscaping must be provided. The screen
must be at least 6 ft high and achieve 90% opacity. The screen
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/3/94
must consist of either a berm, solid fence, or landscape
plantings. Installation of the parking lot screen shall occur at
such time that the adjoining residential property is platted.
B. City approval of drainage plan must be obtained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
C. City approval of landscaping plan must be obtained prior to
issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan should
include 30 overstory trees to be planted along the perimeter of
the developed portion of the property and spaced approximately
35 ft apart. Additional development will precipitate additional
plantings.
D. City approval of exterior treatment of structure must be
obtained to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. Steel
exterior materials shall be limited to 112 of the available wall
surface.
E. I�stalletion of parking lot facilities and landscaping may be
dcferl,ed,to the Construction season following occupancy of the
church fadlity.
This alternative could be approved based on the finding that the
church facility as proposed with conditions as attached is consistent
with the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the existing and
future character of the adjoining R•1 zone.
Motion to deny the conditional use request.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if it does not
agree with the finding as noted under alternative +11. Planning
Commission could take the strict view that the landscaping and
parking should be installed simultaneous to development of the
church. Since the City cannot obtain a financial guarantee that these
improvements will be put in place, there is no way except for the
word of the church that the City can force installation of
improvements required under the ordinance. By allowing the
development to occur without assurance that these items will be
completed and by allowing occupancy of the structure before these
items are completed, the City loses much of the power it has to
assure completion of improvements without needing to take legal
action.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/3/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative til with regard to the deferral of the
installation of parking and landscaping, etc. It is our view that the
precedent set by allowing the deferral of these improvements has been set
by previous action and that the risk of setting a city-wide precedent that
could be applied to industrial/commercial uses is not significant. Finally,
this alternative is sensitive to the financal constraints of churches and may
represent a reasonable compromise allowing a church to develop within its
financial constraints without eliminating important City landscaping and
parking requirements.
Copy of meeting minutes—previous application.
Council Minutes - 11/13/90
outlines the fornula and method for use of the sale
proceeds to finance payment of assessment debt
against the original parcel.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would a1Low
operation of a church facility in an R-1 Isinale family
residential) zone. Acolicant. A Glorious Church.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill inforaed Council that the
Planning Commission has recommended approval of the
conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission review and approval of parking lot,
landscapinq, and screening plan; adequate screening of
parking lot area from abutting residential uses; and
landscaping must be provided. The screen must be at
least six feet high and achieve 903 opacity. The screen
may consist of either berm, solid fence, or landscape
planting. Installation of the parking lot screen shall
occur at such time that the adjoining residential
property is eligible for issuance of a building permit.
2. City approval of drainage plan.
3. Planninq Commission review and approval of landscaping
plan.
4. Planninq Commission review and approval of exterior _
treatment of structure to ensure compatibility with
neighborhood. Steel exterior material shall be limited
to one-half of the available wall surface unless
otherwise approved by the Planning Commission.
After discussion, motion was made by ?ran Fair, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to approve the conditional use permit along
with conditions noted based on the findinq that church
development as proposed with the conditions as attached is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and La compatible with
the existinq and future character of the adjoininq R -L zone.
Motion carried unanimously.
Page
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7[)a
Public Hearing --A conditional use reauest to allow a church
facility in an R-1 (single family residential) zone.
Applicant, A Glorious Church.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to the
Planning Commission members and the public A Glorious Church's
request to allow a church facility in an R-1 (single family
residential) zone. Mr. O'Neill explained through a video
presentation how a church facility located on a portion of
this subdivided unplatted tract of land would be reflected
with the surrounding residential properties and residential
zoning around it. He went on to explain how the landscaping
requirements and parking lot screening requirements would
affect this property with the proposed use of a church
facility on the property.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lamm, opened the meeting for input
from the public. A Glorious Church representatives were
present to answer any questions that the Planning Commission
members may have on their proposed project.
With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson,
Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for input from the Planning Commission members.
Planning Commission members discussed how the property would
be screened and how the proposed landscaping would remain as
Is or subject to their approval at tonight's meeting.
Commission members felt this would be a good use for the
property and had no• problem with the church being located at
this property.
With no further input from Planning Commission, a motion was
made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Richard Martie, to -
approve the conditional use request with the following
conditions:
A. City approval of the parking lot landscaping and
screening plan. Adequate screening of the parking lot
area from abutting residential uses and landscaping must
be provided. The screen must be at least 6 feet high and
achieve 90% opacity. The screen may consist of either a
berm, solid fence, or landscape plantings. Installation
of the parking lot screen shall occur at such time that
the adjoining residential property is platted.
B. City approval of drainage plan must be obtained prior to
Issuance of a building permit.
C. City approval of landscaping plan must be obtained prior
to issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan
should include 30 overstory trees to be planted along the
perimeter of the developed portion of the property and
spaced approximately 79 feet apart. Additional
development will precipitate additional plantings.
D. City approval of exterior treatment of structure must be
obtained to insure compatibility with the neighborhood.
Steel exterior materials shall be limited to one-half of
the available wall surface. <136
U
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
The above conditions were subject to the conditions that prior
to a building permit application, the applicant must come back
to the Planning Commission members for review of the following
conditions:
a. City approval of a parking lot landscaping and screening
plan. Adequate screening of parking lot area from
abutting residential uses and landscaping must be
provided. The screen must be at least 6 feet high and
achieve 90% opacity. The screen may consist of either a
berm, solid fence, or landscape planting. Installation
of the parking lot screen shall occur at such time that
the adjoining residential property is platted.
b. City approval of drainage plan prior to Issuance of
building permit.
C. City approval of the landscaping plan prior to issuance
of building permit. The landscaping plan shall include
30 ove rstory trees to be planted along the perimeter 'of
the developed portion of the property and spaced
approximately 79 feet apart. Additional development to
precipitate additional plantings.
d. City approval of exterior treatment of structure to
insure compatibility with neighborhood. Steel exterior
materials shall be limited to one-half of the available -
wall surface.
Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent.
Reason for approval:
I. Church development at this site is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
2. Church development at this site is consistent with the
geographical area involved.
7. Church development will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area.
4. Church development is consistent with the character of
the surrounding area.
7.
City Council Agenda - 8114/95
Tony Emmerich, representing Ocello, LLC, requests preliminary plat
approval of the plat entitled Monticello Business Center. Following is a brief
description of the plat as proposed followed by alternatives for action.
LAND USE PM
The lot configuration identified on the plat is identical to all conceptual plans
presented to the City on which previous zoning map amendments have been
based. The plat encompasses an area of 110 acres and is split into 6 lots.
Each of the individual lots will be platted as outlots in this phase of
development. Subsequent to this initial platting of the area into outlots, each
individual outlot will be replatted as a single lot or subdivided into smaller
lots at the time of development.
The plat consists of 6 lots, Outlots A -F. Outlots A and F are located between
Cedar Street and State Highway 25 and encompass approximately 15 acres.
These lots will be zoned for B3/highway business uses.
Outlots B and E are located east of Cedar Street and internal to the overall
site. Outlots B and E encompass about 44 acres and are designated for B4
uses. The B4 district is the regional commercial zoning designation, which
allows a wide variety of commercial uses.
Outlot C is located in the northeast corner of the property and encompasses
31.4 acres. This lot is designated for business campus uses, which is an area
for light manufacturing. Outlot D is located in the southeast corner of the
plat and encompasses 21.2 acres and is designated for PZM uses, which
allows a combination of commercial and residential uses.
A design of the plat is affected by the presence of three major utility
easements extending diagonally across the site. Along the southern
boundary of the site is an NSP easement on which a power line is located.
Diagonally through the center of the site is an Amoco gas line easement, a
portion of which is utilized as the alignment for School Boulevard. The third
City Council Agenda - 8/14185
easement is a UPA power line easement cutting across the northwestern
corner of the property. This line separates the business campus from
regional commercial uses.
ADJACENT LAND USES
To the south of the site is the Kjellberg East Trailer Park. The preliminary
plat as proposed calls for ending Cedar Street at a location that is slightly
offset from the I(jellberg Trailer Park frontage road. It is suggested that the
plat may need to be modified to allow the KjeMmn Trailer Park and the
Cedar Street frontage mad to be connected, thus allowing residents of the
trailer park to use the Cedar Street frontage road, thus redudM unnecessary
traffic on Highway 26.
County Road 117 is the boundary on the east side between the Nonticello
Business Center and the Klein Farms development area. Directly south of
School Boulevard and east of 117 across from the PZM portion of the Ooello
plat is the proposed location of a 16 -acre park. North of School Boulevard,
County Road 117 becomes the boundary between the light industrial
business campus area and an area designated on the Klein Farms plan as an
&PUD, which is a medium density housing development. To the northwest
of the Ocello plat is land zoned for heavy industrial uses. To the northeast is
land zoned for regional business uses. Both types of zoning districts do not
appear to create significant conflicts in land use.
State Highway 25 makes up the western boundary of the plat. Currently,
there is no specific land use designation for the agricultural land directly
across Highway 25. It has been speculated that this land should be used for
industrial or commercial uses. As you may know, the City owns
approximately 60 acres across from the plat. One of the goals of the
comprehensive plan will be to identify proper land uses in the area directly
across from the Ocello plat.
ITPQ.PPY BYOIVJM
A portion of the utility system supporting the plat aro being installed with
the School Boulevard project. The School Boulevard project, which is
currently underway, consists of construction of the entire wp nent of School
Boulevard from County Road 117 to State Highway 25. In addition to
constriction of the roadway, sanitary sewer and water trunk systems are
being installed underneath School Boulevard along its full length and are
City Council Agenda - 8/14/95
being extended underneath State Highway 25 for future access by Nellberg
West Mobile Home Park. Finally, a sanitary sewer line is being extended to
within 300 R of the Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park along the lot line
between Outlot E and Outlot D.
