City Council Agenda Packet 09-25-1995AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 25,1995.7 p.m.
Mayor. Brad Pyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held September 8, and the regular
meeting held September 11, 1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
A. Consideration of maintaining a community arena.
4. Citizens commente/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5. Consent agenda:
A. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF)
Loan No. 010 (Vector Tool & Manufacturing, Inc.) For compliance of
the GMEF Guidelines
8. Continuation of public hearing on Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities
Plan.
7. Consideration of reviewing the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan
EAW.
8. Consideration of a request for a variance to the front, side, and rear setback
requirements for a planned unit development in an R-2 zone. Location is
Prairie West Subdivision. Applicant, John Komarek.
9. Consideration of approval of a conditional use permit that would allow a
planned unit development in an R-2 zone. Location is Prairie West
Subdivision. Applicant, John Komarek.
10. Consideration of preliminary plat approval of a replat of the Prairie West
Subdivision. Location is Prairie West Subdivision. Applicant, John
Komarek.
Agenda
City Lound
September 25, 1995
Page 2
11. Consideration of a variance to the fi-ont yard setback requirement for a PUD
in an R-2 zone. Location is Wein Farms, Outlot A. Applicant, Swift
Construction.
12. Consideration of approval of a conditional use permit that would allow a
PUD in an &2 zone. Location is Wein Farms, Outlot A. Applicant, Swift
Construction.
19. Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the Mein Farms Estates
Subdivision. Location is Wein Farms, Outlot A. Applicant, Swift
Construction.
14. Update on West County Road 39 biosolids site.
16. Consideration of approving placement of an information kiosk at Chamber of
Commerce office site.
16. Consideration of bills for the month of September.
17. Adjourn.
MINUTES
REGULAR NURETING • MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 11,1898.7 pm,
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
It was suggested that the last sentence of item a2 of the regular minutes
include a statement that Perrault was opposed only to the language change
of the motion for item Y5.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUM OF THE SPECIAL
MEETING HELD AUGUST 28,1995, AND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 28, 1995, AS CORRECTED. Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Conoid ration of addin i ams n tie g oda
A. Co aideratinn of nrd ring ir hearing for the Mnnlewood Cirrle
storm newer L**+�rmrament project on the west aide.
None.
City Engineer Bret Weise reported that the City has expressed a
concern regarding the ability to provide positive drainage from the
rear yards of Meadow Oak 4th Addition adjacent to the rear Iota of
Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. The back yards were intended to be
graded to drain to Maplewood Circle along lot lines; however, the
applicable drainage easements from Lot 3, Block 2, were never
obtained to satiety the development plan and drain the area through
this lot. Weiss noted that he recently spoke with the owner of Lot 3,
Block 2, and it appears he is willing to allow the developer to purchase
the required easement; therefore, no public hearing will be required at
this time.
It was the consensus of Council to take no action at this time to allow
for easement negotiations.
Page 1 0
Council Minutes - 8/11/96
Recommendation: Motion to approve a stall, aisle, and driveway
design conditional use permit which would allow elimination of a curb
line based on the finding that the conditional use permit will not result
in erosion problems and is in the location of a proposed future
expansion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY
ANDERSON TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that a Facilities Plan was
completed in April 1886, which evaluated four alternatives for the expansion
of the wastewater treatment plant in order to meet the expected growth of
the community. The alternatives included expanding the existing plant and
continuing use of the activated sludge/trickling filter process, converting the
plant to a trickling filter plant, building a sister plant at a remote site, and
abandoning the existing plant and building an entirely new plant at a remote
site. The alternatives ranged in price from approximately $11.5 million to
$20 million.
Concern about adding to an already complex plant, Council directed staff to
solicit proposals for expansion of the plant. These proposals resulted in two
additional alternatives for consideration, the oxidation ditch and sequencing
batch reactor (SBR), and HDR Engineering, Inc., was hired to further study
these two alternatives. Estimates given for the expansion using the
oxidation ditch or SBR systems ranged from $6 to $8.6 million. Simola noted
that at the same time HDR was studying expansion of the plant, the City
Engineer was in the process of completing a study of the city's infrastructure
system of pipes leading to the plant and expected growth of the community
during the next 40 years.
Bob Peplin and Scott Wallace of HDR presented information regarding the
sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and oxidation ditch alternatives, including
the capital costs associated with each. It was noted that either process would
produce a Class A sludge, which is pathogen fiw, versus the Class B sludge
currently produced at the plant. HDR recommended the SBR system, which
has a lower capital cost, has a smaller foot print, and would be able to handle
Page 2 9
Council Minutes - 9/11/95
phosphorus removal. The oxidation ditch system would better handle shock
loadings when at design capacity; however, the three -tank SBR system would
add a higher safety factor for handling shock loadings than the two -tank
SBR system, as the third tank would allow a longer holding time for
treatment. Public Works Director Simola noted that staff will be reviewing
additional SBR systems during the nett two weeks before making a
recommendation to the Council.
Peplin and Wallace concluded their presentation by reviewing the projected
final design cost ranging from $9.9 to $11.6 million; however, staff noted that
further review of the project may reduce the cost closer to $9 million.
Area residents questioned whether the odor would be less with Class A than
Claes B sludge. It was noted by Scott Wallace that the odor may be less with
Class A sludge, but the main advantage of Class A is that it is pathogen free.
He also noted that Class A sludge can be used for root crop fertilization.
Residents of Mississippi Drive requested that trucks traveling to the plant
during construction not be muted down Mississippi Drive. Staff noted that
the City can mute the trucks to the plant through the entrance at Hart
Boulevard.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
SEPTEMBER 25, 1995, AT 7 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Qnaidgratinn of adngUnng dth Street Park ice hncics4y'nrnkkcold general
aka 'nom an,
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that a few weeks ago, Council
reviewed a proposal for rebuilding the existing hockey rink and adding a
temporary rink at the 4th Street Park. Council agreed that the City would
tired the cost of the materiels for building the hockey rink, and the Hockey
Association would provide all labor needed to rebuild the original rink;
however, Council directed staff to work with the Hockey Association to create
a plan for making the second hockey rink a permanent rink in order to
eliminate long-term labor costs associated with seasonal installation and
removal of the second rink.
O'Neill reviewed the new plan, which called for the original hockey rink to
remain the same and the second rink to be planed along side and directly east
of the original rink; however, the second rink would be partially permanent
and partially temporary, as a portion of the second rink would still overlap
the area of the baseball field. Consequently, every spring the section of the
boards that overlap the ballfleld area would have to be removed. The Hockey
Page 3 9
Council Minutes - 9/11/95
Association has volunteered to install and remove these boards. O'Neill also
noted that this plan does not require relocation of the fire hydrant or existing
lighting, which results in a substantial savings.
Council reiterated their preference for two permanent hockey rinks, despite
the additional cost of moving the fire hydrant and lights, rather than a
temporary rink which requires installation and removal of boards every year.
It was suggested that the two hockey rinks be turned horizontally to allow
both to be permanent.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE TO APPROVE FUNDING OF TWO PERMANENT
HOCKEY RINKS IN 4TH STREET PARR AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,
WITH THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION PROVIDING THE LABOR TO REBUILD THE
ORIGINAL HOCKEY RINK. Motion carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator ONeill reported that the Parks and Planning
Commissions request that Council consider modifying the comprehensive
plan project by placing additional emphasis on park planning. The City
Planner submitted a proposal for adding the park planning component at an
additional cost of $4,000.
(YNeill highlighted reasons why a comprehensive park plan would be an
important addition to the comprehensive plan. Discussion included the
following points: 1) The rapid growth of the community will result in the
need for additional park facilities. The plan would identity capital
improvements necessary to accommodate growth in demand; 2) It would help
substantiate the need for park land acquisition at the time of subdivision
development; 3) The plan would identify areas that need to be preserved as
open space; 4) It would identify methods for utilizing the recreation potential
of the Mississippi River, and 5) It would identify strategies for improving
e®ciency of park system maintenance.
Some Councilmembere expressed confidence that the Parks Commission is
capable of completing the Parks Comprehensive Plan. It was also noted by
Parke Commission members that the fimds received in the past from
developer's in lieu of park land could be used to pay for park planning.
Parks Commission Chair Bruce Thislen noted that parks are part of a
healthy community and that nearby cities and townships have recently spent
as much as $30,000 fbr a parks plan. He also noted that it may be difficult
forCity staff to find time to assist the Partys Commission in completing such
an intensive study of the city.
Page 4 a,
Council Minutes - 9/1V95
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER TO THE
SCOPE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARK
PLANNING AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROPOSAL FROM THE CITY PLANNER
UNDER THE BASIC PLAN AT A COST OF $4,050, USING PARK FUNDS NOW
AVAILABLE FROM PAST YEARS BUDGET OR MONEY GIVEN IN LIEU OF
LAND. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Clint
Herbst, Brad Fyfe, Tom Perrault, as it was their view that the members of
the Parka Commission could complete a comprehensive park plan. Motion
failed.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that as requested by Council at the
July 24, 1995, meeting, the Computer Support Analyst has investigated
additional printer options that might be less costly than the IBM 4019 laser
printer and provide for a color printing option.
It was recommended by staff that the City purchase two HP Deskjet 8550
printers at a cost of $650 each. The cost of on-site maintenance was also
discussed, and it was suggested that the City purchase the extended
warranty for each printer at a cost of W.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF TWO HP
DESKJET 955C COLOR PRINTERS AT A COST OF $550 EACH, ALONG WITH
THE EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR EACH, AND A REPLACEMENT SWrMHBOX
AT A COST UNDER $100. Motion carried unanimously.
i eTTTgrrm=.. : 3ITTelilfii:>tf�ti�t": TT TT
Public Works Director John Simola reported that the Cities of Buffalo, Elk
River, and Monticello recently discussed the need for a stump grinder. Since
the City of Elk River has made arrangements to utilize a grinder, the City of
Buffalo requested a joint venture to purchase one. Staff also discussed a
joint venture with Wright County; however, the County has indicated they do
not wish to jointly purchase a stump grinder, therefore, staff recommended
that the City continue to contract for stump grinding services.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN MUMPF AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO NOT PURCHASE A STUMP GRINDER AT
THIS TIME AND CONTINUE TO CONTRACT FOR STUMP GRINDING AS
NEEDED. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 5 9
Council Minutes - 9/11/95
11. 1i ate nn bingolida land sacWtiaitiM
Public Works Director John Simola updated the Council by noting that at a
special Council meeting held on April 10, 1995, Council discussed the Susan
Hansford property on County Road 106 as a possible site for biosolids land
application. At that time, it appeared that the only option for acquiring the
Hanaford property was through the eminent domain process, and the
property may require grading to control surface water run-off prior to sludge
application.
At the conclusion of the April 10 meeting, Council created a subcommittee to
further investigate the biosolids site issue and work with the Township.
Mayor F yle and Councilmember Perrault volunteered to be on the
subcommittee, and the following issues were discussed by the committee:
1. Considered expanding the search from a 5 -mile radius around the
treatment plant to a 10 -mile radius.
2. Letters were mailed to all local area realtors to find out whether or not
farm land existed for sale that would meet our criteria and needs.
Only one response was received but would not meet our needs.
3. Checked with other cities to discuss what steps they are taking for
disposal of sludge.
4. Reviewed Tony Emmerich's property located south of the i(jellberg
East Trailer Park; however, Emmerich does not wish to sell at this
time.
6. Mr. Shierte is selling 20 acres of the property the City currently uses
for sludge application; consequently, the City cannot meet the needs
for the immediate future with only 50 acres available.
6. The 20 acres of the Remmele parcel north of the i(jellberg West Trailer
Park did not obtain a suitable pH of 8.5 or more.
7. The subcommittee is researching the possibility of contracting
application on someone else's site.
8. Reinvestigated a 180 -acre site on West County Road 39, which
indicated that it would be borderline for sludge application due to
expected water table and soil water -holding capabilities. All sludge
would have to be surface sprayed at this site.
9. New draft regulations for the PCA indicate that the pH limit may be
dropped to 6.0, which would help with the Remmele site and would
reduce the cost of permitting other sites.
Page 6
Council Minutes - 9/11/95
It was also noted that once the treatment plant is producing Class A sludge,
it could be land -applied right away, regardless of soil pH.
Mayor F yle then opened the meeting to public comment.
Discussions focused on the water table at the West County Road 39 site and
the Hanaford site located on County Road 106. Area residents were
concerned that the sludge would reach the water table. Public Works
Director Simola noted that perhaps staff could obtain permission to enter the
County Road 39 property for testing at an estimated cost of $3,000 to $4,000.
Scott Wallace of HDR noted that one option the Council may want to consider
is dewatering the sludge for property on which sludge can only be surface -
applied.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO OBTAIN
PERMISSION TO TEST THE SOILS AT THE BOHANON PROPERTY LOCATED
ON WEST COUNTY ROAD 39 AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $4,000. Voting in
favor. Brian Stumpf, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad F yle. Opposed:
Tom Perrault.
12. Consideration ration of getting a date for additinnM 19% hudret review.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that, as requested by Council,
the $300,000 initially proposed in the capital outlay fund for treatment plant
design fees has been reduced by $148,207, with the remaining funds
earmarked for possible land acquisition for either sludge application or
treatment plant expansion. He also noted that he was recently notified by
the State Department of Revenue that the City would lose an additional
$31,431 in HACA aid over what was originally estimated; therefore, the
amount set aside for future land acquisition was further reduced to $120,362.
Wol%teller went on to request that Council consider setting a special meeting
for further detailed review of the 1996 budget.
It was the consensus of Council to set Wednesday, October 4, 1995, at 6 p.m.,
for a special meeting to discuss the 19M budget.
There being no fluther business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 7 0
Council Agenda - 9/25/95
3A. Consideration of mskintaining a communill nrensp. (J.O.)
A. RF.FF.RF.NCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to consider granting preliminary approval of the concept of
accepting responsibility for maintaining a community arena that is funded
via a school referendum.
On Thursday, September 14, 1995, the Community Arena Study Group met
to discuss options with regard to funding and operating a community arena.
City representatives in attendance included Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Al
Larson, Dick Frie, and Jeff O'Neill. School representatives included Jerry
Battis and Shelly Johnson. The Hockey Association was represented by club
president Mary Denny and others. The purpose of the meeting was to
explore the possibility of a City/School community arena joint venture. The
group discussed the possibility of using the School District's broader taxing
powers to fund the community arena, with the City accepting responsibility
for operations and maintenance. As a result of the discussion, it was the
consensus that concept merited support and further study.
Granting preliminary approval of the concept at this time will give the School
District the confidence it needs to complete plan work associated with an
upcoming bond issue.
The proposal was supported because the group agreed that the School
District should be the jurisdiction finding the project. Using School District
authority makes sense because it matches responsibility for debt repayment
with the general population using the facility. City acceptance of
maintenance and operations was supported because there is confidence that
operations revenue and expenses will balance, and operation of the facility by
the City will provide for greater flexibility of use. The Hockey Association
representative indicated that they will provide volunteers which will assist in
keeping operation costs down and thus assist the City in maintaining a
positive cash flow.
It was agreed that the approval by the study group at this point is conceptual
only. Further research and negotiations on the details regarding the
City/School agreement and verification of the ability of the facility to cash
flow operations will be necessary before Mal approval is granted.
Council Agenda - 9/25/95
1. Motion to giant preliminary approval of the concept of establishing a
joint agreement with the School District which would result in the
School District funding the arena and the City of Monticello being
responsible for maintenance and operations.
If this alternative is selected, the School District will pursue planning
activities. City staff will be providing input on arena design and will
begin working jointly with the School District and Hockey Association
in determining the details of the relationship. Under this option, if
Council does not like the agreement that emerges, or if it is not
convinced that the arena will break even, Council could withdraw
support for the proposed cooperative venture.
2. Motion to deny preliminary approval of the concept of establishing a
joint agreement with the School District.
This alternative should be selected if Council has no interest in
participating as proposed.
If Council selects this option, it is possible that the School Board would
remove conaideration of the ice arena from the bond issue.
C. HTAFF RECOMMENDATION:
For years, the City has been saying that the School District is the proper
entity to fiend the project. It has been demonstrated at numerous other
arena locations that revenue and expenses balance when debt service is
removed from the calculation. Operating the community arena under City
domain will result in better accessibility and improved options for multi -use.
For the reasons noted above, City staff and the study group support
alternative 01.
None.
Council Agenda - 9/26/96
a :.:. l ..1.
i ISI 1•: \ l I I :�M ,ll F.
The EDA requests that City Council review GMEF Loan No. 010 for
compliance of the GMEF Guidelines. 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 September 13,1996, the EDA approved GMEF Loan No. 010 for Vector
Tool & Manufacturing, Inc. (VTM). Current finandal 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 real estate loan was approved for $60,000 at a 8.7676 fixed interest rate
amortized over 20 years, ballooned in five years. Loan fee was set at $760
and the GMEF legal fees the responsibility of the applicant. The GMEF will
be in third position and the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF) in
second position. Collateral, guarantees, and other condition requirements to
be determined and prepared by the GMEF attorney. The GMEF loan
approval was subject to CMIF approval. The CMIF IA= Board approved
Vectors request for $60,000 on September 14. The real estate loan at an
8.0% feed interest rate, amortized over 16 years, ballooned in 7 years, second
position. The CMIF Board of Directors will approve the loan in late
September.
As of September 1996, the annual GMEF Appropriation balance was
$160,000; and with the approval of Loan No. 010, the remaining annual
GMEF Appropriation balance is $100,000. The EDA authorized transfer of
the approved Lamm No. 010 ($60,000) Brom the Liquor Appropriation Fund
account, thereafter, the remaining balance of the total sources of finds fbr
GMEF use is approximately $278,900.
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 - 9/25/95
A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA approval
of GMEF Loan No. 010 for Vector Tool & Manufacturing, Inc., was
issued without violation of the GMEF Guidelines; therefore, Council
supports the decision by the EDA for loan approval.
A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA approval
of GMEF Loan No. 010 for VTM was issued in violation of the GMEF
Guidelines; therefore, the Council reverses the decision by the EDA for
loan approval.
A motion to table action until the October 9 Council meeting would
violate the within 21 -day guideline for City Council to review the
EDA's decision of loan approval.
[:. RTAIFF REC0MM ND1• ATION:
Staff supports alternative 41. The EDA members felt the relocation costs
associated with production shutdown and moving would substitute for the
10% cash equity. Also, the EDA considered the IHWs land write-down of
$83,000 as equity, which on previous loan approvals has been the norm. The
land write-down is subject to compliance of the Purchase and Development
Contract and tied to Job and Wage Convenants. The contract is between the
NRA and VTM. The lender will consider the HRA'a land write-down as
equity in an amount equal to the appraised value.
D_ SIIPPORTINO DATA
Copy of the GMEF criteria used by the EDA; Copy of the preliminary loan
application; Copy of the GMEF Approval Form.
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND CRITERIA
NL_ Jim Harwood, vector Tool R Manufacturing, Inc. (VTM) was
present at the EDA meeting.
A. Reference and Background.
GMEF LOAN REQUEST:
$50,000 real estate loan, amortization over 20 years, balloon
in 5 years.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
VTM, a Minnesota Corporation, founded in 1988, is a high-tech
job shop machinist company and its major customer is Wagner
Corporation.
VTM currently leases a facility in Maple Grove and has
determined it needs additional space to accommodate increasing
production demands.
Currently, the corporation is made up of three partners with
equal shares of stock; however, only two of the partners are
officers. It is the intent of James C. Harwood and Bradley D.
Barger to buy-out the third partner. It has been suggested
that Barger and Harwood establish a partnership for
construction and ownership of the proposed facility with a
lease to the corporation, this provides a cleaner financing
structure.
Barger and Harwood, partners of the corporation, and the
Monticello HRA have agreed on a purchase price for Lot 5,
Block 3, OIP, and as a result, the partners are considering
relocation to Monticello. The HRA held a public hearing for
the acquisition and deposition of the raw lands and adopted
the resolution conveying the raw land to VTM on September 14,
1995. In July, the IDC Prospect Team toured their existing
facility in Maple Grove and noted approximately 5-7 of the
company's current employees are residents of Monticello.
The partners propose to construct an approximate 15,000 aq ft
metal facility, including a 13,000 sq ft manufacturing area
and a 2,000 sq ft office area. The facility will accommodate
VTM's growth needs and will also provide for future expansion.
Site location is a 6.4 acre parcel across from Standard Iron
on Dundas Road.
Existing full-time employment is 20 with projections of hiring
an addition 12 full-time workers within two years. Weighted -
average wage/benefit is $12.00 per hour.
Page 1
'M #4
The proposed uses/sources of funds for this project were
estimated as follows:
Uses of Funds
Land $ 96,000
Site Improvements $ 45,000
Building Construction S322.000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $463,000
Sources of Funds
Equity (Land write-down) $ 63,000
Marquette Bank, Monticello $300,000
(20 Yrs, maturity on year ten, let REM,
1-5 9.251, 6-10 Wall Street prime + 1/2%)
GMSF (6.75%, 20 Years, balloon year $ 50,000
five, 2nd REM)
CMIF (6.75%, 20 years, balloon year $ 50,000
seven, 2nd REM)
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $463,000
Assuming the 9.25% bank mortgage rate over the 1-5 year term
of the financing, the associated monthly and annual debt
service costs were as follows:
Monthly D/S Annual D/S
Bank $2,748 $33.453
GMSF $ 380 $ 4,628
CMIF 1 uA 5 4.629
TOTALS $3,508 $42,710
This project would be structured as a participation between
Marquette Bank Monticello, the GMSF, and the CMIF. The
partnere would document their expenses associated with
construction of the facility and "draw -down" funds accordingly
through the title company. The loans would be secured by the
real estate, guarantees, and/or an assignment of the lease.
Project construction is scheduled to commence by October 15,
1995 for completion December 31, 1995.
GRRATRR MONTICELLO RNTRRPRISR FUND (GMEP) GUIDELINES
PUBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA: Must comply with four or more of the
criteria listed below, criteria 01
being mandatory.
Page 2
I . Creates new jobs: 20 immediate new (37.5 hpw) jobs, 12
additional (37.5 hpw) jobs within
two years. Average weighted
wage/benefit, $12.00 ph.
2. Increases the community tax base: Annual Estimated
Market value,
$320,000 or Annual
Estimated Tax
Capacity value,
$13,120.
3. Factors: Assist existing industrial business to
relocate and expand their operations.
The company's business environment meets the
City -s industrial objectives: nature of
business, service and product, no adverse
environmental effects, the comprehensive plan
and zoning policy.
A Conditional Use Permit for a stall, aisle,
and driveway design was approved by the
Planning Commission on September 5, 1995 and
Council on September 11, 1995.
4. Used as a secondary source to supplement conventional
financing: Approximately 65% of the total financial
package is financed by a lending
institution (Marquette Bank Monticello).
The CMIF will be in 2nd position and the
GMEF in 3rd position on the real estate
mortgage.
5. Used as gap financing: Used as gap financing (see item
# 6 below) and as an incentive
to encourage economic
development.
6. Used to assist other funds: Other sources of funds
used in addition to the
GMEF are the Central
Minnesota Initiative Fund
(CMIF), HRA land write-
down, and the bank.
GREATER MONTICEL•LO ENTERPRISE FUND POLICIES
I. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY:
Industrial business: Yea.
Located within city limits: Yes, Zoned I-2.
Page 3
sAC-10
Credit worthy existing business: As submitted by Public
Resource Group.
$10,000 loan per each job created, or $5,000 per every
$20,000 in property market valuation, whichever highest:
$320,000 or $80,000, respectively.
Approved: $50,000
II. FINANCING METHOD:
Companion Direct Loan: All such loans may be
subordinated to the primary lender(s) if requested by the
primary lender(s). The GMEF is leveraged and the lower
interest rate of the GMEF lowers the effective interest
rate on the entire project.
Approved: CKXF in 2nd position and G=F in 3rd position.
III. USE OF PROCEEDS:
Real property development.
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Loan Size:
Maximum not to exceed 50% of the
remaining GMEF balance. Annual GMEF
Appropriation Balance, September 6, 1995,
$150,000. Loan request, $50,000.
Remaining GMEF balance, $100,000.
Approved: $50,000.
Leveraging:
Minimum 60% private/public non-GMEF.
Maximum 301 GMEF. Minimum 101r equity of
GMEF loan.
Marquette $300,000 (64.8%)
CMIF $ 50,000 (10.8%)
GMEF $ 50,000 (10.8%)
Write-down (Equity) $ 63,000 (13.61)
(100%)
Loan Term:
Real estate property maximum of 5 -year
maturity amortized up to 30 yearo.
Balloon payment at 5 years.
Approved:
Amortisation of 20 years, balloon payment in
5 years.
Page 4
Interest Rate: Fixed rate not leas than 26 below
Minneapolis prime rate. Prime rate per
National Bank (First Bank) of Minneapolis
on date of EDA loan approval. (Prime 9-
13-95, 8.75%)
Approvedt 6.75% fixed interest rate.
Loan Fee: Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed
1.56 of the total loan project. Fees are
to be documented and no duplication of
fees between the lending institution and
the GMEF.
Approvedt $50,000 i .015 a $750.
Prepayment Policy: No penalty for prepayment.
Deferral of Payments: 1. Approval of the RDA
membership by majority vote.
2. Extend the balloon if unable
to refinance, verification
letter from two lending
institutions subject to Board
approval.
Interest limitation on guaranteed loans:
Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA.
Aesumability of Loan: None.
Business Equity Requirements:
Subject to type of loan; Board of Directors will
determine case by case, analysis under normal
lending guidelines.
Approvedt The lead write-down of $63,000 is 13.6% of the
proposed real estate financing costs. Additionally, the
relocation costs associated with production shut -down and
moving would substitute for the 30% cash equity or
$9,000.
Collateral: Mortgage deeds, securities, and/or
guarantees as per the aMEF attorney.
Approvedt As per the CITY attorney.
Page 5
S/HE
Non -Performance: This approved GMSF loan shall become
null and void if funds are not drawn
upon or disbursed within 180 days
from the date of SDA approval
(September 13, 1995). Hull and void
March 13, 1996.
GMSF Legal Fees: Responsibility of the GMSF
applicant.
Page 6
,fflF
G?FX_'R MV?7IC-=O ENTERPRISZ
250 EAST BROWAAY
ISN--CsLLO, MIYNESOTA
PRELLMI:lA2Y APPLICATION FOR LOAN
APPLICUN':': James Harwood and Bradley Barger
PIPt! CP. ::ADE NAME: fl--, P -,i —A Manuf—ct ,rina, Inc.
BUSINESS ADDRESS: QQ71nrial Rnar1 wpiC rrnvp,_MN 55369
i Street) (city i state) Izip Code)
TELEPECNE: BUS'NESS ( ) 612-428-2923 HOME ( )612-295-5735
DATE ESTABLISHID: nctoh, 19RR EMPLOYER I.D. j: 411628711
SCL2 PR.OPRIBMW xxx CORPORATION YAR_CIER53I?
MRNAGE1 T
NAME TITLE OWNERSHIP 1
.1-pq HArw—A President 33.38
Hradl Py BaraPr CFO
PROJECT LOCX'ION: Monticello Industrial Park
XXX NEW BUSINESS � EXISTING BUSINESS
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE: S 463,000.
PROPOSED USES: RECUESf:
LAND S 96,000. AMOUNT Of LOAN 50.000,
EXISTING BUM12C MATURITY a TERMS
..,..w ..........� ��� _nnn _ REQUESTED Amoritize• 20 yr.
MACSIMM CAPr= APPLICANT'S Balloon 5 yr.
WORKING CAPITAL EQUITY 63,000
Site 0 e IImpg ea.nnn_ LOAN PURPOSE Land Acauis
Architect Fees
PROPOSED BEGINNING DATE: October 15, 1995 Site Improvement$
ESTIMATED CWLC.nCN DATE: npr•nmhnr i I. 1995
TITLE TO
PROJECT ASSETS TO BE HELD BY: OPERATING ENTITY ALTER EGO
PARTICIPATING LMER: Marquottc Bank Monticello. MN 55362
(Name) (AMISS)
Bill Endros (612 295-2952
(Contac: Terson) (Telephone 1)
PRESENT i Of El9LOYEES: -)n PROJECTED 1 OP CTLWZES 32
ADDI^_ICNAL PROJECT INPORMAn. ON:
n
APPLICANT SIG`1A"S . (/( l— DATE 9100: �f
APPROVAL OF
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUNDS
BY
ECONOMIC DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Preliminary Loan Application Approval. August 31, 1995
Loan terms negotiated and agreed upon Developers submitted application
betweeen the developer, the lending to CMIF with GMEF in third
institution, and the EDA Executive Director. position. Other terms agreed.
Formal Loan Application and Financial
Statements analyzed by the lending
institution, BDS, Inc. or city staff.
Building and Site Plan Preliminary and/or
Final Review.
Building Permit approval or construction
commitment.
Loan documents reviewed and/or prepared
by the City Attorney.
Marquette Bank - solid deal.
PRG analyist to be submitted.
Conditional Use Permit approved
9/5/95. No comment from City
Eng. and no building plane
___r_ _i s, Wei% —
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL:
LOAN NUMBER GMEF Loan No. 010 LOAN APPROVED YES
BORROWER James C. Harwood and Bradley D. Barger dba Vector Tool 6 Mtg., Inc.
ADDRESS 18071 Territorial Road) Maple LOAN DISAPPROVED
LOAN AMOUNT 150,000 REAL ESTATEGrove. MN 55369
RATE 6.75 S FIXED INTEREST RATE DATE SEPTEMBER 13. 1995
TERMS AMORTIZED OVER 20 YEARS, BALLOONED IN 5 YEANS.
FEE 1750.00 PAID AT TIME OF GMEF DISBURSEMENT.
GMEF LEGAL FEES RESPONSIBLITY OF THE APPLICANT. OTHER*
A motion was made by EDA Commissioner AL LyRSON to
(approve - *AXAVOMMMO Greater Monticello Enterprise Funds in the
amount of Firry THOUSAND DOLLARS LAND NO CENTS ($50.000.00) dollars
and cents to developer AhL C. N9RWQOD AND BRADLEY D. BARGER dba VECTOR TOOL 6
this 11rh day of SEPTEMBER 13 1995 SecondedMANUFACTUH
by EDA Commissioner BARB SCHWIENTEK INC.
YEAS: AL LARSON CLINT HERBST
BARB SCHWIENTEK TOM PERRAULT
RON HOGLUND
HARVEY KENDALL
GMEF dioburoed
NAYS: NONE
ABSENT: BILL DEMEULES
19 by Check No.
EDA Treasurer
Diaburao funds from the Liquor Appropriation Fund
CITY COUNCIL MAY REVERSE AN EDA LOAN DECISION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS OF EDA APPROVAL. Scheduled for Council review on September 25. 1995.
G14EF Approval
Page 2
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
;AX(We) hereby accept the terms stated above as approved by the
Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Monticello.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
+ IF APPROVED GMEF LOAN NO. 010 DOLLARS OF $50,000 ARE NOT DISBURSED BY
MARCH 13, 1996, THE APPROVED LOAN BECOMES HULL AND VOID.
THE CHEF WILL TARE A THIRD POSITION ON THE REAL ESTATE BEHIND THE LENDER AND THE CHIP.
APPROVED CHEF IRAN NO. 010 SUBJECT TO LENDER AND CMIF COMMITMENT AND APPROVAL.
COLLATERAL, GUARANTEES, AND OTHER CONDITION REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AND
PREPARED BY THE GMEF ATTORNEY.
S#=
Council Meeting - 9/25/95
8. ontin otinn of SMhUr. henriner on Wastewat_ar T*eatment Plant
Fadtltlea P Ar US.)
A- RRFERRNCR AN11 AACK(: ROUND:
This is a continuation of the public hearing from the last meeting. As you
may recall, the draft Facilities Plan amendments prepared by HDR
recommended that the City consider the SBR technology for the following
reasons.
1. The SBR involves a lower capital cost.
2. The SBR technology results in a smaller footprint than the oxidation
ditch, as the 8BR technology does not require final clarifiers and has
leaser volume due to its quicker processing procedures.
3. The SBR system would be simpler to add onto in the future than the
oxidation ditch and would not require additional land until 20360.
4. The SBR technology would allow for nutrient removal in the future,
whereas the oxidation ditch would require the addition of a small
selector tank.
City staff did not have a recommendation at the last meeting, as we had not
been able to End an SBR plant which was treating the flows and loads which
we normally receive here in Monticello, not even considering the periodic
shock loads which we receive. The City Council then continued the public
hearing until September 26,1996, to allow staff and PSG to do additional
research into the SBR technology and look at ways of staging any increase in
hydraulic capacity needed for future expansions in order to keep the initial
capital costs lower.
In addition to the three SBR plants visited by City staff and some members
of the Council in Flushing, Michigan; Eldridge, Iowa; and Macoca, Iowa, City
staff began researching other SBR plants across the country in attempts to
find one or more plants recoiving loadings and flows similar to that of the city
of Monticello. The plants visited previously were receiving much less flow, or
only 2656-35% of the city of Monticello's limits, and no shock loadings
whatsoever.
City staff and PSG spoke with operations personnel at four additional SBR
installations. One was the Cow Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a 8 -million gallon plant with much less loadings
than ours; the Dell City, Oklahoma, Wastewater Treatment Plant, with a
design of 2.88 million gallons and loadings approximately half of ours.
Based upon projected flows and loads.
s -t
Council Meeting - 9/25/95
Another was the Millersville Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Pennsylvania, which had loadings about 35% of ours, with flows of about
800,000 gallons per day.
The closest comparison that we have to what we would be doing was the
Mash Hantucket Pequot facility in Connecticut, just outside of Ledyard. This
plant has a flow of about 600,000 gallons per day with strengths just slightly
lees than our average strengths. They have, however, during the early life of
their plant run BODS as high as 800 mg/liter (well above ours). They have
not, however, experienced any shock loads such as that we receive from
Sunny Fresh. We did receive some information about a plant in Nebraska
which was handling loads similar to ours, but of a lower flow, and have not
had a chance to check this plant out. Almost all of the plant operators, when
told of our loadings, felt that they would need additional sizing or tanks to
handle such a large load. The plant in Connecticut, which was handling
loads very similar to ours but of a smaller flow, was running 12 -hour cycles
rather than the 6 proposed by SBR system. We scheduled a trip to
Connecticut but cancelled reservations, as we felt we would not make the
trip, as we were becoming more skeptical of the 2 -tank SBR rather than more
comfortable.
Upon further study of the SBR sizing technology, we made some theoretical
assumptions of the past spills or discharges from Sunny Fresh Foods to the
wastewater treatment plant The time flame over which these spills
occurred was most likely 4 to 6 hours. The 811 time for an SBR tank or basin
is 2 hours under normal conditions. Assuming a spill again of 2,500 to 3,000
pounds of raw egg, aeration time could reach 72 hours. The entire normal
cycle time for an SBR tank is 6 hours. Consequently, if the spill occurred at
the beginning of a fill cycle, we would load up one tank with one-third to one-
half the Will if the DO probes did not trigger additional blowers and alarm
until the end of the cycle. Then we would put at least half the load in
another tank under the same conditions. Depending upon the time of
discharge and overlap, a portion of the load could go into the third tank.
With a 2 -tank SBR, even with four compartments, two of the compartments
would be taken out of service with this spill fbr extended aeration, anywhere
from 2 to 10 time the normal operating cycle. This would leave us at half
the design of the wastewater treatment plant We expect to be at half the
design of this treatment when turn the switch in 1997. If some of the spill
goes into the third or fourth compartment of the 2 -tank system, for a short
period of time the plant would be under capacity in 1997.
City staff, PSG, and HDR now fool that a 2 -tank SBR even with four
compartments would not have the level of safety originally indicated at the
last meeting. Based upon past owurrenoes, theoretical assumptions, we
could find ourselves not befog able to meet permit limitations during a shock
5-2
Council Meeting - 9/75/95
load. Additional investigation of other methods to increase the safety factor
did not prove fruitful. Consequently, if an SBR is built, to provide any level
of safety, even during the early years of operation, it must be a 3 -tank
system.
HDR, staff, and PSG have done some additional looking at the oxidation
ditch and generally agree with PSG's evaluation and statements made by
vendors that an oxidation ditch can handle wide swings in BODS flows (shock
loads), is resilient due to dedicated basins and dedicated clarifiers, and is
relatively easy to operate if maintained and sophisticated controls such as
needed with the SBR system are not required. So the advantages of the
oxidation ditch would be as follows:
The oxidation ditches would be easier to operate with less
sophisticated controls, which should result in less manpower dedicated
to this portion of the pleat and technical assistance would be less over
the life of the plant, until such time as nutrient removal is needed.
The oxidation ditch requires lees operator attention during shock loads
and has a better chance of continually meeting our permit limitations
for the next 20 years.
There is less chance of an operator error creating odors in the ditch
system when nutrient removals are required in the future.
HDR has revised the coat of the two alternates utilizing a 3 -teak SBR versus
the oxidation ditch. The cost of the SBR technology type of plant is
$9,463,000, the cost of the oxidation ditch is $9,976,000; roughly a
differential of a half million dollars. It is also possible that some of the
adders would be added to the project or at a later date. The Mayor had
indicated a preference for the maintenance building to be built early, and we
may be required to add the standby generator. Those costs are $150,000 and
$110,000, respectively, without contingencies or engineering. The coat of
building the 3 -tank SBR over the 2 -tank is estimated to be a half million
dollars. The primary Beason for the extra half million dollars, of course, is
due to our unstable industrial load. If the oxidation ditch is chosen, this is
an additional half million dollars or a million dollars total over the 2 -tank
SBR. Again, attributable to an unstable industrial load. We expect to be re-
thinking our user rates and most likely add a demand charge for high
fluctuating loads from industry, much as NSP has with their electrical
power. This would help recover some of the capital and operating costs for
the additional required capacity to handle it.
5-3
Council Meeting - 9/25/95
The estimated revised costs only include building a headworks building able
to handle the 20 -year design and the headworks equipment to handle the 20 -
year design. In addition, the raw sewage force main would consist of a single
12 -inch pipe at this time. We have also discussed not doing the
improvements to the raw sewage pumps at the head of the plant and the wet
well reconfiguration but delaying this for five years. The savings could be
approximately a quarter of a million dollars. However, our design would not
meet the 10 -States' Standards, and we may have difficulty in convincing the
PCA that we want to build a plant that can handle less hydraulic loading or
flow at the front end than the rest of the plant can handle. Pulling this out of
the project and building it within five years may not prove to be cost
effective. Basically, what Pm saying is that we did our homework initially
and feel that the hydraulic capabilities built into the original proposals are
necessary with the exception of the small adjustments we did make.
Rick has added some supporting data with this agenda item in regard to
proposed financing of the plant and the cost to individual homeowners. Also,
looking at sewer rates, we would expect a 20% increase, and also it is the
time to announce additional sewer hookup fees such as those included in the
rest of the supporting data if this were to take effect January 1, 1898.
The first alternative would be to select the oxidation ditch technology
based upon the finding that an oxidation ditch would be the most
reliable method of treatment for the city to assure meeting our permit
limitations.
The second alternative would be to select the 3 -tank SBR technology
based upon the finding that it represents the lowest capital cost and,
although the potential to be affected by human error is greater, the
design capacity allows it to be a manageable risk.
The third alternative would be not to select a technology at this time
but to request fltrther study.