Development of Cedar Street and subsequent development of internal utility
systems serving each outlot will be designed and installed separately with
the development of each outlot.
The grading plan that has been submitted with the preliminary plat
application has been updated by the comprehensive storm sewer plan
prepared by the City Engineer. When the preliminary plat was submitted in
early 1995, it was determined at that time that there was insufficient data on
which to base a grading plan. At that time, the City was not sure as to which
direction the storm water should flow from this site. In order to gain a better
handle on proper design of the storm sewer system for this area, the City
Council authorized preparation of a comprehensive storm sewer study for the
area, which the developer funded in its entirety. The storm sewer study
revealed that the most efficient way to manage the storm water from this
area is to create a system of ponds and trunk storm sewer facilities to convey
water in a northwesterly direction toward the low land north and west of the
site. Under the long --Uma storm water plan as proposed and approved by the
City Council, storm water from the Ocello site would end up in the large
wetland area east of Highway 25. The long-term plan also calls for extending
trunk storm sewer underneath the freeway, thus providing an outlet for the
wetland area.
To assist in funding the cost of the long-term plan and in accordance with the
trunk storm sewer policy, the developer will be paying from $1,500 to $3,000
per acre depending on the type of land use and the level of ponding provided
on-site. The City will determine the precise trunk fee amount, review the
design of the grading plan, and collect the trunk storm sewer funds at the
time of the development of the individual outlots. The trunk storm sewer
funds collected will be used at some point in the future to construct the
improvements identified in the long-term plan. Until the long-term plan is
completed, the property must be developed with on-site ponding sufficient to
maintain the current rate of storm water discharge from the site. This
strategy reflects the education the City received via the M/O experience by
requiring that the trunk storm sewer expenses be paid up-flront, befbro
development occurs.
City Council Agenda - 8114195
In summary, the grading plan information as identified in the preliminary
plat has been superseded by the comprehensive stoma sewer done by the City
Engineer. All grading of individual parcels done in conjunction with
subsequent development of the site must be done in a manner to allow
storage on-site with outlet flow direction towards the northwest.
PROPOSED MODWICATIONS TO THE PLAT
The preliminary plat fails to show easements necessary along the perimeter
of each outlot. This aspect needs to be corrected.
It is also suggested that the Cedar Street right-of-way be increased in width
from 60 R to 80 R along the area south of School Boulevard.
Finally, School Boulevard road right-of-way should be widened to 100 ft
between Cedar Street and Highway 25.
B. ALT): RNATME ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the preliminary plat of the Monticello Business
Center subject to completion of the following modifications:
1. Provide all necessary easements along lot perimeters as
required by ordinance.
2. Widen Cedar Street from 60 ft to 80 ft. and widen School
Boulevard to 100 ft between Highway 25 and Cedar Street.
3. Adjust Cedar Street alignment to enable connection to the
Kjellberg Trailer Park fi-ontage road.
4. Subsequent development must adhere to the trunk storm water
policy of the City.
8. On-site ponding shall be developed, uAcient to manage storm
water produced on-aite.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat.
City Council Agenda - 8/14/'95
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and Planning Commission recommend alternative #1. The plat is
consistent with all planning and zoning ordinance amendments previously
approved by the City. The plat provides a basic template from which future
subdivision can occur. Roadway alignment and easements are consistent
with the design of the utilities that are now being installed. It is our view
that the preliminary plat should, therefore, be approved suiyect to the
changes as noted under alternative p 1.
D. SiiPPORTING DATA
Copy of preliminary plat (Please excuse print quality, degradation caused by
reduction.); Zoning map.
0
Council Agenda - 8/14195
8. Resew of Lauer atom &month Rnsnelnl dataMenb. (RW., J. H.)
p_ RF.FF.RF.Nf!F. AN7] A (:R(li_iNil;
Liquor Store Manager Joe Hargan will be in attendance at the Council
meeting Monday night to review with the Council the second quarter liquor
store financial statements.
The following is a brief summary of the financial report which is enclosed for
your review. In regard to overall sales, sales have increased $52,739 for the
first 6 months of 1995 compared to 1994 and the coat of sales (purchases)
have also increased $48,643 which results in a groes profit increase of a little
over $6.000 for the same time period. In regard to operating expenses, there
has also been an increase in this category by almost 89,000 which resulted in
the operating income being actually 82,652 less than last year's income at
Oda time. The main reason for the large increase in operating expenses was
due to a 86,000+ expenditure for a repair to one of the compressors in the
walk-in cooler which failed atter almost 20 years. Without the expenditure
for this repair, the operating income would have been about 83.500 ahead of
last year's income for the first 6 months.
In regard to the gross profit percentages, the overall percentage of 22.9 is
acceptable, but we also feel there may be an error in the wine gross profit
percentage in that we do not feel that 25.2% is the correct figure. The most
likely problem Bea in an incorrect coding of a purchase or possibly an
inventory calculation error which normally corrects itself during the next
quarter.
Atter review, accept the 6 -month financial report as presented.
Copy of the 6 -month financial report.
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
30Jun95
Current Assets:
Cash
Change Fund
Investments
Accounts Receivable
A/R - NSF Checks
Inventory
Prepaid Insurance
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
Fixed Assets
Land & Parking Lot
Buildings
Furniture & Equipment
less: Accumulated Depreciation
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS
TOTAL ASSETS
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Due to EDA Fund
Sales Tax Payable
salaries Payable
Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave
Other Accrued Expenses
TOTAL LIABILITIES
RETAINED EARNINGS
i
TOTAL LIABILITIRS AND FUND BALANCE
3,905.73
1,600.00
538,433.73
(8,764.34)
(298.53)
187,709.55
6,658.44
729,244.58
46,591.03
199,285.65
74,324.45
(217,981.73)
------------
102,219.40
------------
831,463.98
aaeeoeeaooao
(13,287.59)
100,000.00
3,702.04
2,181.49
16,672.02
695.26
------------
109,963.22
721,500.76
------------
831,463.98
';ENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
Personal Services
Salarles
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
55,591
PERA
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
2,426
FICA
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
4,418
Insurance
ENDING JUN 31, 1994 AND 1995
5,524
Unemployment Benefits
1994
1995
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
Supplies
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
SALES
150
644
Liquor
186,715
207,156
Beer
425,387
448,698
Nine
69,311
77,106
Other Merchandise
19,783
20,528
Misc Non -Taxable Sales
1,178
1,626
Discounts
TOTAL SALES
702,375
755,114
COST OF GOODS SOLD
(535,458)
(582,001)
GROSS PROFIT
166,917 23.8%
anaooaaaaa
173,113 22.9%
aaoaaaenaa
';ENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
Personal Services
Salarles
54,495
55,591
PERA
2,261
2,426
FICA
4,161
4,418
Insurance
4,862
5,524
Unemployment Benefits
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
65,836 9.4%
70,628 9.42
Supplies
office Supplies
150
644
General Operating Supplie
3,187
3,299
Other Supplies
60
73
TOTAL SUPPLIES
3,397 .52
4,015 .5%
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUN 31, 1994 AND 1995
1994 1995
YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
Other Services & Charges
Professional Services
2,500
128
Maintenance Agreements
Communication
565
1,078
Travel -Conference -schools
98
Advertising
2,815
2,308
Insurance
7,567
6,513
Utilities, Electric
5,162
5,444
Utilities, Heating
987
727
Utilities, Sewer & Mater
319
54
Maintenance, Equipment
635
7,547
Maintenance, Building
1,258
1,180
Maintenance, Other
74
Depreciation --Acquired As
8,013
7,762
Other Mlsc Expenses
542
----------
1,217
----------
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH
30,613
4.4%
34,051
4.5%
TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS
99,846
----------
14.32
108,694
----------
14.4%
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME
67,071
cocoa ova ac
9.5%
64,419
convaccocc
8.5%
other Income (Expense)
Interest Income
5,205
9,640
Cash Long/Short
91
41
Sale of Property
----------
----------
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
5,297
.8%
9,681
1.3%
NET INCOME (BXPENSB)
72,368
0000000000
10.3%
74,100
0000000000
9.8%
Transfers In/Out
ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE
72,368
10.3%
74,100
9.8%
covncoccca
nc.000cona
a
9)
Liquor Sales
Discounts
Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR
Beer Bales
Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT - BEER
Wine Sales
Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT - WINE
lsc Sales
'�vost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE
Misc Non-taxable Sales
Cost of sales
GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAX
TOTAL SALES
TOTAL COST OF SALES
TOTAL FRBIGHT COST
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
GROSS PROFIT
BY PRODUCT
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUN 31,
1994 AND 1995
1994
1995
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
186,715
207,156
139,439
153,703
47,276
25.3%
53,453
25.81
425,387
448,698
334,168
---91,219
351,407
---97,291
21.4%
21.11
69,311
77,106
44,017
57,696
25,294
36.5%
19,410
25.21
19,783
20,528
13,810
----
14,404
----
5,973
30.2%
6,124
29.81
1,178
1,626
506
----------
1,259
----------
A 672
57.0%
367
22.61
702,375
755,114
531,941
578,468
3,517
3,533
166,917
0000000000
23.81
173,113
0000008000
22.91
9.
Council Agenda - 8/14/96
. (OX)
The EDA requests that City Council review GMEF Loan No. 009 for compliance
with the GMEF guideline& The GMEF guidelines state: 'The EDA shall have
authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA approval,
the City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is
determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of the GMEF
Guidelines."
On July 26, 1995, the EDA approved GMEF Loan No. 009 for the H -Window
Company. This may sound familiar to Councilmembers because on June 27,
1994, Council reviewed and determined GMEF No. 008 was not in violation of
the GMEF Guidelines. However, the 1994 approved loan dollars wera not
disbursed within the 180 -day GMEF guideline for disbursement because the
Small Cities Economic Recovery Grant (SCERG) did not close nor were the
dollars disbursed. This was because H -Window was unclear or did not
understand the terms and conditions of the SCERG. Hence Loan No. 008
became null and void.
The GMEF Loan No. 009 application remains the same as the previous
application. Current financial statements were submitted and analyzed as
acceptable by Public Resource Group, Inc. For your review, enclosed as
supporting data is the approved outline used by the EDA for determination of
GMEF public purpose and policy compliance.
The equipment loan was approved for $60,000 at a 6.0% feed interest rate
amortized over seven years. Loan fee was set at $750, and the GMEF legal fees
are the responsibility of the applicant The GMEF and SCERG loans will share
a first position on the equipment. Collateral, guarantees, and other condition
requirements are to be determined and prepared by the GMEF attorney. The
GMEF loan approval is subject to SCERG closing. The SCERG award amount
is $250,000.
As of January 1996, the GMEF appropriation balance was $200,000 and, with
the approval of Loan No. 009, the remaining GMEF appropriation balance is
$160,000. The EDA authorized transfer of the approved Loan No. 009 ($60,000)
fivm the UDAG acoount. Thereafter, the remaining balance of the total sources
of funds for GMEF use is approximately $328,900.
After review of the approved EDA outline for GMEF public purpose and policy
compliance, the City Council is requested to consider the following actions.
Council Agenda- 8/14/95
B. AI.TF.RNATIVF: ACTIONS:
1. A motion stating that City Council has determined that EDA approval of
GMEF Loan No. 009 for the H -Window Company was issued without
violation of the GMEF Guidelines; and therefore, Council supports the
decision by the EDA for loan approval.
2. A motion stating that City Council recognizes the EDA -approved GMEF
Loan No. 009 for the H -Window Company is at an interest rate lower
than the GMEF guideline: 2% below Minneapolis prime rate. However,
Council supports the EDA rationale; therefore, the Council ratifies the
decision by the EDA for loan approval.
3. A motion stating that City Council has determined that EDA approval of
GMEF Loan No. 009 for the H -Window Company was issued in violation
of the GMEF Guidelines; therefore, the Council reverses the decision by
the EDA for loan approval.
4. A motion to table action until the August 28th Council meeting. This
alternative is riot an option as it would violate the 'within 21 days"
guideline for City Council to review the EDA's decision of loan approval.
C. STAFF F, ,O NDATION:
Staff supports the EDA rationale and recommends alternative 82. Based on
H -Window's request for an interest rate of 5% over 10 years, the EDA
determined the reduction of the term length from 10 years to 7 years was the
greater benefit of the 2 GMEF previsions for loan term and interest rete. This
brings the request into compliance with the GMEF provision (personal property
gencray 5.7 years) and recycles GMEF dollars faster. To additionally impose
a higher interest rate places an additional stain on a business during critical
periods. Critical periods defined as first five years of a business startup or
during expansion and growth. This was the rationale used by the EDA for
approval of the 5.0% interest rate. Secondly, the loan approval supports both
the FDA's philosophy and the IDC's Business Retention and Expansion
Program which encourages existing industrial businesses to expand in
MontioeUo. Lastly, the EDA reoogdzed the H -Window expansion has more than
doubled the property's estimated market value and has increased the local
employment by 15 since its 1994 application.
D_ Ri1PPORTIN(i DATA
Copy of the GMEF criteria used by the EDA; copy of the preliminary loan
application; copy of the GMEF Approval.
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND CRITERIA
GMEF LOAN APPLICATION REQUEST:
$50,000 for equipment, 5.0% interest rate over 10 yearn,
shared firot-position with the SCREG.
USES OF FUNDS
Equipment $350,000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $350,000
SOURCES OF FUNDS
State of Minnesota, SCERG $250,000
(0%-5%, 10 years, ohared let/equipment)
GMEF $ 50,000
(5%, 10 years, shared let/equipment)
Equity $ 50,000
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $350,000
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF) GUIDELINES
BOLD PRIRT - Changes from June, 1994 application to July, 1995
application and EDA approval of 01® Loan No. 009 terms and
conditions.
PIIBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA: Murat comply with four or mora of tho
criteria listed below, eritoria #3
being mandatory.
1. Creates new jobu: 45 new (37.5 hpw) johs nvor two
years. Currently 30 full time.
40 now (97.5 hpw) fobs over two
yoaro. Currently 60 full-time.
2. Increauco the community tax have: Eotimated Markot
value of the
oxp.ino 1 Ott i N
$ 6 9 1. 6 0 0 n r
ootimat,eA Tax
Capucity of $30,213.
ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE - PAYABLE 1995 IS
$1,426.000 OR TAX CAPACITY OF 069,996 FOR
IAT 12.
3. Far,toro: Will aoolut an eutoting induntrlal buoin000 to
oupond their oporationo. Tho louolnnuu and
completed real estate project wino enmPntlhlo
s
with the comprehonoivo plan an -i ouioting
zoning policies. Tho rumpany'a prndur.t fa
unique, and no potential adverse environmental
effects are anticipated.
4. Used as a secondary source of supplement conventional
financing: Although bank financing is not. part of
the. $350,000 equipment package, of the
$1,R00,OG0 total package (Including the
Linc of Crcdit) Christiania Bank (New
York) financed 38.8% or $700,000.
5. Used as gap financing: With the SCERG and TIF
reduction and the CMIF denial,
a "gap" in the financial
package became apparent. The
GMEF is 2.7% of the total
$1,800,000 package.
6. Used to assist other funds: State Funds are being
requested and ReUiona.l
Funds were denied. G.O.
Bonds were denied and TIF
assistance reduced.
GREATER MONTIC_ELLO ENTERPRISE FUND POLICIES
I. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY:
Industrial business: Yea.
Located within city limits: Yeo, Zoned I-2.
Lots 11 and 12, Block 2,
OIp
Credit worthy exiating businc-Ga: Yes, real eutato
financinU " pproved
with Chrtutlania
Rank, 110uItIv0
credit analysiu by
PRO and r,MIF.
CURRENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BY
PRO WITHV . . WION AS
ACCEPTABLE (FINANCIAL
STATEMM/TS ENDING JANE 30,
1995.) EDA rogwmto B -VI In
submit som1-annual financials
for monitoring purpooea.
010,000 loan per each fob creatod, $5,000 po r overy
020,000 In prnporty market valuation, or 05,000 pvr -every
020,000 inoroaoo In personal proporty uood for buulue+a
pnrpn"o, whlnhover highnat• R48n,Ono (4100,000),
$172,900, or 087,500 roopoctivnly,
EDA Approval: $50,000 ($50,000) GMEF loan.
II. FINANCING METHOD:
Participation Loan: The State and GMEF will share a
first position on the equipmorit..
TIT. USE OF PROCEEDS:
Equipment - See enclosed list.
TV. TERMS AND CONDTTIONS:
Loan Size: Maximum not to exceed 50% of the
remaining GMEF balance. Balance 3anuary
1994, $200,000. Appropriation balance
January 1998, $200,000. Maximum loan
size, $100,000.
EDA Approval: 550,000 ($50,000) GMEF loan.
Leveraging: Minimum Folk prtvatn/puhlIc nnn-GMEF.
Maximum 30% GMEF. Minimum 10% e-iult,y of
GMEF loan.
TOTAL PROJECT
Bank $700,000 (38.8810)
EQtITTY $800,000 (44.440
STATE $250,000
CMEF $ 50,000 ( 2.771%)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
STATE 0 250,000 (71.42sx)
GMEF $ 50,n00 (14.28%)
EQUITY $ 50,000 (14.28%) (1000
Loan Term: Personal prnperty torm not to excood life
of equipment (generally 5 7 ye-wo ).
EDA Approval: Amortized over 7 (7) yearn.
Tntereot Rate: Fixed rate not ]eon than 21% 1-1ow
Minneapollu prime rate. (Prime 7.2.51%. R-
Ifi-94.) (Prime 8.758. 7-25-95, pop Flrot
Bank.)
F.nA Apprnval: 9.25% (5/08) flxrd interest rah•.
Lnan F„r,: Minimum fun of $ 200 but nut to "xrond
1.5% of total loan projent. 06o.On0 X
.018 0 $750.
FDA ApprnvaI : 0760 (0750) paid at. t Ime of loon
diubnrcivmon1. .
Prepayment Policy: No penalty for prepayment.
Deferral of Payment: 1. Approval of the EDA
memberehlp by majority vnt:e.
2. Extend the balloon if
unable to refinance,
verification letter from two
lending institutions subject. to
Board approval.
Interest Limitation on Guarantned Loans:
Snbjer:t to security and/or reviewal by EDA.
Asanmab.ility of Loan: None.
Buslnese Equity Requirements: Subject to type of loan
as determined by the EDA.
Collateral: Mortgage, floods, oecuritice, and/or
guarantees as per the GMEF atrorney.
Non-performance: Tlw approved GMEF loan shall by null
and void if fundo are not drawn upon
or diabursed with 180 days from rlat.o ,
of EDA approval.
EDA Approval : Null and void date, December 15, 1994.
Extended to January 15, 1995; by vntc of
the EDA Commisnionere. Became null and
vnid on January 15, 1995.
GIRO E.OAR NO. 009 becomes null and void
on Jantuaey 25, 1996.
CMFF legal fern: RNsponsibillty of th.- CMEF
applicant.
EC ^"N
ITEn
;a;I .