It is the staff recommendation and the recommendation of PSG that the City
of Monticello select the oxidation ditch as the technology fbr expansion of its
wastewater treatment tiacility. Although the oxidation ditch plant represents
an additional estimated capital out of 1622,000, it represents the most
reliable treatment process which is least likely to be affected by shock loads
and operator error in the future, based upon our current and expected
conditions in the city of Monticello. Interim construction would consist of
s -a
Council Meeting - 9/13195
building the class A sludge portion of the plant and one of the final clarifiers
as soon as posailile. The City currently owns enough land to build the
oxidation ditch and, although not recommended, we could possibly arrange
the construction to allow the addition of a third ditch on the property. It is
conceivable that we would have to sheet pile a portion of the construction so
as not to require an easement Brom our neighbor to the east
The oxidation ditch operational cost is very similar to that of the SBR The
electrical costs are expected to be $6,000 or $6,000 less per year, and the
manpower dedicated to the oxidation ditch portion of the plant would be less
than that dedicated to the SBR technology. We would not be able to reduce
one of the positions; however, it would be that more time would be available
to spend on other areas such as sludge management and general upkeep of
the facility with the same manpower.
The City Council could also choose the SBR technology based on the finding
of the lower capital costs, that additional land would not be needed for well
into the iidure and that the risks associated with the SBR technology are
manageable based upon the extended design capacity. Either way, staff feels
that the City should continue to pursue purchase of the property to the east.
If this property were to be obtained prior to the beginning of design within
the next few weeks, either one of the technologies could be enhanced by
locating Portlier to the east and leaving room to grow between the new
prooesses and the old.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of revised Technical Memorandum 118 from HDR regarding a further
detailed explanation of exceptional quality class A sludge; Coat information
regarding expected increases in taxes to the community along with
recommended increase in hookup charges; Copy of cover sheet for appraisal
of property to the east.
9-9
To City of Monticello
From HDR Engineering, Inc.
Dots August 31, 1995
Revised September 21, 1995
sub(xt Technical Memorandum No. 8
Sludge Treatment
Sludge Management
1.0 SLUDGE PRODUCTION
Two biological treatment processes; the oxidation ditch and the sequencing batch reactor, are
under consideration for the new treatment facility. No primary clarifiers would be used with
either alternative. Therefore, sludge produced by the wastewater treatment plant will be entirely
waste activated sludge from the biological process. The oxidation ditch and SBR will produce
slightly different volumes and quantities of sludge, as summarized in Table 8- l:
Table 8-1
Estimated Sludge Production at Design Loadings
Process Type Sludge Production Volatile Solids Solids Content Sludge Volume
Ib/day qpd
Oxidation Ditch 5,693 58% 0.5% 136,000
SBR 5.930 60% 0.5% 142,000
LO REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
LI EPA 503 Regulations
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued new regulations in 40 CFR Part 503
which govern the treatment and disposal of sludges generated by municipal wastewater treatment
plants, effective February 19. 1995. Commonly termed "503" these regulations are broad in
scope, addressing such issues as the tmatrnent, composting, land application, landfilling, and
incineration of municipal wastewater sludges. Major impacts of 503 include pathogen reduction
requirements. vector attraction reduction, land application limits, and record beeping
requirements.
Technical Memorandum No. 8 1 City of Monticello
E
Pathogen Control
The 503 regulations creates two categories of sludge. Class "Aand Class "B". Class "A" sludge
is essentially a pathogen -free product which has no additional vector attraction reduction
requirements. Class "A" sludge is suitable for use in home lawns and gardens. Class "B" sludge
has met EPA's stabilization requirements but is not a pathogen -free product. Class "B" sludge
requires additional vector attraction control. such as disking or injection during application to
agricultural land. Pathogen reduction processes for Class "A" sludge is summarized in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2
Pathogen Reduction Processes for Class "A" Sludge
Process Type Operational Requirements
Composting 3 days at 131 "F for in -vessel or aerated static pile;
15 days at 131 "F for windrow. with 5 turnings
Heat Drying
less than 10% solids; 176 °F
Heat Treatment
30 minutes at 356 °F
Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion
10 days at 131 to 140'F
Beta Ray Irradiation
1.0 megarad of beta ray irradiation
Gamma Ray Irradiation
gamma ray irradiation with Cobalt 60 and Cesium 137
Pasteurization
30 minutes at 158 °F
The sludge treatment processes summarized in Table 8-2 were written into the 503 regulations.
EPA has also established a testing procedure for demonstrating the pathogen reduction
capabilities of other treatment processes to meet the Class "A" pathogen reduction requirements.
The Aerobic Thermal Pretreatment (ATP) process has been shown to meet the Class "A"
requirements by providing 18 to 24 hours of aerobic pretreatment at 145 1 followed by 15 days
of anaerobic digestion at 68 "F.
Pathogen content testing must be done for all Class "A" sludges. Either the density of fecal
coliform in the biosolids must be less than 1.000 most probable numbers (MPN) per gram total
solids (dry weight basis) or. the density of Salmonella spp. bacteria in the biosolids must be less
than 3 MPN per 4 grams total solids (dry weight basis). Testing must be done when the biosolids
are used or disposed; when biosolids are prepared for sale or give-away in a bag or other
container, or when biosolids are prepared to meet the Class "A" Exceptional Quality processing
requirements.
Class B sludge does not have to meet the pathogen content criteria outlined for Class "A" sludge.
Class "B" pathogen control processes are summarized in Table 8.3:
Technical Memorandum No. 8 2 City of Monticello
Table 8.3
Pathogen Reduction Processes for Class "B" Sludge
Process Type
Operational Requirements
Aerobic Digestion
40 days at 68 °F, or 60 days at 59 °F
Anaerobic Digestion
15 days at 95 to 131 °F, or 60 days at 68 °F
Composting
5 days at 104 °F and 4 hours at 131 °F
Lime Stabilization
pH > 12 for 2 hours
Air Drying
3 months total drying time and 2 months at > 32 °F
Vector Attraction
The 503 regulations also require vector attraction reduction of sludge prior to disposal. Table 8-4
summarized vector attraction control methods.
Table 8-4
Vector Attraction Controls
Method Description
1 Meet 38% reduction in volatile solids.
2 Demonstrate vector attraction reduction with additional anaerobic digestion in a bench -
scale unit.
3 Demonstrate vector attraction reduction with additional aerobic digestion in a bench -
scale unit.
4 Meet a specific oxygen uptake rate for aerobically digested biosolids.
5 Use aerobic processes at greater than 104 °F for 14 days or longer.
6 Alkali addition under specified conditions
7 Dry sludge with no unsmbilized solids to at least 75% solids content.
8 Dry sludge with unstabilized solids to at least 90% solids content.
9 Inject sludge beneath the soil surface.
10 Incorporate sludge into the soil within 6 hours of application.
The combination of pathogen reduction and vector attraction control creates three basic types of
sludge under the 503 regulations, Class "A" Exceptional Quality, Class "A", and Class "B".
Class "A" Exceptional Quality (EQ) sludge meets the Class "A" pathogen content requirements
and uses one of Methods 1-8 in Table 8.4 to meet vector attraction control. Class "A" EQ sludge
can be disposed of with no site restrictions or additional management practices, assuming the
EPA's concentration limits for metals are met (sludge currently produced by the City complies
with all metal limits).
Technical Nlemorandum No. 8 3 City of Monticello
Class "A" sludge meets the Class "A" pathogen content requirements and uses Methods 9 or 10
(injection or disking) in Table 8-4 to meet vector attraction control. There are no site restrictions
on Class "A" sludge: however general requirements and management practices must be met.
Class "B" sludge can use any of the methods summarized in Table 8-4 for vector attraction
control. Since Class "B" sludge still contains significant amount of pathogens, site restrictions
apply to Class "B" sludge, regardless of the vector control method used.
2.2 MPCA Requirements
The MPCA is currently revising their sludge regulations. They should be ready for public review
in the first quarter of 1996. The MPCA regulations are expected to mirror the EPA 503
Regulations with minor changes relating to setback distances, allowable slopes for sludge
application and mordtoring/reporting requirements. HDR will inform the City of these
regulations as they are received.
3.0 SLUDGE THICKENING AND STORAGE
3.1 ThIckening Requtrements
Waste activated sludge from either the oxidation ditch or SBR will require thickening prior to
treatment as a Class "A" or Cants "B" sludge. One possibility is to provide gravity thickening of
sludge. This would require converting the two existing secondary clarifiers to gravity thickeners.
as well as the continued use of the existing gravity thickener. Gravity thickening requirements
and available tankage are summarized in Table 3-5.
Table 8.5
Gravity Thickening Requirements
Unit Process Sludge Production Loading Rau Area Required Area Available
Ib/day Ib/sUday sf sf
Oxidation Ditch 5.700 5 1.140
SBR 6.000 3 1.200
Existing --- --- --- 450
Gravity Thickener
Existing 700
Secondary Clarifier
Existing 700
Secondary Clarifier
Total 1.850
Technical Memorandum No. 8 4 City of Monticello
(0D
Gravity thickening is projected to produce a 3% solids content sludge (this is the minimum needed
for Class "A" treatment processes). The resulting sludge volume at 3% solids would be 22,500
gpd for the oxidation ditch alternative and 23,500 gpd for the SBR alternative.
It is anticipated that the existing Equalization Tank (144,000 gallons) would be used for
temporary storage of waste activated sludge prior to gravity thickening.
3.2 Sludge Storage Requirements
Some storage is available at the treatment plant through the use of the existing anaerobic digesters
and sludge storage tank. Additional storage could be provided by conversion of the existing
aeration basins to sludge storage tanks. The combined storage volume of all these tanks would
not be adequate to provide 180 days of storage which was assumed to be needed if the City
continues to rely on cooperative farmers for land application. If the City owns a dedicated
application site, or can produce a sludge suitable for the Wright County Composting operation,
storage requitements may be reduced. Available storage volumes are summarized in Table 8-6:
Table 8-6
Sludge Storage Requirements
Tank
Volume
Oxidation Ditch
SBR
gallons
Storage, days
Storage, days
Anaerobic Digester, Ist Stage
214,000
9
9
Anaerobic Digester, 2nd Stage
214,000
9
9
Existing Sludge Storage Tank
635,000
28
27
Existing Equalization Tank
144,000
6
6
Subtotal Existing Storage
1.107,000
52
51
Convert Aerndon Basins to Sludge Storage
431,000
19
18
Subtotal Available Storage
1,638,000
7/
69
Additional Storage Needed for 180 days
2,600,000
109
111
Note: Storage time in days based on an estimated 3% solids. No reductions in sludge volume
through settling/decanting have been assumed.
Depending on the sludge treatment process and the management alternatives the City develops,
180 days of liquid sludge storage may not be required. If this storage is needed, construction of a
130 -foot diameter tank with a 25 -foot sidewater depth would provided the needed 2.600,000
gallons of capacity.
Technical :Memorandum No. 8 b City of Monticello
3.3 Sludge Pumping Requirements
It is anticipated that many of the existing sludge pumps can be reused. The existing equalization
tank will be used for waste activated sludge. The pumps at this tank will be reused to pump
sludge to the thickener (formerly the secondary clarifier). From there, existing pumps will be used
to pump sludge to the sludge treatment process.
4.0 CLASS "A" SLUDGE TREATIMIENT ALTERNATIVES
Production of a Class "A" sludge offers distinct advantages to the City of Monticello. Class "A"
sludge appears to have higher public acceptance in Minnesota, and a Class "A" product exempts
the City from most sludge permitting and disposal requirements.
4.1. Class `•A" Analysis Overview
Not all of the Class "A" alternatives written into the 503 regulations (summarized in Table 8-2)
are economically feasible. Most Class "A" processes were developed in Europe and imported
into the United States in the past two years since the 503 regulations were adopted. Therefore,
most Class "A" technologies do not have a large installation list in the United States. The two
processes which are gaining the widest acceptance for Class "A" sludge production is the Aerobic
Thermal Pretreatment (ATP) process and the Autothermal Aerobic Digestion (ATAD) process
4.2 Aerobic Tfiermophillc Pretreatment
The ATP system is a pretreatment process used in conjunction with anaerobic digestion.
Thickened sludge is introduced into the aerobic reactor in 90 minute batch cycles. Sludge is held
in the aerobic reactor for 24 hours at a temperature of 120 to 140 °F. Pathogen reduction is
completed in the aerobic reactor.
After aerobic pretreatment. sludge is fed to the anaerobic digesters. Since pathogen reduction has
already been completed, the retention time in the anaerobic digester can be reduced from 30 to 15
days (the existing digesters are projected to have an 18 day detention time at 3% solids, as shown
in Table 8-6). Volatile solids destruction in the ATP unit is limited so that volatile solids are
available for methane production in the anaerobic digesters.
Because anaerobic digestion is retained as part of the ueatment process, methane gas will
continue to be produced. This will require that the existing anaerobic digesters retrain in service,
which will require rehabilitation of the gas system and repairs to the primary digester. Methane
gas is an alternate Orel source that can be used to heat the ATP unit and anaerobic digesters.
reducing utility costs.
Projected cost of an ATP system is summarized in Table 8-7.
Technical Memorandum No. 8
City of Monticello
`
Ta..., 8-7
Opinion of Probable Costs
ATP
Class A Blosolids
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Monticello, MN
Equipment
Salvage
Unit
Life
Replacement Cost
Value
Item Unit
Quantity Price Total
veers
10 yr
20vr
2020
Existing Anaerobic Digoetere
Floating Gas Cover LS
1 $140,000 $140.000
20
$140,000
$0
Gas Scrutiber LS
1 $25,000 $25,000
20
$25,000
so
Miscol Gas Componarits LS
1 $35,000 $35,000
20
$35,000
$0
Boiler LS
2 $10,000 $20,000
20
$20,000
$0
ATP
DoirvAtien LS
$10,000
20
$10,000
$0
ATP Procuss I.S
$B50,000
20
$850,000
$o
Ihpuslur Bldg Mudlicabons SF
1500 $75 $112,500
50
$67,500
FoW Pumps EA
2 $5,000 $10,000
10
$10,000
$10,000
so
Mochsnlcel
Plant Pipunu %
700 $25,000
20
$15,000
$0
Valvas/PhmrUing 7L
600 $15.000
20
$9,000
$0
I I V AC ,.
3.00 $10,000
20
$6,000
$o
Eloctrlcal
liluclw:al F.gnnip'l %
7.00 $50,000
20
$30,000
$0
lin.trutrwnlahun %
400 $25,000
10
$25,000
$15,0110
$n)
Subtotal
$1,327,500
535,000
$1,165.000
$67,500
Con thgonclos 0 151: %
15 $109,000
Projected Construction Cost
$1,526,500
Estbnated Annual Powon Carsumption (kvi"f) 172,000
Estunutod Annual Powon Cobl ($0 031/kwh)
$5,300
EsUmalod Annual Danwnd Coal (30.2 kw 0
$4.69hno) $1,700
Eslirnatod Annual Enorgy Consumption (MMBTUIyr) 5,600
Estlrnatod Annual Energy Cost (mothorw)
so
loth Annual Costs
$7,000
Prosam Wath of Annual Coate
$80,000
Present Worth (20 yr, 6%)
$1,986,000
$"0,000
$361,000
$21."
Equivalent Annual Cos$
$173,000
_
Technical Manonaxlunt No B
City of MonOcullo
y 101pn4V101240011pwatp2 wss
Or21105
4.3 Autothermal Aerobic Digestion
The Autothermal Aerobic Digestion (ATAD) process is an aerobic digestion process that operates
in the thermophilic temperature range (40 to 80 °C), without the introduction of supplemental
heat. In order for an ATAD process to be "self heating', the feed sludge must meet certain solids
content requirement (3 to 6%) and volatile solids content (55 to 70%). If the feed sludge falls
outside this range, supplemental heat would be required.
The ATAD process uses a two-stage aerobic digestion process. Sludge is introduced through
batch feeding (1 hour/day). Sludge is held in the fust reactor for about 3 days where it reaches a
temperature of about 81 °F. Sludge then enters the second stage reactor for another 3 days of
treatment where temperatures reach approximately 130 °F.
The ATAD process is entirely aerobic, therefore methane would no longer be produced at the
treatment plant. The existing primary and secondary digesters would be used for sludge storage.
Costs for the ATAD process are summarized in Table 8-8.
4.4 Thermoph(lic Anaerobic Digestion
Recent research (Water Environment & Technology, August 1995), indicates that it may be
possible to achieve Class "A" pathogen reduction in conventional primary/secondary anaerobic
digester systems by converting the first stage (primary) digester to thermophilic operation with
temperatures of 131 T. The secondary digester operates in the mesophilic temperature range (95
*I). Almost all pathogen reduction is completed in the fust (thermophilic) digester.
Required retention times for the thermophilic anaerobic digestion process would be approximately
5 days in the fust (thermophilic) digester and 10 days in the secondary (mesophilic) digester.
This process is still considered to be experimental. with tests underway at the Newton. Iowa, and
Omaha. Nebraska (Papillion Creek) wastewater treatment plants. These treatment plants are
obtaining thermtrphilic temperatures by running boilers at maximum capacity and leaving the
primary digester half full.
No process equipment manufacturer currently supports this process. Costs are projected to be
similar to those for the ATP process; however. HDR does not recommend adopting this process
on a full-scale level at this time.
Technical Memorandum No. 8 8 City of Monticello
v
Vi Technical Memorandum No. 8 City of Monticello
yVlproj1081240011pwatad.sls 9/21/95
Tar...ci 8-8
Opinion of Frobable Costs
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion (ATAD)
Class A Biosolids
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Monticello, MN
Equipment
Selvage
Unit
Lite
Replacement Cost
Value
Item Unit
Ouantitq Price Total
veers
10 wr
20vr
2020
Digester Bldg. ModNlcallons SF
1500 $75 $112,500
50
$87.500
ATAD
ATAD Process LS
$1,050,000
20
$1,050,000
$0
Feed Pumps EA
2 $5,000 $10,000
10
$10,000
$10,000
$0
Mechanical
Plant Piping %
7.00 $25,000
20
$25,000
$0
VaNes/Plumbing %
6.00 $15,000
20
$15,000
$0
HVAC %
3.00 $10,000
20
$10,000
$0
Electrical
Electrical Equlp't %
7.00 $50,000
20
$50,000
$0
Instrumentation %
4.00 $25,000
10
$25,000
$25,000
$0
Subtotal
811297,s0o
$35,000
$1,185.000
$67,500
Contingencias 0 15% %
15 $195,000
Projected Construction Cost
11,491,560
Estimated Annual Power Conswnphon (kwh/yr) 008,000
Estimated Annual Power Cost ($0.031 Awn)
$10,800
Estimated Annual Demand Cost (09.3 kw 0
$4.69/mo) $3,900
Estimated Annual Energy Consumption (MMBTU/yr) 0
Estimated Annual Energy Cost (natural gas)
IIA
Total Annual Costs
$22,700
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$260,000
Present Worth (20 yr, 6%)
$2,140,000
$20,000
$367,000
$21,000
Equivalent Annual Cost
$16(200
v
Vi Technical Memorandum No. 8 City of Monticello
yVlproj1081240011pwatad.sls 9/21/95
Technical Memorandum No. 6 City of Monticello
y:vD I prop081240011pwhoatp.xia 921/95
Tab,G) 8-9
Opinion of Probable Costs
Heat Pasteurization Back-up
Class A Blosolids
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Monticello, MN
Equipment
Salvage
unit
Life
Replacement Cost
Value
Item Unit
Cuantlty
Price Total
years
10 yr
20yr
2020
Heat Pastuerizatlon
Boder LS
1
$10,000 $10,000
20
$10,000
$0
Thermal Treatment Tank (8 hr) LS
1
$67,000 $87,000
20
$87,000
$0
Heat Exchanger No. 1 LS
1
$10,000 $10,000
20
$10,000
$0
Heat Exchanger No. 2 LS
1
$5,000 $5,000
20
$5,000
$0
Insulation LS
1
$7,000 $7,000
20
$7,000
s0
Controls LS
1
$7,000 $7,000
20
$7,000
s0
Piping, Fillings LS
1
$12,000 $12,000
20
$12,000
$0
Valves LS
1
$38,000 $38,000
20
$36.000
$0
Pumps LS
4
$5,000 $20,000
20
$20,000
$0
Safety Equipment LS
1
$2,100 $2,000
10
$2,000
$2,000
s0
Installation LS
1
$21,000 $21,000
20
$21,000
$0
Spare Parts LS
1
$4,000 $4,000
10
$4,000
$4.000
$0
Electrical LS
1
$11,000 $11,000
20
$11,000
$0
Inslnrntantation LS
1
$4,000 $4,000
10
$4,000
$4.000
$0
Ugloslar Bldg. Modtficatwns SF
15W
$75 $113,000
50
$67,5W
Subtotal
$340,000
$10.0001
$238,000
$67,500
Contingencies 0 15%
$52,000
Projected Construction Cost
$401,000
Estimated Annual Power Consumption (kwh/yr)
226,100
Estimated Annual Power Cost ($0.0311kwh)
$7,000
Estimated Annual Demand Cost (25.7 kw O
$4.69/=)
$1,400
Estimated Annual Energy Consumption (MMBTU/yr)
1,400
Eslimalod Annual Energy Cost (natural gas)
$8,000
Total Annual Costs
$16,400
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$108,000
Present Worth (20 yr, 6%)
$888.000
$8,000
$73,000
$21,000
Equivalent Arimml Coat
$Se, loo
Technical Memorandum No. 6 City of Monticello
y:vD I prop081240011pwhoatp.xia 921/95
4.5 Heat Pasteurization
Class "A" pathogen reduction can be achieved by exposing the sludge to a high temperature (158
°F) for a short time (30 rninutes) to comply with the time -temperature requirements outlined in the
503 regulations. Heat Pasteurization could be implmew as a "fast track" project to produce a
Class "A" sludge or as a back-up to an ATP or ATAD process.
Projected costs for construction of a heat pasteurization process as a back-up system are
summarized in Table 8-9.
4.6 Class "A" Treatment Alternatives Cost Comparison
Projected construction costs and associated present worth and annual equivalent costs for the
main Class "A" treatment processes (ATP. ATAD) , and back-up process (Heat Pasteurization)
are summarized in Table 8-10:
Table 8-10
Class "A" Cost Comparison
Process Projected Construction Cost Prt.sent Worth Cost Equivalent Annual Cost
Class "A" Treatment
ATP $1,458,000 51.902,000 5165.000
ATAD $1,492.000 $2,140.000 $186.000
Heat Pasteurization/ $178,000 5420,000 536,500
Anaerobic Digestion
5.0 CLASS "B" SLUDGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The wastewater treatment plant currently produces a Class "B" sludge through anaerobic
digestion. Class "B" sludge is the minimurn level of treatment needed to comply with the 503
requirements. Class "B" sludge requires additional vector attraction control measures and sludge
disposal permits.
Of the five Class "B" treatment processes summarized in Table 8-3, anaerobic digestion and
aerobic digestion were selected for further analysis.
Other treatment alternatives were not considered for further analysis because of the following
reasons. Air drying was not considered to be feasible in Minnesota's climate. Composting at the
treatment plant was rejected due to site constraints and potential odor problems. Composting at
Wright County (for pathogen reduction) was not considered to be viable due to the liability over
who is responsible for the pathogen content of the finished compost. Previous work completed
by HDR for Western Lake Superior Sanitary District in Duluth, MN indicates that lime
Technical Memorandurn No. 8 11 City of Monticello
stabilization was not cost effective when compared to thermal digestion processes. Based on
EPA cost curves. the capital cost for a full-scale lime stabilization system would be approximately
S4 million dollars.
5.1 Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion is the current sludge treatment method used at the wastewater plant. Sludge
is digested anaerobically (without oxygen). which produces methane gas. This methane gas is
used as an alternate fuel source to heat the digesters and treatment plant buildings. In order to
comply with the Class 'B" requirements, the process must be operated at 95 to 131 °F for 15
days, or 60 days at lower temperatures (68 "F).
The existing digesters ate projected to have a total retention time of l8 days at 3% solids under
design loadings. Therefore, it appears that the existing digesters could continue to meet Class
"B" requirements with adequate heating. Some repair and rehabilitation work will be needed in
order to use the existing system for another twenty years.
Costs for anaerobic digestion are summarized in Table 8-11.
5.2 Aerobic Digestion
Aerobic digestion is commonly used at smaller treatment plants where the recovery of methane is
not cost effective. Methane is not produced during aerobic digestion.
The 503 regulations require 40 days of storage for conventional aerobic digestion at 68 °F. No
existing tanks at the treatment have enough capacity. Conversion of the two existing digesters,
plus the existing sludge storage tank to aerobic digesters would be needed to meet the 40 -day
requirement.
Conversion to aerobic digestion is not anticipated to be cost effective for two reasons:
• The capital cost of converting the anaerobic digesters to aerobic digesters, including new feed
covers. aeration equipment and mixers.
• The power demand associated with operating the aeration equipment. plus an increase in
natural gas use (methane would no longer be available as an alternate fuel source).
Technical Memorandum No. 8 12 City of Monticello
&PL.
�-
Talna'8-11
Opinion of Probable Costs
Anaerobic Digestion
Class B Blosollds
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Monticello, MN
Equipment
Salvage
Unit
Ltfe
Replacement Cost
Value
Item Unit
OuanlltV (Prim Total
yeah
10 Vr
20vr
2020
Existing Anaerobic Digesters
Floating Gas Cover LS
1 $140,000 $140,000
20
$140,000
s0
Gas ScriMbor LS
1 $25,000 $25,000
20
525,000
$0
Mrscel. Gas Components LS
1 $35,000 535,000
20
$35,000
$0
Boilers LS
2 $10.000 $20,000
20
$20.000
s0
Transfer Pumps LS
2 $5.000 $10,000
10
$10,000
$10,000
s0
Subtotal
5290,000
$10,000
$290,000
so
Contingencies 0 15%
$35,000
Protected Construction Cost
5285,000
Estimated Annual Power Consumption (kw"r) 86,000
Estimated Annual Power Cost ($0.031/kwh)
$2.000
Estimated Annual Demand Cost (7.5 kw A 54.881mo) $400
Estimated Annual Energy Consumption (MMBTU/yr)
3,200
Estimated Annual Energy Cost (molhano)
$0
Total Annual Costs
$2,400
Present Wonh of Annual Costs
$28,000
Present worth (20 yr, 616)
$174000
$8,000
$71.000
50
Equivalent Annust Cost
589.200
Technical Memorandum No. 8
City of Monticello
y:101pror081240011pwandig.xls
921/85
6.0 SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
6.1 Sludge Disposal
Several sludge disposal options, including landfilling, and incineration, are not considered feasible
for the City of Monticello. The City appears to have three basic alternatives for sludge disposal:
1. Continued reliance on cooperative farmers for land application of sludge.
2. Purchase of a dedicated. City -owned land application site.
3. Co -composting with Wright County.
Cooperative Farmers
The method of sludge disposal currently used by the City agreements with cooperative fanners.
The City and land owner agree on land application, the City hauls and land applies the sludge at a
time agreeable to the land owner.
It is anticipated that the City will continue to be locked into Spring and Fall application windows
with cooperative farmers, if a Class "B" sludge is produced. This is because sludge must be
applied prior to the growing season in the Spring, and before the ground fieezes in the Fall (Class
"B" sludge must be incorporated into the soil within 6 hours for vector attraction control). With
a Class "A" sludge (which would meet vector attraction control already), sludge could continue to
be applied during the winter months, provided this was acceptable to the land owner.
Continued reliance on cooperative farmers is not recommended as a long-term sludge disposal
option for the following reasons:
• The City is at the mercy of the land owner, who can terminate the sludge application
agreement at short notice, leaving the City without a place to apply sludge.
• Continued development in and around Monticello is rapidly consuming agricultural
land. As development continues, the City will be forced to find alternate sites further
and further away from Monticello.
Dedicated Appfication Site
purchasing a City -owned site for sludge application avoids many of the drawbacks associated
with cooperative facers. By owning a site. the City could apply sludge in the Spring, Summer,
and Fall with a Class 'B" sludge, or year-round with a Class "A" sludge.
Acquiring a dedicated site forces the City into a capital expenditure for the property. In addition,
there may be some political opposition to implementing land application at a particular location.
In spite of these drawbacks. purchase of a dedicated site recommended as the best long -tern
option for sludge disposal for the City of Monticello
Technical Memorandum No. 8 14 City of Monticello A ,
(V v
Wright CountyCopostina
The Wright County Composting facility is not currently permitted to compost municipal
wastewater sludge but has requested this option for the renewal of the operating permit.
Composting at Wright County as a means of pathogen control to meet Class "A" or Class "B"
sludge is not considered feasible, since this places the responsibility of pathogen control on Wright
County instead of the City of Monticello. It is assumed that Wright County would not be willing
to accept this liability without extraordinary compensation from the City.
What is considered feasible is co -composting of sludge which has already been treated to a Class
"A" level by the City of Monticello. From a regulatory standpoint, a Class "A" sludge is no
longer considered "sludge '% it is simply another raw material to be used in the composting
process. It is assumed that sludge would have to be dewatered to calve form (20% solids content
or higher) to be compatible with the County's composting process.
No discussions or contacts with Wright County have been initiated. If the City decides to
implement a Class "A" sludge process, co -composting may be pursued as a complementary
disposal option along with purchase of a dedicated site.
6.2 Class "A" Sludge Management
Class "A" EQ sludge could be land applied year-round on a City -owned application site, or co -
composted with Wright County on a continuous basis. Application of Class "A" sludge on
cooperative farms could be done during the Spring, and Fall. application of Class "A" EQ sludge
could continue throughout the Winter.
Since Class "A" EQ sludge could be disposed of on a year-round basis, it is assumed that
approximately 60 days of storage would be adequate. For liquid sludge storage, use of the
existing digesters and sludge storage tank, along with conversion of the existing aeration basins to
sludge storage, would provide 56 days of storage at 3% solids under design loadings. Therefore,
no new storage tanks would be needed for Class "A" EQ sludge liquid storage.
Another possibility would be to dewater the sludge on a press to a cake form (20% solids), and
provide storage of the cake. This would reduce the storage volume needed, but would require a
new building for cake storage. Dewatering to a cake form would produce a sludge amenable to
co -composting and would reduce trucking costs for disposal.
Projected costs for Class "A" liquid and solid sludge management ate summarized in Table 8-12.
Based on the cost projections, it appears that dewatering the sludge prior to disposal is cost -
competitive with hauling liquid sludge.
Technical Memorandum No. 8 15 City of Monticello
419
Tablo 612
Opinion of Pr00aWs Costa
Class 'A' Sl Ktp Management
Wastwater Treatment Facilities
montl0ap0, MN
r«mn� w-v.naun ra. a cnr w .Yams
Y 01pmio512400110.ca-.ole �Y� _
f:a1A0s1snt
I
I
farvap
(AYn
t(ea
Mpbewnwr
valve
I" Lk*01rna1v
PrYes
row
ta
Y -i
an ion 15 1e ,r Y.
torr 1
2020
LsquM sto..ge
cora.- - PL1a1 Chrna.aa
1800
525
845 000
20
845.000
so
T1a�tarW EW-1)ZO cwnh- 1
60
11.500
330.000
20
f90.000
so
Cors.a�Aamm� Tang a
3200
325
180000
20
180.000
so
IDaanaflA r Tan
2
38.500
115.000
20
113.000
so
Y- Pon %
500
125.000
20
527.000
t0
Vajap".OAq %
I
om
516.000
20
115.000
s0
S4.Opa Appan Vaw'a a
upO
2
00
{1200
12-0.000
5
1240,000 874.000 324,000
1240.000
s0
Npmpl
150/084
82-,000 3240.000 -24000
8508000
so
Conmgrlpaa a 1 s%
mom
►rayaesa cpmweaa. ao
Iea4 /ao
E�tao AraYa1 81114p VaaA.e (90 0 3% MM)
8.800.000
Esumatsa AraaW Valart TrkM O= 9WMI
2A70
V ma All & Venda Mar (2o mantic)
Emu
57.400
j Eayrs4a Am1st Tp Coo "0.'..
W.2m
wan a m Amw Tro Ca
s-7.000
IPraasra
Pwste110 n Mo r+. -
R7
17.518.M
Sf?g.WD 8174,000 !700000
1157.000
so
Evut AmmW Ca
wlr
Suam
Oawab.Yq
l&uaps
O...sr.q ewipt LS
5315.005
20
wo.000
10
Polymer Equol LS
17.600
10
17.x00
17.800
to
I Oa W, -q ft."2
110.000
620000
10
t200oo
120.000
so
^,.Lupe AA*Ca n vaYta m
0
180.000
30
20
180.000
aweaY a.
Ds.swsq ffu401rq a
2.600
W
1100,000
10180.000
Cava(2-n v V%Ku-1 L8
1
-77.005
022000
60
1131.800
Cats S'n, eldaaq (O deal a
3000
178
1221000
20
3735000
to
Corwsrsq erasms l8
110000
20
110.000
so
Y41CnaMeal
PYIa Ppaq %
2.00
as=
20
125.000
so
YOM Pipnp %
8.00
mum
20
12 5.000
s0
vatrwPan4* %
200
118000
20
115.000
s0
r "c •
100
110000
20
110000
so
I elscuum
E4cacm Eq.W%
7.00
M
20
10
so
Irmwr.oam %
400
S454M
10
59.000
845000V
luewal
ICanatganna
1t.071800
to 877.100 so
8701800
SM.=
0 15%
WSAW
P•tjaPale Cenapueatu Cow
P/.1/0.100
EsW.W Amur 64mpa Vaaatr (q • W%, NMI
6.500
Em1 Wd A -W V.NM Trips (11 cwm
860
eOarrMa Arcual v. mm Mea (20 �A V)
11.800
EwaAslsaM uw Trp Can(80.70WA
M700
P.oaars Wan ut A.wM Trip Colts
107000
Prwan101yr11008x. a%0
81Jmm
10 841.000 to
17-,000
880000
E" -W" AAnua Cola/
5171.810
r«mn� w-v.naun ra. a cnr w .Yams
Y 01pmio512400110.ca-.ole �Y� _
6.3 Class "B" Sludge Management
Class "B" sludge could be land applied during the Spring, Summer, and Fall on a City -owned
application site, or on cooperative farms during the Spring, and Fall.
Since Class "B" sludge could be only be disposed of on a seasonal basis, it is assumed that
approximately 180 days of storage would be needed. For liquid sludge storage, use of the
existing tankage would provide about 70 days of storage at 3% solids under design loadings. A
new 2,600,000 gallon storage tanks would be needed to provide an additional 110 days of
storage.
Another possibility would be to dewater the sludge on a press to a cake form (20% solids), and
provide storage of the cake. This would reduce the storage volume needed, but would require a
new building for 180 days of cake storage. Dewatering to a cake form would produce a sludge
amenable to co -composting and would reduce [nuking costs for disposal.
Projected costs for Class "B" liquid and solid sludge management arc summarized in Table 8-13.
Barad on the cost projections, it appears that dewatering the sludge prior to disposal is much
more cost effective than hauling liquid sludge.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
A cost summary of Class "A" and Class "B" sludge trea=nt options, along with liquid and
dewatered sludge disposal options, is summarized in Table 8-14.
As seen in the Table, the most inexpensive option for the City is to produce a Class "A" sludge
through the use of heat pasteurization combined with liquid hauling.
The heat pasteurization alternative is based in the time and temperature regime defined in the 503
regulations. This is not a proprietary process; no manufacturer "owns" it, and consequently, the
burden of compliance testing would be on the City of Monticello.
Sludge dewatering could increase the City's sludge disposal options. If a co -composting
agreement with Wright County can be developed, production of a dewatered cake sludge may be
warranted.
Regardless of whether the City produces a Class "A" or Class "B" sludge, purchase of a dedicated
land application site should be a priority.
Technical Memorandum No. 8 17 City of Monticello
a
Table 617
Opinion of Probable Costs
Ctw 'B' Sludge Management
Witanvater TreaCrSent Facilities
Monticello. It1M
ecluvm
Isr L11e
It.m IMI Our1mv Pno TOtll r.ra 1 S trr
IAr. Ster.ga TW (I 10 cry.)
LS
1
S=*oW
527/.000 w
E-- LS
t
$12..000
1+2..000
IC-"
D.-Wrq Ls
1
5701000
570.000
Oac1m7 u
1
5177,0Do
1177.000
T- C- LS
1
5772.000
S772A00 20
w Prop u
+
t+a.000
$10-00020
V" LS
1
511400
55..coo20
Tnln .unto. LS
iy
2
ssm
$10,000 10
, Lleufa Stamp.nr • E..wq T. "
W
so
'Co..a. F1Cledr. a
law
125
S.5A00 20
TitrArtr El.A VR el C,." -t
so
SIAM
$90.000 20
C-Ar.Ppl Trr. a
200
625
560400 20
oAA.aa0rl T- al
aOnan
2
f0.OM
$17AM 20
rw Pe.q IS
040
S25J100 m
V.MLP1,/rp.lpa
740
315.000 20
Stu09. A.pauaon vanrJ. ..
2
$+20400
240.000 5
srepor
/1,.12(300
coi.grlrr. 015%
1216.000
INOW a C...trtcart Car
11.6""
Eamu7.a Amu.l Swag. Vous. Otr a M soa.,1
SAW=
E"a W nter AVence rrpa (3400 90W)
LII
EM -00 Annml Vw.o. MAW (20 m.I1p)
57,400
Ettmmtoo A.etual Trp Coal IS0.7Orta)
s40.2O0
Pt gpnt Wpm r A." Trp Coad
s.61.ow
Prase Wpm (20 F, ON
SIMADID
[PuttMaW Apn.M Cor
S28s.m
51aO110 o..araq
Oa.at.rrq Eouo7 LS
&=A00 20
P.W . Eawl Ls
57AM IO
O.a v Ppne. 2
910400
12OAw '0
Mdp APOYta.an Va11E. .
0
9120.000
sO 20
rragO1o9 a
tt-
SAW
170
1212.SM So
Etorap. OWMN 1 t 120 aMl a
91000
17
5675400 20
IC-wg Orolraa LS
Wool) 20
, a
tw
125.000 20
5"-,
a
sw
4000020
540551.000
20C
\
500
510.009 20
F.W"ca
, Em,=x,ICwpt f
700
so 20
ilmOunl.rtt.tlOn ♦
.M
SAS OM 10
pWbnt
S114n,s99
COnrgrrro a, YL
521 A ow
P olata'a Cplaatras Car91.a7599a
Enmaue Amu" ol.rt� uopa voa(n a W%.a1m1
6.800
a'M Amuat Vaa.:t. Trp.111 (,yea)
100
EW W A,..* VaraCM M1aa(711 mW1el
1l.Wo
1111- as A-. Trp Car (SO 7O")
111250
�P1raM W0rin of M W Trp CAN.
mow
P -t Wpm (20 n. fel
51.121,000
ft..b A-.NCe.t
s/64100
t 4t rr.:a+:AOOTyr:.w w
U.."
Awoaenent Co.t v.a.i
t0 A 15 to ton I 7020
Sm'00O 51.1.000
$12..000
$M 000
$177.000
5702.ow
.172
fAw
$10.000
flo.Ow
S11,Mo
StD,wo
110.0)
510400
so
SW.ODD so
112o.000
590.000 so
U04M SO
1157-SM
117.000 fO
1075.000
s20,000 So
Sig "'Mso
g.o.0
p0
.o.OwO:o
2.0ow 1sl.17A,0w12.0.0001
Ial6ow.00
.