S6kIM6 MGCHIr.E
ti�t,i35.iC
S.E. TEMONER
!if•.??%.0
OMGA ENO MINS
t10.6:J.00
SINGLE EMD IODLI.,:G
19.00.00
IM3ECIlON MO TOOLING
fi?.b?0.00
ALUnIM(m SAY ANGLE STOPS
Alar. PUNCH DIES IFO3 VALLEY)
t:,1io.:0
ALUM PUACH DIES t AUTO FEEDER
611.555.00
OVEPY1.0 CRANE
f%.ovJ.00
HINGE KNOCC OUT MACHINE
115.0W.00
MAIL TABLES
tT.SCJ.00
VIT GLAD SYSTEM
tIJ.S:'J.00
AUTO FEED SCREYDRIVER
57.000.00
PROTECTION EEAD TODLING
1I.S00.00
DIE CUT FOAM TOOLING
6600.00
MAIL fin IOOLING
t1,500.0)
STRAP ANCH(R TOOLING
:W.0
CONNECTOR PLATE TOOLING
t600.00
NEEP MOLE PUNCH TO({I96
11.150.00
Y000 SHAPED.
1;.5(0.0)
AITPE CHOP SAY
1250,00
6LAI06 SENCRISITABIES
tl.Si�1.OJ
GLUAINUA MILL TOOTING
ti.l%J.uO
FRAPE CLAMP
tpS,t ?.00
AUTO RIVETER
t7,5CJ.00
ALUMINUM STORAGE SYSTEM
19,60.00
ALVAINLM BORING HEADS
12.000.00
THIPD ASSEABLY LINE
130,300.00
YEATNERSTRIP/GLAZING MACHINE
115.000.00
6218358.00
GPEATER MCNT_C3,L0 ENTEP.PRISE
250 EAS: BROADWAY
PWTICZLLO, MINNESOTA
PRELu 1' ARY APPUCATICN FOR LOAN
ApoLIC NT: The H Window Company
P=vM OR TRADE NAME: 4tQ H Window
BUSINESS ADDRESS: 1324 E. Oakwood Drive, Mont1Ce110, MN ».10c
(y i St:eec) (C_ty i State)
(Zip Code)
TELEFECNE: BUSINESS f;j 295-5305 SCME ( ) --
DAME ESTAHLISEED: 1987 EMPLOYER I.D. #:
3873080
SOLE PROPRIETOR x CORPORA?ION
PAKNERSBZ?
MJ+Nac-* .
NAME TT3.E
OWNERSM %
ctmm Tn President / General Manager
-----
11ka Tn arna ienal
b7%
FinrdinmgtnA A/ii
IL%
PROJECT LOCATION: H Window Factory Monticello, MN
NEW BUSL`TFSS � x EXISTIM BUSINESS
)
TOTAL PF.DJECT COST ESTVATE: $ 1,130f).000
PROPOSED USES: RLIVFS':
LAND S AMD= OF LOAN
550.000
EXISTING BUILD= MATVRI21-1 i TERMS
CONS-ux-TcN 5950,000 REQUEST=
9%, 10 Yrs
MJ:C3nML° CAPr91L 3350,000 APPLIC26m,S
%CRK--NG CAPr"-AL 5400,000 EQUr-"Y
$50,000
OTSER 5100,000 LOAN PURPOSE
Eauirmvnt
TOTAL USES 51.800.000
PROPOSED BEGINNING DAT -0: Ra11 >nol
ESTL`iA:"M COMPLETION DAME:
TITLE 10
PROJEr: ASSETS TO BE HELD BY: OPERATING ENTX Y ALTER EGO
PARTICIPATING LENDER:Christiania Rank 11 West 42nd St. 7th Floor New York, NY 10036
(Name) (Access)
Mr. Armond Rnutaon-0y all 827-4800
(Contacc Person) (Telephone t)
PRESM P 1 OF CTLOYMS: 60 PROJEC"M 1 Of MVWTEE4 100+
ALDI'T:CNAL PFDJEC. n*'MMATIO
APPLICANT SIGNATURE: OATS SIQMD: 6 Ja ¢S'
APPROVAL OF
GREATER MONTICL•LLO ENTERPRISE FUNDS
BY
ECONOMIC DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Preliminary Loan Application Approval. YES JUNE 23. 1995
Loan terms negotiated and agreed upon
betweeen the developer, the lending
institution, and the EDA Executive Director. NOT INTEREST RATE OF 6.75%
rKo Ktuummp-Nub o.uz
Formal Loan Application and Financial
Statements analyzed by the lending
institution, SDS, Inc. or city staff. PRC - JULY 20. 1995
Building and Site Plan Preliminary and/or NO PERMANENT OCCUPANCY PERMIT.
Final Review. SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF 2ND -
FLOUR UIFILE, AllullluNAL PARKIN,
Building Permit approval or construction AND SCREENING.
commitment. YES
Loan documents reviewed and/or prepared
by the City Attorney.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL:
LOAN NUMBER GMEF LOAN NO. 009 LOAN APPROVED YES
BORROWER THE H -WINDOW COMPANY
ADDRESS 1324 OAKWOOD DR. El BOX 206 LOAN DISAPPROVED
LOAN AMOUNT 150,000 EQUIPMENT
RATE 5.0% INTEREST RATE `FIXED) DATE JULY 25. 1995
TERMS AMORTIZED OVER 7 YEARS
FEE $720.90 PAID AT TIME OF GMEF DISBURSEMENT.
CHEF LEGAL FEES RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT. OTHER.*
A motion was made by EDA Commissioner BARBARA SCHWIENTEK to
(approve - dfYd6) Greater Monticello Enterprise Funds in the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS (550.000.00) dollars
and cents to developer THE H -WINDOW COMPANY
this 25th day of AUL: Seconded
by EDA Commissioner AL LARSON
YEAS: BARB SCHWIENTEK CLINT HERBST NAYS: NONE
AL LARSON BILL DEMEULES
RON HOGLUND
HARVEY KENDALL
TOM PERRAULT
GMEF diobursed 19 _ by Check No.
EDA Treasurer
DISBURSEMENT FROM UDAG ACCOUNT.
CITY COUNCIL MAY REVERSE AN EDA LOAN DECISION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS OF EDA APPROVAL, CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AUGUST 14. 1995.
J
GMEF Approval
Page 2
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
I LWd) hereby accept the terms stated b a approved by the
Economic Development Authority in and fo ty of Monticello.
DATED:
+ IF APPROVED CHEF LOAN NO. 009 DOLLARS OF $50,000 ARE NOT DISBURSED BY
JANUARY 25, 1996, THE APPROVED LOAN BECOMES NULL AND VOID.
THE GMEF WILL SHARE A FIRST POSITION ON EQUIPMENT WITH THE SCREG.
APPROVED CHEF LOAN NO. 009 SUBJECT TO CLOSING OF THE SCREG OF $250.000.
COLLATERAL, GUARANTEES, AND OTHER CONDITION REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED
AND PREPARED BY THE GMEF ATTORNEY. ,
C12,
City Council Agenda - 8/14/95
10. Conalderation ofeallincr form nnhlic hearincr on tl_e Wastrvvater
Treatment P not F H.. Pan and amen ■menta, (J.S.)
A. F.FF.RF.N . Nn $A TC .RO TNn;
HDR is in the process of preparing the cost estimates for the two alternatives
selected for ams mann to the Facilities Plan, the sequencing batch reactor and
the oxidation ditch. We expect the draft report to be delivered to the Council by
August 28, 1995. We would then like to hold a workshop on September 5th or
6th to go over the addendum or amendments to the Facilities Plan and get the
document in final form for a Public Hearing to be held September 11, 1995, at
the regular Council Meeting.
City Staff and PSG have been working with HDR on specific requirements for
various portions of the expansion which will be the same whether or not we use
an oxidation ditch or sequencing batch reactor. We have been looking at the
head -works of the treatment plant, a new screening and grit removal system
and methodologies to achieve a 'Class A' sludge. We are also meeting with
various vendors on different types of equipment which may be used at the
facility.
Last week council member Perrault, myself and representatives firom PSG
toured the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant which is a carousel type of
oxidation ditch with clarifiers in the middle. Both of the ditches were covered.
They had a different type of aeration system which was not very practical and
may be changed already. We did, however, get some good ideas especially on
the architecture of the buildings. They use a combination of block buildings
with metal roofs and appeared to be a good-looking yet economical type of
structure. They are located right across from a hospital just as our treatment
plant. There are some other similarities between the facilities, as they have a
two million gallon plant and the as= type of sludge digestion we currently
have. We will continue to research and investigate these two alternatives along
with HDR so that we will be able to fast track once we make a decision as to
which type of facility to build.
We aro also in the process of obtaining quotes for soil investigative work on the
lot next to the treatment plant, the landberg property which we acquired in the
early 1980's. We expect to have the survey of our property and the Kruse
property completed in the near future so negotiations can continue for the
purchase of that property.
City Council Agenda - 8114/85
Lit
`q
S. Ai.TF.RNATIVE A(:TION4; .� p 0 p 4 A,
The first alternative is to call for a Public Hearing on the Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Plan and amendments on September 11, 1995. To
also set a workshop for either September 6th or 6th, to review the draft
document and make any changes necessary.
2. The second alternative would be not to hold the Public Hearing at this
time.
r. VTAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we proceed as
outlined in alternative ill. We originally anticipated holding the Public Hearing
in August, but the depth and review of the Facilities Plan held us up by at least
on week.
None.
City Council Agenda - 8/14/95
1. Cnncideratinn of amending the sanitary sewer difichara ordinance
relating to pr a1Hes for violailons. (J.S.)
A_ REFERENCE AND RAC TNiI;
At the last meeting, council member Stumpf requested that we look at
increasing the amount of the fine that the Public Works Director can levy
against any user who has failed to comply with any provision of the sanitary
sewer discharge ordinance, orders, rules, regulations and permits under Title
14, Sanitary Sewer Discharge Control. I am currently allowed to fine no lege
than $100 nor more than $1,000 for each offense. Each day that an offense
continues is considered a separate offense.
It seems appropriate to increase the civil penalties since the ordinance is more
than a decade old. I would suggest that we increase the upper end of the fine
to $5,000.
In a related issue, Sunny Fresh Foods discharged approximately 2,800 pounds
of raw egg to us on July 8, 1895. Also, due to a new employee and a
communication breakdown, we did not receive adequate notice. Our wastewater
treatment plant at this time is still hanging on the raw edge of meeting our
permit limitations. For this violation of their permit, I have fined Sunny Fresh
Foods $1,000. 1 have also discussed their permit violation and fine with Todd
Eckberg of the enforcement section of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
It was Todd's suggestion that, since Sunny Fresh has had repeated spills, we
suggest they hire an outside consultant to assist them with spill management
and, if they do, rebate the $1,000 fine back to them.
Rick Wolfsteller, Kelsie McGuire and Chuck Keyes fiom PSG and myself met
with Sunny Fresh Foods representatives on Monday, August 7, 1995. We
discussed several issues besides the spills and slug loads. (Such as the future
discharges from Sunny Fresh, the variability of those discharges and the
possibility of a restructuring of our rate system that would include demand
charges for a wide variability in load). We also informed Sunny Fresh that we
expected the Council to increase the monetary fines for violations of the
discharge permits and that we would also ask the Council to rebate the $1,000
as recommended by the Mn/PCA, should they hire an outside consultant. A
copy of the original notice and fine levy to Sunny Fresh and a copy of a
summary of the meeting on Monday are enclosed for your review.
City Council Agenda - 8/14/96
B_ ALTLRNATM ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to increase the fine section of the ordinance to
$5,000, and to rebate the $1,000 fine to Sunny Fresh for July 8, 1995, if
they hire an outside consultant to work an the spill control program.
2. The second alternative would be to increase the fine to $5,000 but not
rebate the $1,000 fine from July 8, 1995.
3. The third alternative could be to unease the fine even higher since there
is a possibility that a dug load could endanger the entire treatment plant
and knock us out of oomplianoe for quite some time as the January slug
load knocked us out for the entire month of February and a portion of
March.
4. The fourth alternative would be not to increase the fine amount.
C . STAIrR RF ,� IVDATION;
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
increase the fine amount to $5,000 and offer to rebate the fine of $1,000 from
July 8, 1995, to Sunny Fresh should they hire an outside consultant to work on
the spill control progiam and load balancing.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter informing Sunny Fresh of their violation; copy of response letter
Som Sunny Fresh; copy of meeting summary letter to Sunny Fresh; copy of the
existing ordinance, wording, Section 14.8-1, Civil Penalties and the new
wording, changing only the $1.000 to $5,000.
250 East Broadwav
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, ',IN
55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Merro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
Nan: Plant Manager
SUNNY FRESH FOODS
206 West Fourth Street, Box 428
Monticello, MN 55362
July 20, 1995
O
Re: BOD Dischargge and Shq Load VWatiorn of City ojMondce& s Wanewmer
Ditcharge Penn& #0028
Dear Plant Manger
This Law is to ofliciaUy inform you of violations of your wastewater discharge permit with the City
of Manticeflo. Resat testing from Midwest Analytical Laboratories and flow information from your
firm showed that on Wednesday, June 21,1995, your firm exceeded your maximum BOD discharge
spccifled as 2,000 pounds in your permit The tested value for January 24, 1995, was 2,210 pounds.
Additionally. we were informed after the fora that your firm discharged a dug load of approximately
3,000 pounds of whole, mw egg on July 8. 1995. Twelve days later, we still fwd ourselves ativggting
with our wastewater treatment plant to keep it within our discharge permit limrtacans due to the slug
load
This is not the first nor the second release of whole egg by your frena in tsPt months. It is imperative
that you bring your operations under control so that the release of such significant amounts of whole
egg can mvm reoccur.
As per Title 14, Chapter 5, Section 1B of the City's Sanitary Sewer Discharge Control Ordinance,
you are hereby notified to send a detailed written statement descn'bing the causes of the slug or
accidental discharge and the meauma taken to prevent any fimae occurrence. You rmut submit this
to the City of Monticello within fifteen (15) calx alar days. Additioaally, under Section 14, Chapter
6, Paragraph 1, your firm is hereby fined the sum of 5200 fa the permit violation which occurred on
June 21, 1995, and 51,000 for a permit violation including the slug load which occurred on
July 20, 1995
Plant Manager
Paget
July 8, 1995. In addition, under Title 14, Chapter 6, Section 2, the City will bill Sunny Fresh Foods
for additional expenses for temporary chemic2l feed, additional manpower costs of electricity and
other associated coo contributed to the shag laadimg which occurredon July 8,1993. Enclosed you
will find a bill for 5906.54 related to expenses by the City for releases by your firm earlier this year.
Should you wish to appeal my enforcement of this ordimaoa you may apply directly with the city
Administrator and file a written petition within thirty (30) days upon receipt of this letter. Your
petition shall specify in detail the matter or matters imvohvd in every ground or basis on which
objections are made. Said petition shall show the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all
objectors and their attorney at law or mpresen tsirw.
I highly recemmm'that the connive actions to be talon by your fig include emergency reaponsc
to shut down your pleat if accessary and hold any release of a large quantity of raw egg umal such time
it can be dihned and let into the sanitary sewer system on a slow basis. If say fume releases of such
a large quantity of egg occur, again they will be costly, I will ask the City Council to modify the ctarem
ordinance to allow for a much saonger monetary penalty.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or if we cera be of further assistance, please feel five
to contact us as soon as possibla
Sincerely,
��-' ,
J.h,E. Simoln
Public Works Director
JES\beg
cc: Brad Fyle, Mayor
Rick Wolftcller, City Administrator
Chuck Keyes, Manager, PSG, Wastewater Treatment Plant
Chris Gwdwr, PSG, Chief Operator, Wastewater Treatment Plant
File
Frei,-
Egg
h
Produces August 1, 1995
City of Monticello
John Simola, Public works Director
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Dear Mr. Simola:
I am writing to you in response to your letter dated July 20
regarding a violation of our wastewater permit on July 8.
Let me start by explaining what transpired at our facility on that
day. A Pasteurizer Operator, when faced with a technical problem,
used poor judgement resulting in approximately 2,800 pounds of
pasteurized whole egg going to drain. Our Maintenance staff was
Ommediately notified which in turn followed our wastewater
Reporting Policy by first notifying the waste plant. No one was
available, so there was a message left. He then called Kelsey
McGuire several times but received a busy signal. Lastly, he
called your residence but was informed that you were not in, he did
not leave a message. One other call was then placed to Kelsey
McGuire's pager. At that time our Maintenance staff incorrectly
assumed that the message left at the wastewater plant and the call
to Kelsey's pager was sufficient notification.
Short term corrective actions regarding this type of incident have
been put in place and includes a stricter notification policy in
which our Maintenance staff must make contact with individuals
responsible for the wastewater plant, a revised contact list
received from you on July 25 has been posted. we have also made
some personnel changes in our processing areas to assure better
accountability of product being processed.
As discussed in a phone conversation with Mr. Paumen, a meeting has
been set for Monday, August 7 at 9:00 a.m. in which myself, Greg
Paumen, Don Roberts and Jerry Rose will be present to meet with you
regarding this matter and future plans to address this ongoing
situation.
In closing, I would like to express my regrets that this issue has
boon ongoing for as long as it has and to ensure you and the City
of Monticello that we consider our wastewater a high priority in
all future decisions we make at our facility.
t. Sorely, ,
Tim�arracco
TS/elm
A CARGILL MRS rom{wny
.,Mn� ,,,•.,. -—v,..,,..u„ �nAa,•.,�., u;,,:,t�-- – ,rsas �;Ns � r..+���:o: ice: FU. RI "J' .«ri
2 50 East Broadway
P. 0. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362-9245
August 8, 1995
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fix: (612) 2954404
Attn: Mr. Tim Senacco, Plant Manager
SUNNY FRESH FOODS
206 West Fouts Sb=% Box 428
Monticello, MN 53362
RE: Summary of Meeting Held on August 7,1995, Regarding %dewater Discharges
from Sunny Fresh Foods
Dear Mr. Suracco:
At our meeting yesterday naming, City Staff contisting of AdraWst rator, Rick Wotfslt W and myself
as well as representatives of PS f}, specifttaUy Kelsie McGuire and Chuck Keyes, met with you, Ong
Pauman and Jerry Rose to discuss past violations of your wastewater dischuge permit. We also
discussed your August I st response, general methodologies for stopping the accidental release or slug
discharges and Sunny Fmsh's future discharges to the City's wastewater syustem. City Staff imprm-;cd
upon you the importance to case all spills or slug loading+ from your facility immediately. We talked
about our time table for doubling the size of our wastewater treatment eapacity with construction
beginning in 1996, and mmpletal in lata 1997 or early 1998. We asked for a letter of cornmitmem
from vow fimr indicating your best guess at your firm's discharge of wastewter and loads over the
next 23 years so that we may use this data in designing our wastewater treatment plant.
We aLso informed you of an upcoming change in our ordinance regarding Ute monetary amount of
fines for violation of our discharge permit and told you that with the construction of our new
wastewater treatment plant, we expected or rate stnuture to change and that we would be looking
at o dcmand system similar to what NSP eves. In addition, we will also lock at an off-peak type of
program but. we also informed you at the same time, that our hydraulic loading to the tncamteat plant
has remained somewhat steady and there may be no valleys for which we can nue the off-peak
Program.