5179.000 W57.0w s1w.oO0 277.wo l I...ow
so 641.000 SO Ilia 0w IAO ow
CAe VrYICW
0.7185
270.000
so
17.500
97.500
so
120.000
20.00
so
112o.000
1157-SM
1075.000
10
sto.000
w
2s Mo
to
25.000
so
115.000
s0
P OOM
sO
W
so
5.5409
so S72Aw
tA6o00
50 S I M Soo
10
1157.800
so 641.000 SO Ilia 0w IAO ow
CAe VrYICW
0.7185
Table 9-14
Cost Summary
Sludge Treatment and Disposal Options
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Monticello, MN
Technical Memorandum No. 6
n y:Vllpro1108124001151itgoplAs
J
Cay of Montucollo
0/21/05
Anaerobic
Anaerobic Dlgestlonl
ATP
ATAD
Digestion
Heat Pasteurization
Class A
Class A
Class B
Class A
Liquid Sludge Disposal
Treatment Procoss Present Worth
$1,988,000
$2,140,000
$370.000
$558,000
LiquKi9ud90Disposal ProsenlWorth
£1,615,000
$1,615,000
53,283,000
$1,615,000
Present Worth Subtotal
$3,603,000
$3,755,000
13,653,000
$2,173,000
Equivalent Annual Cost
$313,000
$327,000
$318,000
$189,000
1 icatnrent Puucess CunShucliun Cusl
$1,526,500
$1,492,500
$265,(X)0
$317,000
Liquid Sludge Disposal Construction Cosl
$584`000
$584`000
$1`656.000
$584,000
Protected Construction Cost Subtotal
54,110.600
$2,076.500
11,923.000
$901,000
Dowaterod Sludge Disposal
Treahnont Procoss Pasant Worth
$1,988,000
$2,140,000
$370,000
$558,000
Duwalmod SludOo Disposal Present Worth
$1,513,000
$1,513,000
$2,124000
$1,513,000
Present Worth Subtotal
53,501,000
$3,653,000
$2,484,000
$2,071,000
Equivalent Annual Cost
$305,000
$318,000
$217,000
$180,000
Tuoatmani Process Construction Cost
$1,526,500
$1,492,500
$265,000
$317,000
Dewalered Sludge Disposal Construction Cori
11`190`500
jl jD0`60D
11,639,000
$1,190,500
Projected Construction Cost Subtotal
{2,717,000
14,683,000
11,904,000
{1,607,500
Technical Memorandum No. 6
n y:Vllpro1108124001151itgoplAs
J
Cay of Montucollo
0/21/05
WW TP EXPANSION PROJECT
Funding examples for a $10 million project
If we were to use other sources of revenue to help cover a portion of debt payments
rather than entirely using ad valorem taxes, an idea to consider would be to use a
portion of the current $1,200 hookup fee (i.e., possibly 26% or $300) and possibly an
increase in the hookup fee to $1,600 (an additional $300) and dedicate this $600
toward debt service of the new plant. We would generate approximately $66,700
annually based on the anticipated 101 housing starts noted in the Facilities Pian as
follows:
WWTPW.M: %2M Pago 1 &-r
Annual Debt
Annual Debt
Payment
Current Tax
Payment Current Tax
15 -yr Term
Capacity
2( -yr Term Capacity
Interest
Principal A
Bate
Principal & Bate
Bate
Interest
Increase
Interest _ Increase
4.6%
$931,200
6.83
$768,800 4.81
6%
$963,600
6.03
$802,600 6.03
6.6%
$9961300
6.24
$836,800 6.24
Effect of the above annual debt payments on the
following valued homes if entire
debt is paid by ad valorem taxes:
$90,000 Home
$160.000 Home $120,000 some
16 -yr 20 -yr
15 -yr
20 -yr 16 -yr 20 -yr
Bond Bond
Bond
Bond Bond Bond _
4.6%
$62.96 $61.96
$74.62
$61.67 $97.94 $80.81
6%
$66.12 $64.32
$77.18
$64.38 $101.30 $64.60
6.6%
$67.39 $66.69
$79.87
$67.07 $104.83 $88.03
$100,000
Business
$260,000 Business
16-vr Bond
20•vr Bond
16-vr Bond Mvr Bond
4.6%
$174.90
$144.30
$677.17 $476.19
6%
$180.90
$160.90
$696.97 $497.97
6.6%
$187.20
$167.20
$617.76 $618.76
If we were to use other sources of revenue to help cover a portion of debt payments
rather than entirely using ad valorem taxes, an idea to consider would be to use a
portion of the current $1,200 hookup fee (i.e., possibly 26% or $300) and possibly an
increase in the hookup fee to $1,600 (an additional $300) and dedicate this $600
toward debt service of the new plant. We would generate approximately $66,700
annually based on the anticipated 101 housing starts noted in the Facilities Pian as
follows:
WWTPW.M: %2M Pago 1 &-r
SM x 76 single family homes - $46,000
$600 x 76% x 26 multiple units = $11.7
$66,700
By using the 6% - $10 million -16 yr. debt schedule of $963,600, less $66,700 in
hookup revenue, ad valorem tares would be reduced by 6% to $906,800 annually.
For a $100,000 home, this would reduce the annual debt requirement to $72.70
from $77.18, saving approximately $4.48 per year. Although this reduction is fairly
small, the more revenue that is obtained from hookup fees, the less the existing
taxpayers will be required to pay.
The new W WTP is also projected to coat more to operate than the present facility.
The operationhnaintenance costs are currently. $426,000
Projected: 880 I=
+$ 79,000
To cover this additional cost, user rates are estimated to increase 20% Prom $1.66
per hundred cubic feet to $1.98. This increase would not provide any additional
funds to cover debt service on the plant, but mainly operations/maintenance. If we
wanted user fees to pay for a portion of the $9 million construction, rates would
have to go up over 20%. For example, an additional 6% increase in rates above the
20% needed ibr operations would generate about $26,000 the first year.
There are certainly pros and cons to increasing user rates, rather than relying
entirely on taxes. User fees better reflect those who actually use the plant and
makes some users, who may be tax exempt, pay a share of the plant's cost. On the
other hand, it would certainly be less expensive for a homeowner to have the entire
debt paid by real estate taxes than through rate increases, since commercial/
industrial properties will pay more through taxes than they might through user
fees.
WW'1peI JM: WM Page 2 (PQ
UPDATE ON WWTP PROPERTY ACQUISITION
FLOYD KRUSE
Endosed you will find a cover sheet of the appraisal recently completed on the
Floyd Kruse property adjacent to our wwtp property. As you will note, the
appraisal indicates the property would have a value of $303,000 in the opinion of
the appraiser.
This information has been given to Mr. Floyd Kruse for his consideration, and I
believe he will be in attendance at the meeting Monday night. I have indicated to
Mr. Kruse that the City Council may be discussing the need or feasibility of
acquiring additional land for future expansion and that he should review the
appraisal report and be prepared to provide us with some insight as to whether he
would be acceptable in this price range of selling the property to the City; or if not,
the amount he would need.
W
R. A. Field i ABBociates
Federally Certified Appraisers
520 Northeast 218th Avenue
Cedar, Minnesota 55011
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
September 19, 1995
Mr. Rick Molfsteller, City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
REs RRUSi PROPERTY
in the SW% of the SE% of
Section 12, Township 121M, Range 25M
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mr. wolfatellers
Pursuant to your request, I have made a careful inspection of the captioned
property, which is more particularly described elsewhere in this report, and have
made a study of the conditions affecting its value.
The estimate of value as stated in this report is predicated upon the
definition of market value contained herein. Implicit in the definition of market
value is that payment is made in cash or its equivalency. The equivalency of cash
is conventional financing at bank/institutional rates. The subject property is
appraised booed upon cash or equivalent financing.
The property rights appraised consist of title in fee simple.
By virtue of my investigation I have formed the opinion that the *aa -is*
value of the subject property, valued as sae unit, as of July 11, 1995 is as
fol low l
$ 303,000
Thio appraisal is made subject to certain limiting conditions and •s• tions ss
hereinafter expressed. Such facts sad lnfcreation contained heroin wore obta sed frog
sources that I considered reliable and are tram to the best of my knowledge.
The following report describes my method of approach, contains data gathered in
my investigation, and demonstrates my analysis in arriving at the estimation of ssarket
value for the subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
R. A. yield L Associates
on:ra a.'tirs
Certified General
Real Property Appraiser
License U000115
2
kA)
Council Agenda - 9/2ti/95
7. Consideration of reviewing the Wastewater 14eatment Plant
W.S. )
The environmental assessment worksheet is an important part of our
permitting process for the expansion of our wastewater treatment plant at its
current site. It discusses the project and its effects on the area and
environment. HDR had completed the draft EAW earlier this month, and the
staff, along with PSG, has had a chance to review it. The EAW has been
drafted considering both the SBR and oxidation ditch, as the time frame for
EAW review by the PCA and publication for the public comment is quite
lengthy. The final draft of EAW will be available at Monday evenings
meeting, and Bob Poplin and Scott Wallace from HDR will walk the Council,
staff, PSG, and interested citizens through the document.
After any changes suggested or implemented by the Council, it is expected
that the draft will be finalized and forwarded to the PCA for their review and
comment.
The first alternative, after presentation of the EAW by HDR, is to
approve the EAW as drafted, have the appropriate signatures placed
upon the document, and forward it to the PCA for review.
The second alternative would be to make the changes as recommended
by the City Council to the EAW prior to the signatures and forwarding
to the PCA.
3. The third alternative would be not to approve the EAW.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
approve the EAW as presented or make necessary changes at Monday
evenin4e meeting as outlined in alternative til or N2 and forward it to the
PCA as soon as possible tbs their review.
None. The EAW will be presented at Monday evening's meeting.
Council Agenda - 9/26/96
,•�T:ifiC'�.:i+rTTT�'„Ej1T'Ti'TS': !1 : ,�., e: �i i.:
Please see the attached report from the City Planner for a complete site plan
review and staff recommendation. The Planning Commission
recommendation to Council will be established at a special meeting of the
Planning Commission to be held immediately prior to the City Council
meeting.
DECISION 1: Consideration of a variance to the front, side. and rear
setback requirements for a planned unit development in an R-2 zone.
Motion to approve the variances to the front, side, and rear setback
requirements for a planned unit development in an R-2 zone.
Motion is based on a Wing as outlined in the Planner's report.
Motion to deny approval of variances to the front, side, and rear
setback requirements for a planned unit development in an R-2 zone.
Motion based on a finding as outlined in the Planners report.
DECISION 2: Consideration of approval of a conditional use permit
that would allow development of PUD in an R.2 zone.
Motion to approve a conditional use permit that would allow
development of a PUD in an R-2 zone subject to conditions as noted by
the City Planner.
Council Agenda - 9/25195
2. Motion to deny approval of a conditional use permit.
This alternative should be selected if the developer is unable to comply
with conditions as required by City Council.
DECISION 8: Consideration of preliminary plat approval of a replat
of the Prairie West Subdivision.
Motion to grant preliminary plat approval of a replat of the Prairie
West Subdivision w*ect to conditions noted under the Planned Unit
Development approval.
This alternative should be selected if the planned unit development is
approved.
2. Motion to deny preliminary plat approval of a replat of the Prairie
West Subdivision.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA,
Preliminary Plat; Planner's report.
BSEP -22-1995 1129 NRC 612 595 98.37 P.e2i08
InA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C C 0 M M U N I T T PLANNING • DESIGN . MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
T0: Moadcello Planning CommiscodJefi O'Neill
FROM: Sumben drittman
DATE September 22, 1995
RB: Monticello - KomardJPrairie west Townhomes
PIIS N0: 191.07 - 95.13
Backgman0
The dcvelopem of the proposed Prairie West Towal ma► project bave submitted a request for
preliminary plat approval. ibis request ituWdes an application for a Planned Unit Developtacat P
as well as vatimm ft= the perimeter lm linea on all sides of the p v j=L This projou has bees
reviewed at c=ccpt lovd by the Piamring Cammbdm toward the objective of identifying design
and physical elmeants which would, or would not, Jusafp the gtamtng of the PUD and variaaoes.
Discussion by the Pluming Cwxduion indicated that some flasibility to the pcdmeter sabacb
might be Aulfied by the e&ct that the pmpaty is albjoct to existing imptovemmm which omit the
use of the rrmainiag land. 'lois report Is iattmded to culla re the tastes and provide analysis of the
application of the Zoning Ordinance standards to the pmjeet
AA*+8
The proposed project consias of twelve dwdHq units to be developed in tis twin home
structures. They are to be grouped around the mdsting Cul-de-sac, 'Broadway Circle, wM a
series of driveways ameastog the ladlVMW garages. The driveways are combined in aro¢ cases,
but not all. The plat &bows do each lodividaal unit would be putted to have its owe private
prap ty amundhtg the rials, with the mmdWa in common ownetft. The plat also abGws a
I e irne- 12 foot dmitop and utility anurg rt sm vw drag the project, with an additieml 12 foot
casement cx=diag from the end of the ad-&aac to the Burlington Northem Railroad.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • State 355 • Sl. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595.9636•Fez. 5995.99837
v"
SEP -22-1995 1130 NRC 612 595 9837 P.03/0g
Planned Unit Development and Vadaace
Planned Unit Develop (PUD) is itnmded to provide flexibility in the City's zoning standards
toward the goal that by grunting the flexibility, a developer is able to achieve a superior project
to that which would have resulted from a strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance's performance
standards Thus, in cadger to recommend the use of PUD, the Planning Commission needs to
make a finding that the altered design achieves this objective, or PUD is not being used
appropriately. PUD is not intended to be used to mashy -hot= the Zoning Ordfnanoe, or to
avoid the finding of hardship in variance cases.
As a result, perimeter setbaeks are typically applied to PUD projects, but 'interior" setbacks ate
not. Petimc= setbacks would be those which affect the project's exposure to public stscets or
adjoining private property. Immor a tbacla would be those which affect lot lines within the
project boundaries. The setback issue will be addressed first since it affects the design issues
under the PUD.
In summary, to recommend a variance to the setbacks, the Planning Conimissir m must consider
the following factors:
Non-economh: hardship
Uniqueness from other lands
Avoidance of special luivflege
In the case of Prairie west, these Lanes aro not clot au. With regard to hardship, the Planning
Commission might find that due to the conflguration of the property, and the improvements
already in place, there would be a tine hardship in complying with all setbacks. Particularly eloag
the eau property line, the lot depth is less than 110 fees. Once the requited setbacks are taken,
these would be bit than 30 feet of buildable area. On the other hand, the Phnniag Commission
could find that the existing kopuovemms and phi design were put in place by the euaent owners,
thus any 6uds4 was manly ecoiwmic in nature. It would act be imposan6le to design either
tingle fiamily or two family a rucnua which would mea the setback requhm»nnu. Perhaps this
would remb in a mdaetim in the writ count of the project. However, thio could be me*
another example of the amnnmic nature of the hardship.
With regard the unigtresess, this criterion is ane which is handed to &bow that any variance
enacted wmW not Impact other prvpeny, or that no negative precedent would be sot. In this case,
rho property is abutted by school and railroad tarda an two aides. However, the owners have also
mcpscsmd vuiaute 8mm the public streets, inchA tg both &=Sway and Broadway Circle, as well
at the privately owned property to the wets. While the uniqueness factor may be present on the
south and east Hum. three would not Wo to be aM uniqueness with respect to the streets of the
west property line.
SEP -22-1955 11 30 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 04108
The last factor, 'spacial privilege" is an application of the uniquenew issue to other lands in the
distact. lbs issue is intended to cons der whether ainalar ptopetty in similar situations have been
granted similar variances (inferring that the City would do so again in this situation), or whether
they would be in the fluute (inferring that the grant of this variance would be applied to other
property if tt quested). Applying this standard to the Prairie West situation, the Planning
Commission might find that the Rs lwad and School pmpeRy setbacks might be juniFed, but that
setbacb from streets and other private property would not be justified.
In summary, the asthenic vaaances to the east and south could be def clad by their unique
sintad- adjacent to larger, open, 'institutionalmighboring property. However, the setbado to
the west and to the public stroas would be more difficult to ddmd based on the application of any
of the facture which am to be part of the variance analysis.
The PUD analysis suggests that fladbdity to other zoning standards must be justified by
improvements in the overall design. One of staTs migfmal concerns with this project is the
amort of impervious eacreated by the layout. The higher comber of units necessitates a
siguiticant amount of driveway arra, as well as a largo petoeamp of the cul -de -®c homtage being
consumed by orb cuts. public Wodcs staff has noted that snow plowing in this project would be
a dpoiBrant problem due to the lack of snow amp area. Fngiaeering atafi has also mpressed
camcams abort both grading and utility servioe in the project.
Ahhough the applicant has stated that the cul-de-sac would have to remain public, staff does not
believe that the project, as designed, is consia m with the retention of Broadway Circle as a
public saw Staff is anawue of any state or local regahemew which would require an escrow
for Marc stzeet replacement, as suggested by the developer.
Conc3atton
7be applicam is appwvals fbr three =Hcuious (1) Vuiu= to the setback standuds
on all sides; (2) Planned Unit Developmeat to allow flecfbility in the interior arrangement of
buildings and driveways; and (3) Preliminary Plat.
With regard to the variance request, the Planning Commission must find that the criteria
summarized above are met in order to recommend approval. The conditions on this property
make such a finding difficult. but possible on the can and south Properly lines. However,
scftcb to the west and to the public reacts should be adhered to due to concerns tum precedent
and clear lack of hatdshtp in complying with the requirements.
Re®uding PUD, the Plarming Commitsloa should state what criteria do In this deslgn, or which
must be added to this design, to judify the use of PUD. 'lbs applicant bu int submitted
WW=pe plans with this proposal. however, amaordinary landscape 1,eatmaa Is occasionally
used u a Podor in this analysis. As a pan of this f3odbtg, staff recommends that Broadway Circle
be vacated, and an easement be retained over the public utilities.
59
SEP -22-1995 11:30 NRC 612 595 9857 P.05i88
The PteSminmy Plat may be appmved in the eveM that It appears that the project will paaooed
wbboat major ahmtions to the layout az denshy. 7U Planning Commisaiva thoulld be
comfortable with the layout of the plat, conddcft any changes which would have to be made
as a result of andbions attached to tho appavval. If dpfficaot changes would be aeoaasary to
sceommoduo the Planning Commission's condidlaaa, it may be mato prudent to withbold plat
appmval until inose LUM are t+eaolved.
MA
or 11 f,
"Doi P.
i59 -q
vw I
—"--; —,
O's
04D
Council Agenda - 9126/95
13. Consideration ofUre imtna ^Stint aprrroval of the Klein Faryna
(J.O.)
Planning Commission and City Council are requested to consider action that
would allow development of nine twinhome structures at Outlot A of the
Klein Farms. Klein Farms Outlot A is located in a sensitive transition zone
between an industrial area to the north and a single family housing
development to the south. The homes will be owner -occupied and served by
an internal private street. The development represents an improvement over
the original plans for this area (May 94), which originally suggested a higher
density rental townhouse development.
This item was considered by the Planning Commission at the regular
meeting in September and continued to a special meeting which is being held
immediately prior to the Council meeting. At the regular meeting in
September, the Planning Commission identified problems in meeting the
requirements of the buffer yard ordinance and tabled further consideration
until the plan was amended accordingly. The original plan included a berm
for the purpose of obtaining a 60% credit against required landscape
plantings. The plan was rejected because the height of the berm was not 6 R
above the elevation of the garage floor slab. The revised site plan corrects
this problem but fills a necessary drainage swale along the rear property
line. Also, subsequent to Planning Commission review, City staff has
reviewed the revised site plans in more detail and offer additional
suggestions for improving the site plan.
For the purpose of the site plan review portion of this report, please refer is
the report provided by Steve Orittman. This report is the same document
that was provided to the Planning Commission for the regular meeting in
September.
Council Agenda - 9/26/95
Decision 1: Consideration of a variance to the front yard setback
requirement for a PUD in an R•2 none.
Motion to approve the 10 -ft variance request based on a finding that
the yard is a side yard and not a front yard; therefore, the 30 -ft
setback requirement does not apply.
Essentially, the Planning Commission and City Council need to
determine whether or not to classify the subject yard as a side yard or
a front yard If the yard is determined to be a side yard, then the site
plan meets the minimum requirements and a variance could be
granted based on the finding that the front yard setback requirements
do not apply. The applicant notes that the yard designation (front or
aide) would be a side yard if the internal street in the PUD was a
public street.
D
Motion to deny approval of the 10 -ft variance request based on a
l finding that the yard is a front yard and a hardship supporting the
request has not been demonstrated.
It could be argued that the yard in question is truly a front yard
because it is in the front of the development area separating the
general PUD area from the adjoining properties. It is the
interpretation of the City Planner that the yard is more akin to a front
yard than a side yard.
Decision 2: Consideration of approval of a conditional use permit
that would allow a planned unit development in an Rte2.
1. Motion to approve a conditional use permit that would allow a
planned unit development in an R-2 subject to the following
conditions.
The site plan must be consistent with setback requirements as
determined by Planning CommissionlCity Council.
The drainage swale along the rear lot line must not be filled, or
the developer must work with the City to install a storm sewer
line at this location.
Council Agenda - 9/26/95
3. Additional landscaping is required as noted in the attached
report by the City Planner.
4. Landscaped plantings or low maintenance ground cover must be
planted in areas where berm grades exceed 3 to 1 slope.
5. Adjustments to the utility plan as required by the City
Engineer.
6. A utility easement must be provided which would allow access
to the internal water and sewer mains serving the site, and the
development agreement and association bylaws must state that
the association is responsible for paying for repairs to any
stricture (sidewalks, streets, curb, trees, etc.) that is damaged
in the process of utility maintenance activity.
7. The City must be granted a storm sewer easement in the storm
water ponding area located east of the site. To avoid long-term
maintenance problems for the association and to enhance the
environment, require establishment of a contract between the
developer and a native grasses restoration firm for the purpose
of establishing wetland characteristics in the storm water basin.
8. Establishment of an association and bylaws as prescribed by
ordinance.
The developer has indicated a willingness to comply with all of the
conditions above with the following exceptions.
1. The developer can comply with the setback requirements as long
as the "front yard" setback is established at 20 R.
2. The developer has not reviewed the additional landscaping
requirements as noted by the City Planner in the attached
report. The level of support is not known.
3. The developer prefers to lower the screening fence, which would
help create an additional 10 R of usable back yard. However,
doing so would result in non-compliance with the buffer yard
ordinance.
Council Agenda - 9/25/95
Motion to deny approval of a PUD in an R-2 zone.
This alternative should be based on a finding that stems from the
discussion. Possible findings could include denial due to inconsistency
with the setback requirements. Denial could also be based on the
failure of the developer to agree to providing necessary site
improvements as noted under conditions 1-7.
Decision 8: Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the Klein
Farms Estates Subdivision.
Motion to approve preliminary plat approval of the lQein Fangs
Estates Subdivision subject to the conditions noted under the PUD
approval.
This alternative should be selected if the City approves the PUD under
Decision 2.
Motion to deny preliminary plat approval of the Mein Farms Estates
Subdivision. This alternative should be selected if Council denies
approval of the PUD under Decision 2.
C. STAFF RRrO NI]ATION:
With regard to the variance request, City staff can see both sides of the
argument. It is essentially a judgment call by the Planning Commission and
City Council whether or not to call the yard affected a side yard or a front
yard. If the variance is denied, it is likely that the entire development will be
shifted 10 ft closer to the industrial area, which may or may not be a better
situation.
With regard to the PUD and preliminary plat approval, staff supports
approval subject to the conditions noted and other conditions required by
Council. This is the first teat case of the buffer yard ordinance, and we feel
strongly that the ordinance needs to be met to the letter.
Planning Commission Agenda data i1rom the regular meeting in September,
Landscaping suggestions by City Planner; Copy of front elevation of homes
prep; moping plan; Preliminary plat and grading plan; Utility plan.
UP]
SEP -01-1995 1353 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 02/10
rNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
T0: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Dan Sjordal / Stephen Oduman
DATE: 1 September 1995
RE: MotrticWo - M= F&= Rlsmtea PUD - Conceptad Site and
FIM NO: 191.07 - 95.12
BACKGROUND
Bill Roesler of Swift Conmuatoa is tequesdo8 Concepmal Stage, Pbaoed Unit Development
BUD) appsvval of dm and bui]diog ph m for aw=te ion of Main Fates Emu. The proposed
twin home davelopmeot b tD be located rodh of Sto=Wp Drive and west of Fallon Ave= and
b described as OutLx A, Mcin Palma. Mm ptvpetty b ltamd FM -
Attached for refere m
Exhibit A - Site 140A
Exhibit B - Utility plan
Exhibit C - Gyuft Plan
Exhibit D - Iandsnpe Pian
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Sabadcs. The hole and side yard tesnictbm At the puiphm of a planned Unit dwdopmau site
at a minimum shall be the ta= as imposed in the tespec&m districts. The respective dittr6a most
similar to the proposed land use b the R-1 Disukt. The tequirad minimutn tttbach distum an
U follows:
if
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. LOOS Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595.9837
SEP -01-1995 13:53 NAC 512 595 4837 P.03i10
R-7 nitmet
Front Yard 30 feet
Side Yard 10 feet
Rear Yard 30 feet
Because the Klein Farm Estates utilises a private driveway, all of the units that tum along
Stoneridge Drive are to have a 30 foot setback. Proposed Units 1 and 14 encroach upon this
setback.
PUD zoned arras allow for internal vanaaces that are acceptable to the City Council and City
stall, however, it would not be appropriate to allow external variances for periphery setbacks.
The side yard scftdo do not mea the requirements of an R-2 District, which require a ten toot
setbarlr from a side lot be. Phan have not been ntmind in order to address the height and size
of the units to determine the supply of light and air regaUements and to determine whether a
variation from the standards would be advisable. Building separation is shown as varying from
15 to 17 feet on the northerly units.
Buffer Yard Requirements. Buffer yard .., .:..,... _rte requited to reduce the negative
impacts that result whm incompatible uses abut one another. In the case of a residential use area
abutting an industrial use area, the intensity of conflict is considered severe or type D.
Minimum Minimum No. Plant Units
Intensity Building Land sape Required - 100 Feet
of Conflict MW Ssdhach YAM of Ehmp v t'"�
Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 160 feet
The proposed Mem Fatten Estates satitfln the property line setback and the minimum landaape
yard.
Itx proposal Wchules 35 evergreen trees and 26 dedduoua trees for a total of 785 planting units.
Mm total units is 50 percent Im than requited because it aaoepts a reduction for a five foot berm.
Ibis reduction is not applicable t>eause the proposed berm that is shown on the grading plan is
only three feet in beight as viewed from the iadnucmal park aide. In addltlnn, it is rarely any
higher in elevation from the main floor elevation of the units themselves.
Gmdlog Pim. 7be esisdng berth located on the north portion of the site has been lowered and
reduced in width (as shown on Exhibit C). A *dmand" has been produced in order to cream
sufficient fall for the walls out Units 5-10. As noted In the buffer yard requirements, the proposed
2 116
Ser'-01-195= 13:Set NPC 612 595 9837 ?.04/10
berm to mmain is approximately three feet high (facing south from the industrial park) and docs
oot qualify as a credit toward buffer yard screening. However, the City Engineer has noted that
the site grading will wont from a drainage standpoint.
Future l se. Outlot A has been shown to be developable for future townhome units as requested
by the City. The townhome units would be a compatible use and would not have any buffer yard
requirements. There has been discussion that this ou dot may be developed as a day care facility.
If this rim= use a proposed, the Zoning Ordinance regm= that buffo yard requirements would
be imposed between the Klein Farms Estates and the development of Oudot A. Although this
docs not affect the proposed townhome development, the layout may affect fume development.
Density. Subtracting the area of Oudot A, the holding ponding area, and the area of the private
drive, them is a buildable area of approximately 126,127 square fort The proposed lig units
would create a density within this area of 6.2 units per acre, and would create an average lot that
is approrimately 7,000 square feet.
This menu the minimum area and building sim, and lot area per unit requirements of the R-2
District
Landscaping. 'nee preliminary I skart pe Pic (Exhibit D) iadicatea the amount type and
location of the ProPored pl As pmiawdy noted, credit will not be given to the developer
for the berm so additional plantings will be required. If a higher berm or fence is installed, the
numbs of plantings is sufficient. The final Planting Plan will be subject to review and approval
by City staff and City Council.
Required Information. The developer has not provided the needed information in order to
review the balding details, floor plan elevations. These plans ate to be provided before concept
PUD approval U granted.
Paved Surfaces.
Private Drive: The minimum width of a private driveway in a PUD development is 20
feet The proposed development has drives that aro 24 feet wide.
Driveways: Foch unit has a proposed 22 foot long drive that has sufficient room for two
additional pulrng spa ccs per unit
Adolm—1 Parking: No visitor stalls have been included whhin the development The
proposed development meets and exceeds all applicable off street puking supply and
dimension regoitemeats.
SEP -01-1999 13: S4 NPC 612 595 96-7 P.05/10
Snow Storage. One item of concern which relates to the proposed private street is that of snow
storage. As a condition of FUD approval, the developer should identify snow storage areas upon
the submitted site plan or agree that all snow will be hauled to an off -greet location.
Development AgrwmenL As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant should be required
to enter into a development agreement with the City.
Homeowner Rule and Bylaws. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicam. should
submit a copy of all rutin and bylaws to be utilized by the development's homeowners association
for City review. The rules and bylaws should address such issues as mainMmsnn. of common
open space. sooav removal, etc.
Utilities. A Utility Plan has been submitted that addresm the proposed water, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer. This plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
Signage. It has not been indicated whether a development identification sign is to be provided
an she, If sank a sWs) is to be provided, plans should be submitted in accordance with the City
Sign Ordinance. The plaa(s) should specify the location. type and dimensions of all signage.
Refum The 1—tion of refuse containers must be indicated on submitted plans. The eoaniners
must be fully saeened if they ate not going to be located within the individual units.
RECONIIVVEMATION
'Ile City may wish to table approval ni this project to allow the developer to revise the drawings
in regards to this mpart, as well as specific comments from the City of Monticello Planning
CommWicn If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this project, it should do so only
with the following conditions:
1. The building locations are revised to conform to the required 30 foot setback from
Stotterldge Drive.
2. The building locations should be revised to conform to the side yard setback of an R-2
District or a vulame be applied for.
3. Additional plans am provided that identity the buildings' floor plans, details, and
elevations.
a. Plain quattdtlm for the butler yard mgan:m=ts shall be increased or a bum or fence that
extends to an elevation five feet bigher than the PPS of the affected units may be added
to lessen the required plant quantity requirements by 50 percent.
1`D
SEP -01-1995 13'54 hAc
S.
6.
7.
S.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
612 595 9837 P.06i10
I
The Preliminary Grading Plan is subject to the:sview/approval of the City Engineer.
The Preliminary Utility Plan is addect to the review/approval of the City Engineer.
The Preliminary Laaduape Plan is subject to the review of City staff and approval by the
City Council.
Proper dssWW and utility easemeon am provided between all buildings as requited by
ordinance.
Tho appUmct submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be uttDitsd by the development's
homeowners a=didou for City review. 'he mles/bylaws should address such issues as
maintenance of common open apace, now removal, etc.
The aaWk= identify are- to be used for am aootage or agree to haul snow off-sim.
H development idnmti6ead+on signage it to be provided on tate. a sign plan to acoordati>en
with Ordinam .,,, .:,",.:a:,3 is submitsed.
A lighting plan is submimed for review by the City.
The appliraat eater itmo a development: sgm=em with the City.
Cm=em from otber City staff.
5
11E
i
04
•
BLI
ow Nw
KLEIN FARMS ESTATES
VTLLrTY PLAN
$WWI COMSIALCTON
CQUs".4iV41.
�Y
0 oe r
KLEIN FARMS ESTATES
emeAUNANY PIAT
PNELO MARY GRA01lID PLAN
S:K/ GCItSTQi1t(IGM
0
as;1. P-::fti
j
i �ft•7:: '�d1
.n:1... '
' '
.
'
v fir" :3wPOW
1!
(•
s �, 7
�+G_ ,
t �lf�/.::li" �� 1 i !{{
wrs -�:(
(
0
KLEIN TARMc- ESTATES
- F:r• r
�y
1111 Y+JW r, .+t. ••+'•`•' •• Yy� n� . _ � � IJ
W w
i
LANDSCAPG PIAN .... ` '
s 4Z
s
t
i
ren :AI.l.t)'i'l.ANUSCApl3PLAN,...
v
�C
I.r .+.wn.�r.."u.). .r, r 11uwnK S.heJul. Wi?q
4ur4.rry,ilyS Synrfur4urn s3tir-- .� ••••. •••••
c«.'•'r..:'C�:.�:'3�:s.�,t'.t«L:.nSG: »y :� :.'�'9'.:� zn. ��L\~"^���' � ......-.......ry F - ta.
.. .. .... .•_• .. .... ....... ." r �••__. �_.. �. Iii
SEP -22-1995 11:31 hm
612 595 98V P.O?/Oe
IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Cj C ONIMUNITI PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET AE SEA RCN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
bfondoetio Planning Commbdwjeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen oriarrian
DATE:
September 22, 1995
RE
Monticello - Klein Farms Twhdiomes
F E NO:
191.07-95-12
This memorandum is inteadod o ptovWe comment regarding the landscaping of the Kigin Fanns
twin home projea proposed by swift Ccodn. A part of toe Flaming Commission's
oonddetstlon of any PUD paojo is whother the use of PUD results in a project which a wperior
in design to a project developed under the stria teons of the Zoning Otdinaace standards. The
Klein Farms proposal has been designed in such a way as to 'squeeze' a high number of units
along a private sweet This conc* permits the fronts of the structures to be just 68 feet from
those across the private sum due o the loss of saga right-cf--way and namal sabac'm as well
as a narrower than oandard sura width. Normal bAlding separations would be as much as 120
fat if developed ander the standard publlo tarn anaogemmc.
Applying the above PUD test to this layout, the panning Commission meds to base a positive
recommendation an a finding that this significant Wmaing of building separadoa is mora than
offset by some other &M. We would suMst thm buildbW in a tight arrangement as proposed
could cream an urban village enviroaraw if accompanied by she imptovemeau which eahaaco
that caacept. lbae might include the elimitntiaa of lawn area, replacing the proposed green
arras with intensely planted landscaping ad patios. Other mmuneau which would add to Oils
concept would be alternative paving materials in the to wL dttvawaya, or both, and sane form
of coordinated fencing in the »root. without these efforts, the pmjcct would not anew to be
making the best use of the PUD concept. If a mole spadcua environment is desl:rd, the project
would have to slow fewer units. We have included a skacb which an empu to iltaruate these
comments.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
11 S
Council Agenda - 9/25/95
. U.S.)
At the last meeting, the City Council decided to do additional investigation of
the Kenneth Bohanon farm on West County Road 39 after suggestions from
the audience that the farm might be suitable for sludge and may be for sale
due to an equipment auction being held there. City staff informed the
Council that the auctioneer had indicated the land was not for sale and that
preliminary indication of the soils on the site, expected groundwater tables,
and the location of the YMCA to the south and Silver Springs Golf Course to
the north had caused City staff to bypass this property in the past, as we felt
it was not our best site. At the meeting, Mr. Jerry Quaal, who owns one-half
of Dan and Jerry's Greenhouse, indicated that he had been offered the land
for sale on several occasions in the past from Mr. Bohanon and an individual
who had the land on contract for deed hoping for development. Based upon
this information, the Council authorized us to investigate the property
(iuther and talk to Mr. Bohanon and do soil investigations if we were allowed
acceseto the property.
The day following the Council meeting, the Mayor, City Administrator, and
myself met with Mr. Bohanon to discuss access and a possible sale of his
property. Mr. Bohanon indicated that he was not really interested in selling
the piece of property at this time and that Mr. Quaal had been mistaken,
that this particular 180 acres located in the southeast corner of Briarwood
Avenue NE and West County Road 39 was a different parcel than Mr. Quaal
was involved in. The Quaal parcel was the land owned by the Bohanons
north of County Road 39 and East of Cameron, which adjoins the Brian
Hoglund property which was considered for development several years ago
but was never approved by the Township and/or OAA
We told Mr. Bohanon of our interest in his property for possible use as a
biosolids (sludge) site. He indicated that a good share of his land was used
for growing potatoes and it was irrigated. He stated that many years ago he
had used sludge from another community. At that time he was growing
potatoes and, in that instance, after a few years the potatoes had developed
some spotting andlor discoloration; consequently, he quit using sludge. We
informed him that Class B sludge is not approved for use on any root crops
grown for direct human consumption and discussed the pros and cons of
Class B versus Class A, especially exceptional Quality Class A sludge which
could be used just about anywhere. Mr. Bohanon indicated that his property
is currently leased out to a thrmer for an additional year and that he was
happy with the income firom the property. Again, he reiterated he is not
Council Agenda - 9/25/95
really interested in selling. He did ask, however, what the City would be
interested in paying. We informed him that until we perform some soil
investigations to see if it was suitable in regard to soils and groundwater
conditions, we would not even be able to discuss land values. We left that
meeting with the idea that I would put some type of an access agreement
together in writing in the form of a letter and he would discuss it with his
renter. I delivered the letter to him the following day and indicated that we
could begin the testing as soon as Wednesday, September 20, 1995, so we
would have a preliminary indication of the suitability of the site by the
regular Council meeting on September 25, 1995. Mr. Bohanon did not get
bark to us until the evening of the 19th; consequently, the locates and soil
testing had to be postponed. We are currently in the process of setting up the
utility locates and soil investigation again. The locates will be done early
Friday morning, September 22, 1M, and we are hoping to have at least a
minimal portion of the soil investigation done before Monday evening's
meeting so we can provide you with some preliminary data. Any further
information regarding this site will be provided at Monday evening's
meeting.
Enclosed is a map of the site and another showing the property with the soil
type designations.
14
z
s
30 xE5r MONTICELLO T 12H22N7R25W
_ -,•� P A R
y g Qoy otloso
4 ^�..'.;._ �...� ' '~4•t -�---,��_''�----�V„-,• 'prbeanon-�a+' ca �d�►�''ryy
ymeA land
M NT L
's
�1•' :�.w ... ! ;tel s 3
-rP :�.. ,; .1 .,. � • .,` 1. - �.` _
82♦Sl �1 ' �••,^.4 'I•� 1� 1` iy ( 4+ �: //t .� /[�l\1` •r7 +•4 iiw_/
/, ..� L ~:a-"r.•tR 7J[•d' -;-� ,x•11. ✓;', +
� %�' 3/. -' — . 32 �1• 3YY J`• ' 'J��_. _ V :, -' ;.:=m. 1 Lfc•,//'7 1 �
1r' =.Y. 7LtNR7jt�» N , J•::� '1, '/ 1
e -
I
,tA6
Council Agenda - 9/26/95
t 5.•cilderation of gp mrina placement of information hiaskhreader
board at Chamber of Commeme id e. (J.O.)
The Chamber of Commerce, along with the Lions Club and Rotary, are
proposing to place an information l iosWreader board at the Chamber of
Commerce office site. City Council needs to review the proposal because the
property is owned by the City. The main purpose of the sign is to provide
information regarding community events and activities. The duty of
changing reader board messages and maintaining the sign will be the
responsibility of the Chamber of Commerce. Design and location issues have
been reviewed and approved by the Parke Commission. See the attached
information for more about design, size, and sign location.
The structure meets the definition of a pylon sign and is in compliance with
city code requirements for signs.
Motion to approve placement of information kiosk/reader board at
Chamber of Commerce site.
Motion to deny approval of information kiosk/reader board at Chamber
of Commerce site.
Staff recommends approval. The sign meets code requirements. It provides a
valuable timction to the residence of the community. The Chamber of
Commerce is fLnding it with assistance 6om other community groups and
will be maintained by the Chamber of Commerce.