August 8, 1995
Mt. Tim Sanacco
Page 2
You, Greg and Jerry said that you would be looking at some type of BOD monitoring to know when
these spills or slug loads occur and ways to hold them within your facility, if and when they do occur.
We also talked show the possibility of installing a larger tank which would hold tip to a days flow from
your facility so that slug loads could be bled out easier and you could balance a demand charge, should
it became a reality in the future. City Staff also stated that we would be asking the City Council at the
August 28, 1995, meeting to credit you the recent fine imposed for the July 8th slog load if you would
consider hiring outside expertise to assist you with spills and waste management system regarding
wastewater.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Jerry Rose suggested that we meet within two to throe weeks to
discos progress. If at all possible, l would like your written respottse in regard to your use of our
system over the next 25 years to the year 2020, based upon all information you have today. Please
refer to Section 3.2, The Wet industry Flow and loads from the FDR Technical Memorandum # 1,
which 1 gave you at the meeting.
If you have any questions or this letter does not tepieseat the actual summary of meeting, please
contact the as soon as possible.
FJ,hnZL la
Public Works Director
JES/beg
cc: Rick Wolf,teller, City Admkdsbwm
Kelsie McGuire, PSG
Greg Pauman, Sunny Fresh Foods
ciwwNasFwrt MVFMVL 0.
CHAPTER 6
PENALTIES
SECTION:
14-6-1: Civil Penalties (ORIGINAL WORDING)
14-6-2: Costs of Damage
14-6-3: Falsifying Information
14-6-4: Crim!.nal Penalties
14-6-1: CIVIL PENALTIES: Any user who is found to have violated an
order of the City Council or who has failed to comply with
any provision of this ordinance and the orders, rules, regulations, and
permits issued hereunder shall be fined not less than One Hundred
Dollars ($100) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each
offense. Each Say on which a violation shall occur or continue shall be
deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to the penalties
provided herein, the City may recover reasonable attorney's fees, court
costa, court reporters' fees, and other expenses of litigation by an
appropriate action against the person found to have violated this
ordinance or the order, rules, regulations, and permits issued
hereunder. D
14-6-2: COSTS OF DAMAGE: Any user violating any of the provisions of
this ordinance or who has a discharge which causes a deposit,
obstruction, damage, or other impairment to the city's wastewater
disposal system shall become liable to the City for any expense, lose,
or damage caused by the violation or discharge. The Director may add to
the user's charges and fees the costs assessed for any cleaning, repair,
monitoring at user's location, or replacement work caused by the
violation or discharge. Any refusal to pay the assessed costs shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
14-6-3: FALSIFYING INFORMATION: Any person who knowingly makes any
false statements, representation, or certification in any
application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required
to be maintained pursuant to this ordinance or wastewater discharge
permit, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate
any monitoring device or method required under this ordinance, shall
upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(1/23/84, #132)
14-6-4: CRIMINAL PENALTIES:
(A) Any person who willfully or negligently violates any provision of
this ordinance or any provision of a permit issued by the City
thereunder shall bo guilty of a misdemeanor.
(8) Any person who continues any violation of any provision of this
ordinance or any provision of a permit issued by the City
thereunder beyond the time limit provided for in the Director's
written notice of violation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
MONTICELL40 CITY ORDINANCE TITLE XIV/Chet 6/Page I
SUO
CHAPTER 6�%-
P6NALTIES
SECTION:
14-6-1: Civil Penalties (PROPOSED NEW WORDING)'
14-6-2: Costs of Damage
14-6-3: Falsifying Information
14-6-4: Criminal Penalties \
14-6-1: CIVIL PENALTIES:• Any user who is found to have violated an
order of the City Council or who has failed to comply with
any provision of this ordinance and the orders, rules, regulations, and
permits issued hereunder shall be fined not less than One Hundred
Dollars (=100) nor more than P,Vr Thousand Dollars ($ 5,000) for each
offense. Each day on which a violation shall occur or continue shall be
deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to the penalties
provided herein, the City may recover reasonable attorney's fees, court
costs, court reporters' fees, and other expenses of litigation by an
appropriate action against the person found to have violated this
ordinance or the order, rules, regulations, and permits issued
hereunder.
-,X, Cw R.../d,:_ P4 - d,®� N r�/G-()
14-6-2: COSTS OF DAMAGE: Any user violating any of the provisions of
this ordinance or who has a discharge which causes a deposit,
obstruction, damage, or other impairment to the city's wastewater
disposal system shall become liable to the City for any expense, lose,
or damage caused by the violation or discharge. The Director may add to
the user's charges and fees the costs assessed for any cleaning, repair,
monitoring at user's location, or replacement work caused by the
violation or discharge. Any refusal to pay the assessed costs shall
constitute a violation of this ordinance.
14-6-3: FALSIFYING INFORMATION: Any person who knowingly makes any
false statements, representation, or certification in any
application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required
to be maintained pursuant to this ordinance or wastewater discharge
permit, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate
any monitoring device or method required under this ordinance, shall
upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(1/23/04, 1132)
14-6-4: CRIMINAL PENALTIES:
(A) Any person who willfully or negligently violates any provision of
this ordinance or any provision of a permit issued by the City
thereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(0) Any person who continues any violation of any provision of this
ordinance or any provision of a permit issued by the City
thereunder beyond the time limit provided for in the Director's
written notice of violation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE XIV/Chet 6/Page 1` _
Council Agenda - 8/14/95
12. Consideration of setting a data for a workshoe to review the 1998
(R.W.)
A. i• FRF.N ..AND
BACKGROUND:
It's that time of the year again and the staff is currently working on
preparing a preliminary 1996 budget that the City Council must adopt by
September 15, 1995. With our regular first council meeting in September
being on the 11th, it is assumed that by this date the Council will adopt a
preliminary budget and marimum tax levy that the City would propose for
the year 1996.
In order to adopt a preliminary tax levy, I'm sure the Council will want to
meet in one or more workshop sessions to review the proposed budget for
next year. We are anticipating having a preliminary summary budget
available by the 18th of August (Friday) which will then be delivered to the
Council for your review. It is suggested that we meet sometime after this
date in possibly a workshop session to go over the proposed budget and
especially the capital outlay -type proposals that may be included in the
budget. If changes are recommended to the preliminary budget, this would
give the staff additional time to make any changes and would also allow for
the Council to have another workshop session if you desired.
While a preliminary budget is just that, preliminary, the resulting tax levy
we need to adopt by September 15 does become the final one as far as the
maximum we can levy next year is concerned. From that standpoint, we
have looked at the preliminary budget as being more final than preliminary
when discussing the items that are included in the budget since we are not
able to raise additional tax levies alter the 15th of September. Because of
this, I believe it's important for the Council to be comfortable with the
preliminary budget as proposed, including capital outlay -type expenditures
and improvements that may be included. Likewise, if the Council is not
agreement with a particular capital outlay -type purchase, it may not make
sense to include it in the budget for next year if the Council is not
comfortable with actually going ahead with the purchase. If the Council
wants to discuss the budget in more detail, it's probably more beneficial to do
so prior to the preliminary tax levy adoption rather that afterwards since we
have more room for making adjustments now than we will after September
15.
The schedule at this time is to deliver s preliminary budget summary
proposal to the Council by August 18 and this would leave 9 weeks available
for any workshop sessions you may want to schedule. We can discuss at the
Council meeting what times or dates may be suitable for everyone. �.
Council Agenda - 8/14/85
13.
(RW.)
A FFRF.N .. Ni] A l;Rn TNi1;
It was recently brought to my attention by Monticello Liquors, Inc. that New
Year's Eve in 1995 will fall on a Sunday. The city's current ordinance
regarding Sunday liquor sales indicates that liquor cannot be sold past 12
midnight on Sundays, although other days of the week are 1 am. The
Council is being requested to consider an ordinance amendment that amends
the closing time for all Sundays until 1 a.m. Monday morning or at a
minimum, allow Sunday sales that occur on a New Year's Eve to be extended
until 1 a.m.
In reviewing the state statutues, the State does allow Sunday sales of liquor
to occur until l a.m., similar to the closing time allowed Monday through
Saturday. For whatever reason, our ordinances had limited Sunday sales to
the hours between 12 noon and 12 midnight only. I do not have any
knowledge of the reason for requiring the closing at midnight on Sundays.
The ordinance amendment enclosed with this agenda would amend the
language to allow Sunday sales to occur until 1 a.m. Monday morning if the
Sunday falls on a New Year's Eve. For all other Sundays, sales would still be
limited to 12 midnight. The other alternative would be to simply amend our
ordinances to match state statutes that indicate Sunday sales can occur until
1 a.m. Mondays for all weeks of the year.
B. ALTRRNATIVE ACTInNS:
Adopt We ordinaw;e amendment which would allow Sunday liquor
sales to occur until 1 a.m. Monday morning if the Sunday is December
31st (New Year's Eve).
Adopt an ordinance amendment that changes all Sunday sales closing
times until 1 a.m. Monday morning, similar to what is allowed by state
statute.
This amendment would allow all liquor license holders to have a
consistent 1 am. closing time, regardless of the day of the week.
Do no adopt any changes to the hours of operation.
Council Agenda - 8/14/95
[:_ STAFF ECOMMPNDATION;
From a staff level, I would not have any problem with either ordinance
amendment, allowing all Sunday sales until 1 a.m. or allowing sales until 1
a.m. only if the Sunday is New Year's Eve. Since state statutes do allow 1
a.m. Sunday sales, it really becomes a city's preference if we choose some
other closing hour.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of excerpt from City Ordinance; Copy of ordinance amendment for
alternative 401.
3-2-7: PLACES INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE: No on -sale license shall be
granted except after a public hearing has been held upon at
least ten (10) days published notice of such hearing. The cost of said
public hearing shall be borne by the applicant. No on -sale license
shall be granted to any person who does not have invested or does not
propose to invest in the fixtures and structure of the proposed on -sale
establishment, exclusive of land, an amount of at least Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000). The Council may provide for an independent
appraisal at applicant's expense as an aid in determining the value of
said premises. In the event this requirement as to investment is not
complied with within one year from the date of issuance of the license,
the license may be revoked.
(3/9/81, 094)
3-2-8: CONDITIONS OF LICENSE: Every license shall be granted subject
to the conditions in the following subsection and all other
provisions of this chapter and of any other applicable provisions of
this code or state law.
(A) Every licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of his place of
business and the conditions of sobriety and order in it.
(B) Any peace officer, health officer, or any properly designated
officer or employee of the City shall have the unqualified right to
enter, inspect,. and search the premises of the licensee during
business hours without a warrant.
(C) Every licensee, except a private club licensee, shall not conduct
business on the premises between the hours of one o'clock
(1:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) a.m., Monday through Saturday
inclusive, or on any Sunday between the hours of one o'clock
(1:00) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon, nor permit the
presence of customers on the premises between the hours of one
thirty o'clock (1:30) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) a.m., Monday
through Saturday inclusive, or on any Sunday between the hours of
one thirty o'clock (1:30) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon;
however, further provided that no intoxicating liquor may be sold
or served on Sunday, whether directly or indirectly, except between
the hours of twelve o'clock (12:00) noon and twelve o'clock
(12:00) midnight, and then only in conjunction with the serving of
food to persons who are seated at tables within the licensed
premises.
(D) All real estate taxes assessed against the licensed premises and
all personal property taxes assessed against any personal property
located in, on, or upon the licensed premises shall be paid or
caused to be paid when due by the licensee, provided, however, that
in the event the licensee and/or the owner of the licensed premises
shall duly contest the validity and/or amount of any said real
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE III/Chet 2/Dago 3
ORDINANCE AN ENDIBUM NO.
THE CI'T'Y COUNCIL OF MONTICEL.LO, MINNESOTA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN THAT Tfl'LE 8, CHAPTER 2, SEMON 8 (C), OF THE MONI'ICELLO
CITY ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR
LIQUOR LICENSE HOLDERS BE A(1(iENDED BY ADDING TM FOLLOWING
LANGUAGE:
3-2-8: CONDITIONS OF LICENSE
(Cr Every licensee,...; however, timber provided that no intoxicating liquor maybe
sold or served on Sunday, whether directly or indirectly, except between the
hours of twelve o'clock (12:00) noon and twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight, unteas
or gryed .rail one o'!ock (1,M) am.. Mon4y. and then only in cor{junction
with the serving of food to persons who are seated at tables within the licensed
premises.
Adopted by the Council We 14th day of August, 1995.
City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT
MONTH OF JULY 1998
ThI3
same Month Lest Year This rear
Month AIN
usl Year To Date To Data
30
23
122 134
51.806.600.00
$657.500.00 $3.842,100.00 $4,968,900.00
$16241.05
64.77041
528,114.20 650,732.40
$801.55
$327.00
$1,904.54 $2.473.47
4
2
20 27
$178,800.00
544.100.00
$823.000.0 41.834.800.00
$19,48722
$450.90
$6,517.08 $30.289.65
588.40
$22.05
5320.00 5805.90
0
1
11 5
$0.00
$472200.00 41.031.800.00
$717.000.00
$0.00
43204.83
$11,311.81 55,415.30
w.0
s238.10
$815.55 $358.50
20
10
56 65
5968.00
$256 Do
$1.477.00 $3.18500
slow
$500
928.00 432.50
20
WI
7L1 69
5798.00
62,908.50
$10.00
434.50
0
0
3 3
SHOD
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00
$0 Do
930.0 9210.00
$000
$0.00
61.50 w50
7.
21g 303
11-71p.4OQ0Q
61.17�1b00 Q17 t8.098.700003L23Q,7y10
937172.27
5805.1 Qr OLD
947.449?2_ja4,45688.
2909 q
059015
(13,089.59 43.705.37
I FEES
NILMBER TO DATE
N-1b9f
ppri
&ec r vp
This Year Laet Yaar
18
$15,46048
$710.35 51,540,700,00
53
44
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00
4
1
0
1
2
1
s9000
63,50 57,000.00
4
5
0
0
0
sow
$000 $0.00
0
0
11
6.590,60
927.70 457,900.00
59
57
4
$19.46722
sm 40 1178.800.00
23
19
0
$o.Do
sow $0.00
4
e
20
498800
610.0
65
66
0
20
$79500
slow
69
Ne
0
0
0
woo
$000 $0,00
10
15
2
0
0
D
9
--w9
- AA- - - -
1
11.
74
537.4n27 _i2Q4B3.31.7 X449
---
�^ T�1 ---
-.
21?
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
Re: Change of Days of Service for Recycling and Garbage Service
Matt Ptlugi dVaAo Rubbish has contacted me regarding adding a third day for pick-
up of garbage in Monticello. It appears that the change we made moving Monday pick-
up from Minnesota Street to Highway 25 has not improved the situation. We currently
have two days which are not very manageable for Vasko and D & K Vasko has
proposed to add Wednesday as the third day for residential garbage services and D &
K is proposing to expand their Wednesday pick-up which is apartments only, to include
residential. The following is the area and dates proposed:
Monday Plek-119:
Monday pick-up would revert back to west of the center of Minnesota Street as it has
been in the past.
Wednesday Piek-Uo•
Wednesday pick-up would be the rapidly expanding area south of I.94 and east of
County Road 117. Etekyding services on Wednesday would also include the apartments
using W -gallon roll around containers as it has been in the past in other areas of the
community.
Thursday Piek-Up:
Thursday pick-up would be that portion of Monticello which was previously Thursday
pick-up; that would be from the center of Minnesota Street to the eastern edge of the
community on Gillard, north of 1.94. On the south of 1.94 it would include that portion
west of County Road 117, which would be Kjellberg's East.
At this time this is prepared only for an informational item. It will be presented as a
formal agenda item on August 28, 1995, and hopefully be implemented by October 1,
1995, if approved by Council. Vasko would like to implement it as anon as possible,
consequently, if the Council doesn't have any problems with it and would like to
approve it by consensus, we may be able to get a 30 -day notice to the public and make
the switch on September 18,1995, rather than October 1,1995; whichever the Council
wishes.
RUG 11 '95 10 08 OSM MPLS, MN
P. 2
MyM a� 30D Pak Pl= Fast 612-595.5775
ASbditMt M MN 228 TA7X59"7i�5
COUNCIL UPDATE
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Cannel Members
Qty of Montkdlo ,y
FROMt Bret A. Wdss, PS. Chy vm*
DAM . Angust 11, 1991
RFs Glllard Avenue Street Reconstruction
Meadow Oab Oudot
Qty Project No. 93 -UC
OSM Project No. 538940
At the last council meeting of July 24,1995,1 brought to your attention a request to remove
the supereievadon from the street nave at 95th Street and Dillard Avenue. I stated at that
time that the township was not completely in favor of a modification to the latersectim
however, I was instructed to have further diseudo»: with the township regarding this issue.
The township board met regarding this imm at their August 7, 1995 meeting and
subsequently met with me at the site on Tuesday, August 8tb, to discuss the issue in greater
detail. At the field meeting, LeRoy Kipitb, Ted Holker, and Kan Scadden discussed that
they had not had any problems with the intersection at this time and were not in favor of
modifications that would eliminate the superelevatim Thry felt them was a potential
problem with accidents on the corner without having the superelevatiom 1 then asked them
to consider signing the street for 30 miles per hour so It could be enforced and so we could
maintain some tower speeds in a residential area. All three persons agreed that with the
conditions of the residential development in the area that it. made servo to sign it for 30
miles per boor, and flutber stated that if them are driveways every 200 feet, they have the
authority to assign a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. They could not give we an
affirmative reaction to completing that signing, however. they stated that all the other
members of the board had disatased the issue and felt it made team to sign it for 30 miles
per hour. 1 subsequently asked them to install,the signs as soon as the road was paved and
they agreed. I (Hither asked them if we could snake some minor modifications to the am
at 95th Street while maintaining the wperelevation and was told that would be acceptable.
Therefore, we aremaking minor modifications to the superelevation at 95th Street and wW
be monitoring installation of 30 mile per hour signs once the road has been paved.
Ah
F" 11 '95 1089 099 PPLS, PN P.3
Couch Update
City of MOtleello
August 11..1995
Pop_
b is my reoo®mendatim that the Cily awadl no* tbe'sbariffs dgmuum that there bat
hem a cMW in speed in the ams, and ask them to. molter it for a period of time in the
hopes of ratraidng the local people to the WW speed limp. It world be preferable to do
this immediately after the road is paved sad reopened for traffic since there has not been
mttcb tbroogb ttatMEe In the ares doing the wngmcdon proas&
a
b
MONTICELLO
( ))'lice .f the Cit , Adhnim,ndtm
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362.9245
Plume: (612) 295-2711 MEMO
Metro: (612) 333.5739
TO: Mayor and Council Members nn�
FROM: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administm /
DATE: August 23, 1896
RE: 1996 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy Workshop,
Monday, August 28, 1986, 6:30 p.m.
Attached you will find summary worksheets outlining the proposed 1996 municipal
budget. The worksheets are summarized at this point for Council review, with the
exception of the general fund, which has more detailed breakdowns by departments.
Along with the general summaries by funds, you will also find a worksheet outlining the
capital outlay expenditures that the staff is proposing for 1996, some of which vary
depending on which alternative may be selected or the maximum tax levy you wish to
propose.