There is some concern regarding possible vandalism of the sign at this
location. However, this concern is not significant enough to justify denial. If
maintenance of the sign becomes terribly difficult or impossible due to
vandalism, the sign can always be removed.
Drawing of proposed sign; photo of proposed sign placement.
is
CHANGEABLE --'
COPY
P•L•U•S
i�
pAIN1i�
RANDY S. SATO
,�1mM.�O
M M
e. 1/� ►L1�7
UI Il rely
612•/�t�
BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
08/23/95 15:25:31
ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39065 08/23/95 MN DEPUTY REGISTRAR'
39066 08/23/95 CAREFREE LAWN SERVIC
39067 08/23/95 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMEN
39068 08/23/95 FYLES EXCAVATING & H
39069 08/23/95 J M OIL COMPANY
39070 08/23/95 KENNEDY & GRAVEN
39071 08/23/95 LARSON/LEE
39071 08/23/95 LARSON/LEE
39072 08/23/95 LOCATOR & MONITOR SA
39073 00/23/95 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
39074 U8/'te/95 MN -vUNTIES INSURANC
`-39075 08/23/95 MONTICELLO PAPER & 6
3 90 75 00/23/95 MONTICELLO PAPER & U
39076 00/23/95 PAUL A WALDRON & ASS
39077 00/23/05 THEISEN/MATT
39070 00/23/95 TRUEMAN•WELTERS, INC
GENERAL CHECKING
c
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
121 REG FEE/DIANE J/SEMINA 20.00
940 MOWING CHARGES 337.50
290 DRILL & TAF/WATER DEPT 11.50
280 BACKHOE/M 0 BALLFIELO 325.00
95 GAS/FIRE DEPT 41.04
939 HRA LEGAL FEES 93.00
958 FILL/EASTWOOD KNOLL 152.00
958 CARPET CLEAN/FIRE HAL 117.15
269.15
434 BATTERY. ETC/WATER OF. 252.54
106 DICTAPHONE & REMOTE/P 479.78
959 MEMBERSHIP DUES/P WOR. 250.00
724 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 35.14
724 DEPUTY REG SUPPLIES 66.30
101.44
630 BLD INSPECTION CHAR 2,437.50
457 REIMB/WATER DEPT SUPP 12.00
207 EQUIP PARTS/STREET DER 43.05
TOTAL 4.673.50
I
I'RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
08/30/05 15:55:41
T
.It RRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
,90)1 08/31/95 LAR`CIN/LEE
39071 06/31/35 LARSON/LEE
39079 08/31/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
39000 08/31/95 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
39001 08/31/95 JONES/WILLIAM O
39001 08/31/95 JONES/WILLIAM O
39082 08/31/95 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPOk
39003 08/31/95 KANGAS/JAMp3
"9004 08/31/95 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
GENERAI CHECKING
I
Oi ;bursernwnt Journal
GEECRIPTION AMOUNT C
958 CHECK VOIDED 152.0008
958 CHECK VOIDED 117.15CR
269.15CR �•C
118 NATER/SNOW/ATV REG 530.00
961 MEMBERSHIP DUES/E 0 1,004.50
826 INFO CENTER SALARY 170.00
026 !NF-'-- CENTER ALAFY 50.00CR
120.00 a
195 DRILL/SHOP & GAR 256.02
90405 REIM6/FILM/OLD INSPEC 11.27
110 WATFR/ATV/SNOW REG 329.00
TOTAL 1,999, G4
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
08/30/95 15:14;54 Disbursement Journal
WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
GENERAL CHECKING
39085 09/05/95 AFFORDABLE SANIT,ATIO 802 LATRINE RENTAL/PARKS 58.58
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL SA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39006 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39006 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL SA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39L06 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL SA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39086 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
39006 09/05/95 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 197.95
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 181.05
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 228.30
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 177.20
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 233.25
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 176.10
7 PAVING AGENT FEES/80N 212.00
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/EON 176.10
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 261.85
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 176.65
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 226.10
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 104.60
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 100.00
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 244.35
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 226.05
7 PAYING AGENT FEES/BON 220.10
3,150.25 *C .
_15087 09/05/85 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 951 PAGER CHARGES
30037
09/05/95
AMERICAN
PAGING
OF
M 951
PAGER
CHARGES
)6007
00/05/95
AMERICAN
PAGING
OF
M 951
PAGER
CHARGES
3)007
08/05/95
AMERICAN
PAGING
OF
M 951
PAGER
CHARGES
20007
09/05/95
AMERICAN
PAGING
OF
M 951
PAGER
CHARGES
3'1007
00/05/95
AMERICAN
PAGING
OF
M 951
PAGER
CHARGCS
39007
09/05/05
AMERICAN
PAGING
OF
M 951
PAGER
CHARGES
39001
09/05/95
AMERICAN
PAGING
OF
M 951
PAGf:R
CHARGES
39000 09/09/05 CELLULAR ?_000 OF GT
99000 09/05/05 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST
39000 09/09/95 CELLULAR 2000 OF OT
398V0 09/05/05 CELLULAR 2000 OF OT
)9009 (19/05/05 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT
-�909J 09/UB/95 Vl.OUTIGR/GREG
J0U90 09/05/!15 CLOUTIER/GREG
D!11101 00/00/95 Cf1NDON-LKC LLY AN`iIQU
39092 09/05/05 COUNTRY LUMDI.R
1:9093 09/05/9[, OAVIC WATER F01)IPMFN
794 CAR PHONE CHARGCII
794 CAR PHONE CHARGED
794 CAR PHONE CHARGE)
704 CAR PF'IONE CHARGED
46.78
8.39
24.50
9.39
8.99
8.39
0.39
9.39
01 . G2 kt
41 .0G
1.26
17.OG
135.60
195.89 ai
022 CMIF GRANT PAYMENT 1,100.21
900 PAINTING/P N GXPAN OL Wi.00
960 PAINTING/P W ;,HOP LE 1,130.00
1,()15.00
309 INS FRIM/1929 FIRE TRK 66.76
000 Cf:UAR RAILO/PARK 1 DIX 115.46
200 MISC CUPPLIEC/MAYFR VE 12.12
a
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
00/30/95 15,:14:54
(;i,WA&RANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
38094 0e/05/95 DEHMER FIRE PROTECTI
39095 09/05/95 DESIGN FOR PRINT STO
39096 09/05/95 FIRE ENGINEERING
39097 09/05/95 FIREFIGHTERS NEWS
39098 08/05/95 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP
X9099 09/05/95 G NEIL COMPANIES
39100 09/n5/95 GOULD BROS. CHEV-OLD
33101 09/05/95 HERMES/JERRY
39102 09/05/95 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC
39103 09/05/95 LARSON/LEE
19104 08Jus/9b LLAL,UE OF MN CITIES
39105 09/05/95 MN COPY SYSTEMS INC
30106 09/05/95 MONTICELLO ANTMAL CO
30107 00/05/95 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI
39100 09/05/95 NORTHWEST CARPET b 0
:10109 09/05/99 OMNI PRODUCTS, INC
X9110 00/05/0:1 P 0 H WAREHOUGE GALE
J9111 00/05/99 RULIAOLF. CORPORATION
J9' 12 09/05/95 RIVERME. OIL,
7911] 09/05/95 GCHLUFN)FR CONGTRUCT
O17J 00/05/95 G(.HLNENOER CUNGTRUCT
0114 07/05/9`1 f.CNlkV EYC,1CMG
T11RA1.1 01'�TRIGUTI' N
9116 o"40,41J5 L1 I INK
x1)110 09/05/95 U ; I.IN�t
J0I IU 0`1/35/r'1 ll ( LINK
1 11i U9/fl1S/9'i IJ ; ),INV
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C
674
MTC OF FIRE EQUIPMENT
137.73
962
CITY LOGO SIGN PRINT
20.00
57
SUBSCRIPTION/FIRE DEPT
46.55
964
SUBSCRIPTION/FIRE DEPT
34.00
60
BATTERIES/FIkE DEPT
29.80
966
SAFETY AWAIR POSTERS
75.73
70
REPAIRS/PW INSPEC VAN
68.65
81
LIBRARY CLEANING CONT
227.50
85
GAS/FIRE DEPT
14.15
950
FILL/EASTW000 KNOLL
152.00
243
INS PREM/FIRE DEPT
00i.00
756
MTC AGRMT/COPY MCH
31.95
105
ANIMAL CONTROL PYMT 1,100.00
130
MONTHLY CONTRACT PY 2.833..)3
957
CARPET CLEANING/FIRE
117.15
983
RR GUARD POGTf)/DIKE 3,010.35
271
PARKS/SUPPLIEC,
00.60
179
TAPFO/COMPUTER/C HALL
69.'9
406
0IL/FIRF DEPT
15.10
107
•'-CNJTG COSTO/EA01W000
02U.00
107
TREE REMOVAL/PW EXPAN
60.00
600.00
100
ALARM TEtTING/FIRE (1L1
9Ul)
M,ADOW OAK PARR''/ U:'
1I . 1f1
050
1 LL I PHONF. CHARGE£,
aIb. i 0
0'i0
i I:Lh:-Ht7NC t NA(:Gf;')
4 . =h
0
tFl l f'HONF. f HAR6L,
N-; 411A;.11(.'
?,79
(1%C F INANCIt.L SYSTEM
OP/10/95 15:14:54
i
�j..it.1.RANT OATS VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
:9116 09/05/95 U S LINK
59117 09/05/95 WOLFSTELC_R/RICHARD
39117 09/05/95 WOLF3TEL1_ER/RICHARD
39117 05/05/95 WOLFSTELLER/RICHARD
:9'17 09/05/95 WOLF STELLd?/RICHARO
39116 09/05/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
79119 09/05/95 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP
GLNERAL CHECKING
l
Gi 3bur3emant Journal
L-ESCRIF"lIUN AMOUNT iL
950 TELEPHONE CHAPGES 37.51
96.41
217 RETMB/WWTF, CONS1'S 66.45
217 REIMS/1=RIG/DEF 4':G $0.00
217 REIMS/SINK/W BRDG PARK 20.00
217 REIMB/OISHWASHER/RENTA 3$.00
171.45
219 tCERG GRANT PAYMENT 2,760.',1
512 UIILITIE`_• 9.00
TOTAL ?0.305.02
«D
C cG
ESRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/08/95 15,.49,04
Disbursement
Journal
�1AkRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CL,
GENERAL CHECKING
39120
09/08/95
U.S. POSTMASTER
?10
POSTAGE/DEP REG
332.00
39121
09/08/95
LUKACH/JOHN
327
MILEAGE REIMS
59.23
39121
09/08/95
LUKACH/JOHN
327
MILEAGE REIMS
19.74
39121
09/08/95
LUKACH/JOHN
327
MILEAGE REIMS
1'9.74
38121
09/08/95
LUKACH/JOHN
327
MILEAGE REIMS
19.75
1 18.46
=CH
39122
09/08/95
SHUMAN/CATHY
191
MILEAGE REIMS
18.48
39123
09/08/95
1995 MN STATE PLAN C
.90406
REG FEE/D FRIE/JEFF 0
300.00
39123
09/08/95
1995 MN STATE PLAN C
.90406
REG FEE/OLLIE & AL L
100.00
400.00
*CH
39124
09/08/95
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORD
254
RECORD EASEMENTS/E KNO
58.50
39125
09/08/95
D & K REFUSE RECYCLI
611
RECYCLING CONTRACT 3.294.34
39126
09/08/95
BOSE/TOM
336
REIMB/STEEL TOED SHOES
65.99
Q
39127
09/06/95
JONES/WILLIAM O
826
INFO CENTER SALARY
109.00
39127
09/08/95
JONES/WILLIAM 0
826
INFO CENTER SALARY
30.00CR
r
72.00
*CH
30179
09/08/95
MIDOENDORF/JOHN
909
REIMB/STEEL TOED SHOES
49.99
39129
09/06/95
O'NHILL/JEFF
161
MILEAGE REIMS
284.14
38130
09/08/95
MN DEPART OF NATURAL
118
WATER/SNOW/ATV REG
4 64.00
39131
09/08/95
CLINE/RICHARD
458
SHELVEG/SHOP 8 GAR
200.00
39132
09/08/.05
MONTICELLO SENIOR CI
138
NEW ENTRANCE DOOR 1,275.00
38133
00/11/95
ARAMARK
049
CITY HALL SUPPLIES
85.50
39134
09/11/95
OERGSTROM'S LAWN & G
441
EQUIP REP PARTS/PARKS
15.44
39134
09/11/95
DERGSTROMIS LAWN & G
441
VEH REPAIR PARTO/PARKS 6.44
21.00
*CH`
3913f)
09/11/95
CAREFREE LAWN OERVIC
940
MOWING CHARGES/LIBRAR
159.75
30135
09/11/95
CAREFREE LAWN SERVIC
940
MOWING CHARG£9/F HALL
150.75
J 19.50
*CH
3013(3
00/11/05
COMPUTER 1
.00407
COMP CLASS/WANDA 0 CA
700.00
30ID7
09/11/95
COPY DUPLCATING PROD
41
COPY MC14T
0.00
137
00/11/95
COPY t1UPLCATING PROD
41
TONER/COPYMCH/BIEIRAR
2RARV 17.20
270.00
•CH
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/08/95 15:49:04
(i)ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
3.9138 09/11/95 EARL'S WELDING & IND
39138 09/11/95 EARL'S WELDING & IND
39139 09/11/95 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
39139 09/11/95 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
39139 09/11/95 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
39140 09/11/95 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE
39141 09/11/95 L "N" R SERVICES - L
39141 09/11/95 L "N" R SERVICES - L
39142 09/11/95 M & P TRANSPORT, INC
39143 09/11/95 MAUS FOODS
39143 09/11/95 MAUS FOODS
39143 09/11/95 MAUS FOODS
Dn14i 09/11/95 MAII:s FOOnr
39144
09/11/95 MINNEGASCO
89144
09/11/95 MINNEGASCO
39144
09/11/75 MINNEGASCO
89144
09/11/95 MINNEGASCO
39144
09/11/95 MINNEGA$CO
30144
09/11/95 MINNEGASCO
39144
09/11/95 MINNEGASCO
30144
09/11/95 MINNEGASCO
39145 09/11/95 RIVERSIDE OIL
39146 09/11/95 SIMONSON LUMDER COMP
8014G 09/11/85 SIMON'ON LUMBER COMP
39146 00/11/95 SIMON40N LUMBER COMP
39146 00/11/05 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
39146 09/11/95 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
00140 09/11/05 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
90147 09/11/05 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO.
39140 09/11/05 T09 TELECOM
90140 09/11/95 TDS TELECOM
90140 00/11/95 TOO TELECOM
90140 00/11/95 TDt. TCLECOM
09140 09/11/05 TOS TELECOM
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL.
747 EQUIP REP PARTS/SHOP 8.09
747 MISC SUP/SHOP & GAR 67.47
75.56
56 DIAPHGAGM/NATER DEPT 91.68
56 MISC PROF SERV/WATER 124,.00
56 CHEMICALS/SEWER COLL 796.11
1,011.79
64 DRILL/SCAFFOLDING REN 133.28
103 SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 47.93
103 REPAIR LOCK/CITY HALL 35.00
82.93
265 MTC OF VEH/FIRE DEPT 120.00
108 CLEANING SUP/DEP REG 11.02
108 MISC SUP/BLD DEPT 67.29
100 CLEANING SUP/LIBRARY 14.65
inn CLEANT.NG 411P/ANTMAI. CO 113.5A
116.54
772
UTILITIES
15.98
772
UTILITIES
16.35
772
UTILITIES
9.97
772
UTILITIES
9.69
772
UTILITIES
9.97
772
UTILITIES
29.45
772
UTILITIES
50.72
772
UTILITIES
9.58
151.02
496
GAS/STREET DEPT
704.32
193
MISC SUP/STREETS DEPT
16.47
103
SUPPLIES/SHOP & GAR
40.50
103
SUPPLIES/PARKS DEPT
028.09
193
BLD MTC OUP/PARKS
0.77
103
SUPPLIES/M 0 SEWER EXT
40.06
109
.SUPPLIED/PATHWAY PRJ
51.70
793.25
400
SUPPLIEO/CHOP & GAR
115,02
O'j3
TELEPHONE CHARGE'S
109.95
959
TELEPHONE CHARGED
76.60
053
TELEPHONE CHARG.S
140.34
059
TELEPHONE CHARGE
130.43
953
TELEPHONE CHARG;'.S
30.00
*CH
*CH
*CH
*CH
•CH
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/08/95 15:49:04
(LIARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
30148 09/11/95 TDS TELECOM
39148 09/11/95 TDS TELECOM
39148 09/11/95 TOS TELECOM
39148 09/11/95 TDS TELECOM
39148 09/11/95 TDS TELECOM
39148 09/11/95 TOS TELECOM
39148 09/11/95 TDS TELECOM
39149 09/11/95 TOM THUMB SUPERETTE
39150 09/11/95 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO
39150 09/11/95 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO
39151 09/11/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
39151 09/11/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
39151 09/11/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
39151 09/11/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
39152 09/11/95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
39152 09/11/95 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
GENERAL CHECKING
C
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL,
953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 59.66
953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 62.92
953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 99.97
953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 50.42
953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 59.66
953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 781.61
953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 115.84
1,825.08
967 SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 1.69
670 SUP/MEAD OAK BALLFI 1,199.68
670 SENSUS WATER METER 5,155.36
6,355.04
219 TAXES/KRAMER PROP 1,518.13
219 TAXES/TIF IXI 01 45.60
219 PROP TAXES/WWTP RENTA 399.04
219 PROP TAXES/HRA PROPERT 44.87
1,997.64
875 MTC AGRMT/DEP REG ALAR 19.12
875 MTC AGRMT/PARKS 15.90
35.10
TOTAL 21,138.72
*CH
*CH
*CH d
*CH
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/12/95 13:57;03
"ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39153 09/12/95 A.E. MICHAELS
39154 09/12/95 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPO
39154 09/12/95 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPO
39154 09/12/95 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPO
39155 09/12/95 BUSINESS RECORDS COR
39156 09/12/95 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INC
39157 09/12/95 CENTURY FENCE COMPAN
39158 09/12/95 COMMUNICATION AUDITO
39159 09/12/95 COMPUTER PARTS & SER
39160 09/12/95 CRAGUN'S CONFERENCE
39161 09/12/95 CULLIGAN
D01G2 00/12/95 DOUBLE D ELECTRIC
39109 09/12/95 OYNA SYSTEMS,
30164 09/12/95 ELK RIVER CONCRETE P
30186 09/12/95 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY,
79186 09/12/05 EMERGENCY APPARATUS
30167 OS/12/05 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE
90167 09/12/95 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE
30100 00/12/95 G A K SERVICES
X0160 09/12/05 G & K SERVICED
991G0 09/19/95 0 8 K 0E'RVICE5
39100 09/12/95 G A K GERVICED
3.01GO 00/12/95 G 0 K {iERVICF..S
79160 0!1/12/05 G 8 K SERVICES
99160 09/1?/95 G b K CURVICES
10169 09/12/95 G A K GL kVICf.'
10160 09/14/95 GOVERNMENT (RAINING
00169 09/12/95 GOVERNMENT TRAINING
�'11G9 09/12/0:6 GOVEkNMENT TRAINING
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL
338 PAINT/NEM P W GARAGE 413.17
638 ENO FEES/PATHWAY PR 2,652.00
638 ENG FEES/EASTWOOD 'KNO 272.00
638 ENG FEES/C HILL V P 1,058.00
3,982.00
*CH
27
COMPUTER SOFTWARE/C H
540.00
30
MISC SUP/SHOP & GAR
110.88
402
FENCE/M OAK BALL F 10,945.80
38
PAGER REPAIRS/FIRE DEP
79.29
500
COMPUTER MTC AGREEMEN
333.20
43
TRAVEL EXP/BRAD F/CONF
85..00
753
RENTAL WATER SOFTNER C
23.11
805
MEADOW OAK BALL FIE 1,086.02
50
MI9C SUPPLIES/SHOP &
332.87
561
MEADOW OAKS PARK IM 2,167.01
053
LIGHT W/CHARGER/SEWER
03.41
480
REPAIR£,/FIRE DEPT T 2,003.01
510
SPANNER/FIRE TRUCK
60.10
510
COAT REPAIR/FIRE DEPT
05.00
103.10
►(:H
051
UNIFORM RENTALG
37.00
851
UNIFORM RENTALS
00.44
051
UNIFORM RENTALS
24.20
051
UNIFORM RENTAL9
24.20
051
UNIFORM RENTALG
105.36
051
UNIFORM RENTAL9
105.35
051
RAGE/SHOP A GARAGE.