While the attached format is intended to give you an overview of the general expenditures
and revenues by major categories, funds, and departments, additional detail is available
on a line -item basis in the computer-generated worksheets which are available at city hall
if anyone would like a copy. In the past, summarizing the budget for this type of workshop
has usually worked better than getting too specific on a line -by-line item basis.
For the workshop discussion, I have prepared two options that have various tax levy
proposals resulting in levy increases ranging from 7.9% to 10.7% in terms of actual dollars
collected, with the actual increases estimated to be paid by the taxpayers ranging fiom
6.3% to 8.1%. These latter percentages are more reflective of what the taxpayers would
actually see as an increase, whereas the first amount is simply indicating the actual
dollars collected and not an increase to a taxpayer. In each of the alternatives, the
difference is simply an additional $80,000 levy in the capital outlay fund to continue the
past practice of setting aside funds for a future interceptor sewer lino reserve that can be
used for that purpose or possibly other needs of the City. The capital outlay fund
Memo
Mayor and Council
Preliminary Budget
August 23, 1996
Page 2
expenditures proposed are discussed in further detail elsewhere in this memo. Although
changes can be made anywhere in the budget to reduce or increase the levy requirements,
the easiest place to make large changes would likely be within the capital outlay fund.
The next obvious way to reduce the levy would be to target specific equipment or large
ticket items that are being proposed as part of each department's budget, which are
primarily within the general fund.
The first option proposes a tax levy of $3,066,667, which would result in an increase in the
levy of $224,472 and an estimated percentage increase to the taxpayers of approximately
6.3%. As you will note, the general fund has the largest proposed increase in the tax levy
under either option at $313,848. I have attempted to outline the main reasons for the
propo%-I levy increase in She general fund in a summary that is attached for your review.
In addition to the general fund increase, there are also some changes to the other large tax
levy funds, which include debt service and the capital outlay fund. The debt service fund
is actually lower by $43,169 based on our current payment schedules. Under option ql,
the capital outlay revolving fund is slightly lower than the 1995 levy but would be $69,000
higher than last year's under option 02.
Another notable change in the tax levy proposal from the 1956 budget is in the OAA fund
where the levy has been reduced by $26,361 as the 10 -year agreement for paying $27,600
per year to Monticello Township has ended This amount was originally agreed to as part
of the annexation that took place 20 years ago when the Township lost the tax revenue
from the NSP plant.
With the general find being the main fund of the City as far as general operations are
concerned, thio find will continue to be the one with the largest increases as we continue
to grow. This is evidenced by the fairly large increase proposed in next year's budget, but
we cannot forget that with our growth will come additional cost for providing the services
that residents come to expect. As we add additional subdivisions for housing, we also add
additional miles of streets that need to be maintained. These subdivisions also bring
additional parks that also need to be maintained, all leading to the reason an additional
public works department employee is being budgeted for in 1996. The increasing housing
starts continue the need for additional help within the building inspection department, not
only for inspections but also fbr secretarial assistance and staff time that is needed to deal
with the initial developments as they are proposed.
I believe this budget is starting to reflect the growth pressures we are experiencing in that
many areas of the budget are seeing increases Brom garbage/recycling cost to library
services to the obvious example of the need for a new wastewater treatment plant.
Memo
Mayor and Council
Preliminary Budget
August 23, 1895
Page 3
With the growth pressures, we will continue to see our budgets grow, but we are hopeful
that the increases in market values from the housing, commercial, and industrial growth
will be there to pick up their share of the tax increases and not burden the current
taxpayers.
The other major tax levy requirement of this budget proposal relates to the capital outlay
revolving fund. The main difference between options &1 and Y2 is all related to the tax
levy being proposed in the capital outlay funds. The overall city levy increases that the
Council needs to address may come down to a philosophical choice as to whether we should
begin to levy funds in 1888 to cover some of the estimated $10 million in wastewater
treatment plant cost or wait until later. Both options have included $300,000 in the levy to
be used as partial payment for wastewater treatment plant engineering design fees. The
proposal would be to add the $300,000 to amounts that have been set aside from the past
two years ($208,000) to cover a large portion of the plans and specification fees for the new
plant. By using past revenues earmarked for the wastewater treatment plant expansion
and adding the proposed levy of $300,000, it simply reduces the amount we would need to
borrow through the state or fiom our own bond sale in the future. Of course, the other
option is not to charge NSP and the other taxpayers today fbr something we can borrow
and repay later. By levying and paying for some of the soft costs (engineering fees) as we
go, we simply reduce the length of time we will have to pay for the new plant by
approximately one year. If the Council chooses not to levy finds for the design of the
wastewater treatment plant separately, we would likely use reserve funds to pay for the
engineering fees in advance and reimburse ourselves later when we sold bonds for the
entire project or when we borrow money from the state.
The following is a summary of the capital outlay fund expenditures proposed under both
option 01 and option 112.
OPTION •1
2 hockey rinks - 4th St. Park, includes moving lights & hydrants $20,000
Meadow Oak pathway (Middle School to Meadow Oak Park) $30,000
Pathway on CR 118 f -om Middle School to CR 75 $15,000
Meadow Oak park improvements (Outlot A)
• fencing $15,000
• 1/3 of parking lot paving 1111000
SUBTOTAL $93,000
Memo
Mayor and Council
Preliminary Budget
August 23, 1995
Page 4
Remodeling interior, including service counter relocation,
and upholstering or replacement furniture $29,000
Wastewater treatment plant. Pnginppring dpgig= fee - partial
(previously budgeted in 1994 and 1995 - $208,000) $3(in (inn
SUBTOTAL. $422,000
This is the amount of the tax levy proposed in option Al for capital outlay fund.
OPTION 02 - Add:
Reserve for interceptor sewer extension (4th year) $80,000
TOTAL TAX LEVY PROPOSED UNDER OPTION 02 $602,000
In addition to the above -noted expenditures, the budget assumes that the City may need to
spend $300,000 or more for a biosolids land purchase (i.e., sludge sites) soon. If this was to
be covered by a tax levy, we would have to increase the overall levy by an additional
$300,000. At this point, this amount has not been included in the levies proposed.
Another option for funding a biosolids land purchase could be to use the Rinds that have
been set aside over the past three years for the interceptor sewer reserve and add to this
the additional $80,000 proposed in 1996 under option 02. Them funds would amount to
$300,000; but if t1hey were used for purchasing a farm site, they would naturally not be
available for interceptor sewer needs in the future. While the intended uses would be
sewer related, we would be depleting the intercepter sewer reserve that would likely have
to be replaced in the future.
As you can see, it is relatively easy to come up with many large expenditures that may be
needed soon but not as easy to find sources of revenue to pay for these items without
involving a tax levy. The City would not be allowed to obtain a mortgage on a land
purchase and could only issue a bond for a land purchase by having a referendum. I
haven't determined yet whether a biosolids land purchase could be considered an essential
part of the wastewater treatment plant project and, therefore, allow us to bond for the land
as part of the wastewater treatment plant bond issue. If not, the only options are either
paying for it through a tax levy or using surplus Rinds. The important thing to note is that
Memo
Mayor and Council
Preliminary Budget
August 23, 1995
Page 5
under both options presented, the tax levies proposed do not include funds for buying a
sludge site other than the alternative noted of using the interceptor sewer reserve fund for
that purpose.
Owning a biosolids site is becoming more of a necessity than just a luxury. I believe we are
going to have to pursue acquisition of our own site very seriously in the coming months. If
your initial thoughts were to reduce the levy in the capital outlay fund by not levying for
the wastewater treatment plant design fees at this time, I would suggest leaving all or
most of the $300,000 intact and earmarking these funds for a sludge site purchase. With
all the major expenditures we're going to be facing in the near future, I don't believe it
would be wise to propose a levy too low simply to keep the increase below a certain
percentage. Like it or not, the City is going to have to spend large amounts of money in
the future for these projects.
While the purpose of this workshop is to review the budget options and the tax levy options
for 1996, the Council will have to adopt a maximum levy that you are willing to live with
by September 15, 1995. If a decision is not made at our workshop session on Monday or at
an additional workshop session if so scheduled, the Council could adopt a maximum tax
levy at the regular Council meeting September 11. The maximum tax levy is the amount
the County will use in its notices to the general public, but a final budget and tax levy
cannot be adopted until we have a public hearing later this fall between late November
and mid-December. The important thing to remember is that whatever amount you set as
the preliminary levy cannot be exceeded later on but can always be lowered at the time you
adopt the final levy in December.
Also by September 15, the Council will have to act the date for the public hearing for the
general discussion on our budget and a continuation date, if needed, to complete the
budget process. These dates must fall between November 29 and December 20 but cannot
fall on any dates that are used by the County or School District in their budget reviews.
Therefore, the County has selected December 12 and December 19, and the School District
has taken Monday, December d, and Monday, December 11, which are dates we cannot
use. Our regular Council meeting in December would be on December 11, so we will have
to select a different date and time anytime from 6 p.m. on, Monday through Friday. It is
also a requirement that after the initial public hearing, the City cannot officially adopt the
tax levy and proposed budget until another meeting, which could be a regular Council
meeting. In order for us to officially adopt the budget and tax levy at our December 11
Council meeting, we would have to have the initial public hearing prior to this date. To do
so would likely mean we would have to have a special meeting sometime during the week
Memo
Mayor and Council
Preliminary Budget
August 23, 1895
Page 6
of December 4-8 if the Council wanted to try and adopt the final budget and tax levy at its
regular meeting December 11. If we don't select a date at our workshop session(s), we can
do so at our regular meeting September 11.
Since it appears that the Council agenda for August 28 may be short, the Council could
continue discussion of the preliminary budget after the regular meeting items have been
covered, if needed.