90.02
051
RUG.'/MTC r)F DRP RLG Ell 20.41
432.20
►(.FI
72
RFO FRC/GARY A
30.00
72
CONE REO FEC/ORAD FYI,
100.00
72
MEMLIERF,111P DUE5/f1NA0 F 25.00
1465.00
►f,H
BFC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/12/95 13:57:03
�4ARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39170 09/12/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
39170 09/12/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
39170 09/12/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
39170 09/12/95 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
39171 09/12/95 HENRY & ASSOCIATES
39172 09/12/95 HERMES/JERRY
39173 09/12/95 HOGLUND COACH LINES
39174 09/12/95 J M OIL COMPANY
391?5 09/12/95 JIM HATCH SALES CO
39175 09/12/95 JIM HATCH SALES CO
Diaburaement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL
78 OIL/STREETS 2.29
78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREET 2.41
76 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STRT 6.45
78 GAS CAN & MASK/FIRE DP 74.00
85.15 nCH
545 METERS & VALVES/WAT 1,203.05
81 LIBRARY CLEANING CONT 221.50
483 HEARTLAND EXPRESS C 5,535.40
95 OIL/FIRE DEPT 23.94
883 BROOMS/VESTS/STREET D 289.24
883 SHIELDS/GOGGLES/SHOP 49.49
338.79 aCH
99176
09/12/95
KEN ANDERSON
TRUCKIN
897
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVIC 101.18
39177
09/12/95
KRAMDER & ASSOCIATES
000
ASSCGSING CONTRACT
1.321.2-22
39170
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
874
BLD REP SUP/SHOP & GAR 29.57
39178
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
874
CLEANING SUP/LIBRARY 7.42
30170
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
974
KRAMER RENTAL REPAIRS 10.05
39170
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
074
MISC SUP/STREETS
131.67
79170
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HAROWt.R
874
MISC SUP/SHOP & GAR
57.36
39178
09/12/95
LARSON'$ ACE
HARDWAR
074
MTC OF OLO/DEP REO
34.05
39170
00/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
874
MISC SUP/PARKS DEPT
24.00
39170
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
074
GUNNY FRESH REPAIRS
0.63
99170
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
874
SUPPLIE$/DEP REG
5.30
99170
09/12/95
LARSON'S ACE
HARDWAR
074
SUPPLIES/WATER DEPT
4.14
304.99 *CH
79170
09/12/95
LEAGUE OF MN
CITIES
243
INSURANCE PREMIUM
14,580.00
39179
09/12/95
LCAGUE OF MN
CITIES
243
INSURANCE PREMIUM
5,234.00
39179
00/12/95
LEAGUE OF MN
CITIES
243
INSURANCE PREMIUM
4,090.00
24,700.00 *C.H
39190
09/12/95
MARCO BUCINE`.S PBOOU
100
OFFICE SUP/CITY HALL
121.92
70101
06/12/95
MARTIE/RUGGLLL&MART1
909
1IF 011 RCIMH/MARTI
7,800.00
39108
09/1?/95
MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL
SU
114
M150 SUpP1.IES/SHQP
U 171.06
3!1100
09/12/(31)
MON110E11.0 ANIMAL CO
108
AWNAL CONTROL CONT
1,100.00
3!1109
09%12/05
MONTICULLU ANIMAL. CO
105
REIMS/ANIMAL CONTR
L'i1 140.14
1,240.14 DCN
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
09/12/95 13:57:.03
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
Disbursement
Journal
BLD PERMIT INFO
84.00
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
ARRANT DATE VENDOR
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES
76.02
39186
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT CL,
GENERAL CHECKING
140
HEARTLAND BUS INFO
260.00
39186
09/12/95
39.184 09/12/95 MONTICELLO
OFFICE
PR
136
OFF SUP/P WORKS
179.33
39104 09/12/95 MONTICELLO
OFFICE
PR
136
SUPPLIES/P W INSPEC
5.11
39184 09/12/95 MONTICELLO
OFFICE
PR
136
OFF SUP/CITY HALL
311.99
39184 09/12/95 MONTICELLO
OFFICE
PR
136
COPY MCH PAPER/C HALL
107.75
COMMUNITY PROFILE 1,370.00
604.18 3'CH1
39185 09/12/95 MONTICELLO PRINTING 13.7 EXCAVATION PERMITS/MAT 61.98
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
154.98
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
BLD PERMIT INFO
84.00
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES
76.02
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
HEARTLAND BUS INFO
260.00
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
BIKE PATHWAY NOTICES
409.51
89186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
LEGAL NOTICE/WWTP EXPA
11.07
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
LEGAL NOTICE/HRA PRJ
171.05
39186
09/12/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
140
COMMUNITY PROFILE 1,370.00
2,536.63
*CHI
39167
09/12/95
MOON MOTOR SALES,
IN
142
EQUIP REP PARTS/PARKS
26.70
39107
09/1?/95
MOON MOTOR SALES,
IN
142
MISC SUP/PARKS DEPT
13.04
44.62 *CH
{
` 39188
09/12/95
NATIONAL BUSHING
PAR
144
VEH REP PARTS/STREETS
107.01
x9188
09/12/95
NATIONAL BUSHING
PAR
144
TOOLS/SHOP & OAR
25.75
39180
D9/12/95
NATIONAL BUSHING
PAR
144
SUPPLIES/SHOP & GAR
171.07
30108
09/12/95
NATIONAL BUSHING
PAR
144
EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/STRT
3.85
39180
09/12/95
NATIONAL BUSHING
PAR
144
VEH REPAIR PARTG/PARKS,
17.00
325.00 *L:H�
39180 09/12/98 NATIONAL BUSINESS FU 489 TABLES/NEW P WORKS EX 504.00
39190 00/12/95 NORTHERN STATES POWE
D9190 09/12/95 NORTHERN STAIES POWE
39190 09/12/95 NORTHERN 9TATE0 POWE
90190 n,9/12/00 NORTHERN STATES POWE
19190 09/12/90 NORTHERN STATED POWE
X0100 09/12/95 NnRTHERN 5TATI'0 POWE
39190 09/12/95 NORTHERN STATE9 POWE
911190 00/'1?/9Fi NORTHERN STATFO PANE
.191130 09/12/95 NORTHERN 9TATE5 POWE
X0190 00/1?/90 NORTHERN bTATES PQWE
j') 1'11 O')/ 1?/95 NORTHWI IIT AL';Or CtlNS
1010? 119/12/95 ULCOd A 0043 E.LECTRI
.1.`111)^ f'1/1?/1311 01LON 8 SON'J FLICTRI
:1010? 09/12/9`1 116'�1]N PGON:; LLECTkI
148 UTILITIES 3.925.42
148 UTILITIES 341.41
148 UTILITIES 4.709.39
140 UTILITIES 521.27
140 UTILITIES - 1 , 135.05
140 UTILITIC'C 14.14
140 OT'ILITIE!' 5h7.04
149 UTILITIEC ?10.00
148 UTILITII:) 040.20
140 UTILITIES 576.10
1'.940.09 or:i
550 MI1,C PLAN 0 20N 5ER 1037.05
100 MIN PROF 9LRV/PAR9'j 64.'}0
100 CITY HALL RfPAIRG 1^4.50
160 WATFR OEP T REPAIR.'' 45.00
234.00 •C 11
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/12/95 13:57:03
`r
`I.JARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
38193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 09/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39193 00/12/95 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
39194 09/12/95 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P
39194 09/12/95 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P
39194 09/12/95 PL UMBERY-PURCELL'S P
39194 09/12/95 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P
39195 00/12/05 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
39195 09/12/95 PREUSSE'S CLEANING S
39196 09/12/95 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
39197 00/12/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
99197 09/12/95 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
3A197 09/1?/05 PUBLIC RESOURCE GROU
30100 09/12/95 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC
39100 00/17/95 gCHARBER 8 SONS, INC
30200 09/12/9G OCHLUENDER CON:;TRUCT
39201 09/12/95 UENSIBLE LAND USE' CO
y1?0? 00/12/90 OIMPLFX TIMC RFCONOC
39203 00/12/05 TAB PRODUCTS CO.
30204 00/12/05 TAYLOR LAND OURVEYOR
39205 00/12/35 TF.LXON COWPORA'TION
f120G O9/1?/95 (IN11ED CONCRETE 8 MA
90207 09/12/06 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
J9201 00/12/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AUL)110
30207 09/12/95 WRIGHT COUNTY AIIDITO
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL.
162 ENG FEES/C HILLS IV P 123.00
162 MISC ENG FEES/P WOR 2,573.88
162 ENG FEES/KLEIN FAR 16,364.82
162 ENG FEES/SCHOOL BLV 7.785.72
162 MISC ENG FEES/PW WO 2.071.75
162 ENG FEES/MISS SHORES 276.75
162 ENG FEES/C HILLS V 3,628.94
162 ENG FEES/M 0 TRK SE 3,339.90
162 ENG FEES/EASTWOOD KNO 552.63
162 ENG FEES/BIKE PATHW 2.894.21
39,611.60 *CHI
251 DER REG BLD MTC SUP 2.86
251 M OAK PARKS CONST COS 207.78
251 BLD ,MTC SUP/SHOP & GA 167.18
251 CONST COSTS/P WORKS E 107.24
484.84 •CHI
173 FIRE HALL CLEANING CON 50.00
1,73 CITY HALL CLEANING CO 400.00
450.00 *CHI
175 WWTP MONTHLY CONTR 32,926.00
26 PROF SERVICES/ECON/HR 112.50
26 PROF SERV/TIF 13 SHING 90.00
20 PROV SERV/ECON DEVEL 45.00
247.50 VCHI
227 VEHICLE REPAIRS/STREET 31.50
229 VEH REP PARTS/PARKS 14.33
107 CIINUT COSTro/EAOTWOO 1.307.50
063 REG FEES/JEFF ONFILL 30.00
370 MTC AGRM1'/C HALL CLOC 147.00
671 OFFICE OUP/CITY HAIL 39.35
203 PRIMO/WWTP EXPAN 40.50
04? RECYLING SCANNER HEAD 35G.03
960 MEMBERSHIP DUES/GARY A [10.00
219 SHI:RIFF5 CONTRACTY 24.409.33
219 ADD 'L LANDFILL E'H(i 10.123.05
210 0VERPYMT/C011rH/JULY 15.00ck
ERC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/12/95 13:57:03 Disbursement Journal
I�JARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CL,
GENERAL CHECKING
34,578.1'8 *CHI
39208 09/12/95 Y.M.C.A. OF MINNEAPO 224 CONTRACT PAYMENT 825.00
GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL 195,559.01
l�
C1
RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
08/30/95 15:54:38, Disbursement Journal
4�WARRANI DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1z
LIQUOR CHECKING
18282
08/30/95
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
858.24
18282
09/30/95
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
000040
WINE PURCHASE
362.59
1,220.83
18283
08/30/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
8001E+0
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1,824.85
18284
08/30/95
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
22482.92
18284
08/30/95
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA
800022
WINE PURCHASE
1,182.23
4,205.15
18285
08/30/96
GRIGGS. COOPER & COM
800016
LIQUOR PURCHASE
5,125.63
18205
08/30/95
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
800018
MISC MIX FOR .ALE
9.90
5,135.53
10206
08/30/95
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
800012
MISC MIX FOR RESALE
74.23
10286
08/30/85
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
600012
WINE PURCHA-3E
1,010.00
1,084.23
18207
08/30/95
DAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT
600009
BEER PURCHASE
22,951.65
10207
00/30/95
DAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT
800008
MISC MIX FOR RESALE
426.10
23.377.76
10200
00/30/95
R a R MARKET
800197
WRIGHT COUNTY MAPS
152.00
18209
08/30/95
MCDOWALL COMPANY
800065
FURNACE REPAIR
262.00
10?q0
08/30/65
CAREFREE LAWN SERVIC
000193
MOWING CHARGES
127.00
18291
08/30/95
CITIZENS COMMUNICATI
000103
HELP WANTED AD
9.2.5
10292
00/30/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
000032
ADVERTISING
149.20
1C203
00/70/95
PAUSTIO A SON$
00010'3
WINE PURCHASE
120.00
10294
00/b0/95
QUALITY WINO 8 GPIRI
000040
WINE PURCHASE
362.59
10294
00/30/95
QUAIITY WINS• & OPIRI
000040
LIQUOR PURCHAOL
2,423.73
2,700.32
10205
00/30/91)
JOHNGON GROG WH01,1:SA
(300022
1 IQUOR PIIRCHAGL
032.00
'0:95
00/90/9.)
JOHN;,CiN BPOG WHC7( EF,A
000022
WINE PuP(HAGF.
900.45
10206
00/30/05
PHI1 L IP:; WINE k ',PIR
000100
L IOUOR PURCHASE
410.45
10 97
0J/J0/95
LILVI.IiY TRUCKING
0000''9
FREIf,NY t:HAkG(:';
6J9. J0
1C:9,)
00/30/95
U S HEGT fUa:r+nNICATI
000003
ADVIRTI1�INf,
^7.'�O
1z
BRC. FINANCIAL SYSTEM
fl6/30/95 15:54:38 Disbursement Journal
` WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
LIQUOR CHECKING
19299 08/30/95 OROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 000019 BEER PURCHASE
18299 08/30/90 GROSSLFIN BEVERAGE 1800019 MISC SUPPLIES
18300 08/30/95 GRIGGS. COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE
18301 08/30/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE
18301 08/30/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 BEER PURCHASE
18302 08/30/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE
10303 08/30/95 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHASE
10303 08/30/95 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE
10304 O8/30/35 JOHNSON OROS WHOLESA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASCC
18304 00/30/95 JOHNSON SRO$ WHOLESA 600022 WINE PURCHASE
lutein 08/30/95 GRIGGS, OOVER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCIIA,^,C
19306 00/30/05 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 000012 WINE PURCHASE
1-0307 08/30/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 000180 WINE PURCHASE
10301 00/80/95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 000100 LIQUOR PURCHASE
10300 00/90/95 JOHNSON EROS WHOLESA G00022 LIQUOR PURCHASE
10100 GO/3M JOHNSON PROS WHOLL5A 000022 WINE PURCHASE
10300 00/90/95 OUALITY WINE & CPIRI 000040 WINO PURCHASE
10309 00/30/05 QUALtYY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHA.^,H
10310 00M/05 FURST GROUP 000190 7GLEPHME CHARGES
10 11 00/3O/9Fi NOR1'HWL,.j CARNET 8 I.1 000179 CARP( -.T CLEANING
1 IQU()R CHOCKING TOTAL
14
7.145.01
25.13
7,170.14 +�(
2,144.64
$32.4 7
21.40
553.87 *f
105.79
846.80
1,505.04
2,151.64 4C
2,124.12
1,247.84
3.371.96 *t
1.308.57
612.85
2,121.71
2,740.50 bt
1,009.07
1,675.44
2,004.41 �•
425.27
1,114..21
4,530.40 *1
1U.50
170.40
07,444.OU
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/07/95
07:56:02
Disbursement Journal
CWARRANT
AMOUNT
C1
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
LIQUOR CHECKING
18312
09/06/95
BELLBOY CORPORATION
800098
FOOD FOR RESALE
60.10
18312
09/06/95
BELLBOY CORPORATION
800098
COOLER FOR RESALE
219.90
280.00
RCI
18313
09/06/95
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA
800001
POP PURCHASE
276.70
18314
09/06/95
CONSOLIDATED COMM DI
800163
ADVERTISING
40.25
18315
09/06/95
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT
800009
BEER PURCHASE
13,746.15
18315
09/06/95
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT
800009
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
365.10
14,111.25
•C
18316
09/06/95
DAY DISTRIBUTING COM
800010
BEER PURCHASE
482.40
18317
09/06/95
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800011
BEER PURCHASE
4,421.40
18317
09/06/95
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800011
NONALCOHOLIC BEER
91.20
18317
09/06/95
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
800011
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 27.70
18317
09/06/95
DICK WHOLESALE CO..
800011
MISC SUPPLIES/BAG$
53.25
4,593.55
+C
10319 09/06/05 DISCOUNT PAPER PRODU 900177 RIBBONS/SUPPLIES 50.98
18319 08/06/95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 600012 WINE PURCHASE 130.63
18319 09/06/85 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 BEER PURCHASE 21.40
152.0.3
10320 09/06/95 FLESCH'S PAPER SERVI 800116 PAPER BAGS/SUPPLIES 24.49
18321 09/08/96 G & K SERVICE 800128 RUGS/MTC OF BLD 06.17
18322 09/09/95 GETTMAN COMPANY 800187 LIGHTERS FOR RESALE 275.00
18323 09/06/95 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3,584.31
18324 09/06/05 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1000010 BEER PURCHASE 18,801.75
18325 09/00/95 IDEAL ADVERTISING 800120 MATCHDOOK/SUPPLIES 90.17
10320 09/00/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 1,784.41
18326 00/06/95 JOHNSON BROS WHOLEGA 800022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 1,174.89
7,969.40
18327 09/06/93 JUDE CANDY & TOBACCO 800021 CIGS FOR RESALE 344.05
10327 09/06/05 JUDE CANUY & TOBACCO 000021 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 78.01
422.96
10320 09/00/95 LARSON'S ACE HALDWAR 00064 CLEANING SUPPLIES 20.21
•C
rC
10C
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/07/95
07:56:02
Disbursement
Journal
WARRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
C
LIQUOR CHECKING
18329
09/06/95
LEHMANN FARMS
800190
MIXES FOR RESALE
71.00
18329
09/06/95
LEHMANN FARMS
800190
FOOD FOR RESALE
106.20
177.20
1C'
18330
09/06/95
MINNEGASCO
800160
UTILITIES
16.07
18331
09/06/95
MONTICELLO TIMES
800032
ADVERTISING
378.50
18332
09/06/95
MONTICELLO VACUUM CE
800050
VACUUM BAGS/MTC SUP
13.85
18333
09/06/95
NORTHERN STATES POWE
800035
UTILITIES
1,352.79
18334
09/06/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
LIQUOR PURCHASE
2,157.31
16334
09/06/95
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR
800180
WINE PURCHASE
82.08
2,239.39
*C
18335
09/06/95
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
1,391.62
18335
09/06/95
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
WINE PURCHASE
1,166.01
2,557.69
*C
10338
00/06/05
RON'S ICE COMPANY
800041
ICE PURCHASE
18337
09/06/95
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
MISC SUPPLIES
26.19
18337
09/06/95
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT
800045
MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE
246.79
274.98
*C
16330
09/06/95
TD3 TELECOM
800196
TELEPHONE CHARGES
169.08
10338
09/06/95
TDS TELECOM
800196
ADVERTISING
61.20
230.28
•C
18339
09/06/95
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
800040
NONALCOHOLIC BEER
290.60
10339
09/06/95
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
800040
BEER PURCHASE
34,406.75
34,607.35
*C
16340
09/06/95
U S LINK
000195
PHONE CHARGES
2.24
10341
09/06/95
VIKING COCA-COLA BOT
800051
POP PURCHASE
789.55
18342
09/06/95
VOSS CLECTRIC SUPPLY
000079
LIGHT BULBS/SUPPLIES
76.80
LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL
00,917.02
T_