City Council Agenda Packet 02-12-1996AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
0
Monday, February 12, 1996 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held January 18 and the regular
meeting held January 22, 1996.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
6. Consent agenda.
A. Consideration of waiving statutory liability insurance limits for City
insurance package renewals.
B. Consideration of granting a seasonal 3.2 beer license to the Monticello
Softball Association.
C. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF)
Loan No. 012 (Standard Iron) for compliance of the GMEF Guidelines.
D. Consideration of public works Operator/Mechanic appointment.
E. Consideration of a resolution accepting petition and authorizing
preparation of feasibility study for improvements to a 400 -ft extension
of Dundas Road. I
I -Ni VAMblon Lfor-w(( i}g6wQeSG) �; L��fi riu ..f
6. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow expansion of a
government utility building and structures in a PZM zone. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
7. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow open and
outside storage and a driveway and stall aisle conditional use permit in an
1-I (light industrial) zone. Applicant, Pipeline Supply/Kant-Sing
Partnership.
8. Consideration of reviewing senior citizen annual activities report - Pam
Loidolt.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
February 12, 1996
Page 2
Review of year-end liquor store financial reports.
10. Consideration of accepting modifications to the comprehensive plan and
supporting initiation of the public hearing process.
11. Consideration to review and accept the year-end EDA financial statements,
activity report, and 1996 proposed budget.
12. Review Mississippi River Crossing Study. Consider adopting a resolution
supporting preferred river crossing location.
13. Consideration of appointing a Council member to the MCP Board of
Directors.
14. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL AND
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
January 18, 1898 - b p.m.
Council Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian
Stumpf, Tom Perrault
Planning Commission
Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten,
Jon Bogart
A special joint meeting of the Monticello City Council and Planning Commission
was held for the purpose of reviewing the draft of the comprehensive plan.
Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants explained that the draft
comprehensive plan consisted of four sections, including 1) tactics, which
summarized meetings held with community officials, business owners, home
owners, city commission members, and city staff, 2) inventory, which summarized
the condition of the city at the present time; 3) goals and policies, which uses tactics
discussions and neighborhood meeting information to formulate what approach the
city wants to take from a planning prospective; and 4) development framework,
which relays the planning ideas relative to the goals and policies. Grittman noted
that the city was then divided into four general areas, with the plan showing a
more detailed conceptual plan for each area.
Grittman focused the discussion on the northeast area of the city between the
freeway and the river and east of Highway 25. He noted that an issue discussed at
the neighborhood meetings was the amount of traffic on Broadway traveling east,
and three options were developed by the planner to address the issue.
Option A would permit the current land use pattern to remain and would relocate
through -traffic from Broadway to a higher density area such as 7th Street, which
may prompt the truck traffic to stay on the freeway until the Highway 25
interchange rather than using 7th Street or residential streets through town. This
could solve the truck traffic problem in the single family area of Broadway, which
could then be maintained as a local boulevard with a median and trees presenting a
grand entry for local traffic to the downtown area. It was also noted, however, that
a largo portion of 7th Street would need to be constructed through an undeveloped
area to the east in order to accomplish these objectives. In addition, the County has
right-of-way authority over Broadway, and the City would need to meet with
County officials to determine the feasibility of this option.
Pogo 1 (D
Special Council Minutes - 1/18/96
Option B would alter the land use pattern on Broadway by permitting the existing
homes to be remodeled for apartment units. This option would not require
relocation of a roadway and would continue Broadway's role as a major collector
transportation route; however, Grittman noted that when single family homes are
allowed to increase in density, deterioration of the area sometimes continues.
Option C would allow conversion of the area from residential to commercial use
with traffic remaining on Broadway. It was noted that the traffic volume is
adequate to support commercial use; however, Grittman noted that there was
concern regarding the lot depths, and it was likely that the commercial users in the
converted area would not be new but would come from somewhere in the current
commercial market.
The group discussed option A and whether adding stop signs or 'no truck through -
traffic° signs on Broadway would be a less costly and more effective way to
discourage trucks from traveling that route. It was noted by the planner and staff
that Broadway is a county road, and the City does not have the authority to
regulate the placement of stop signs. It was also noted by staff' that the County
plans to expand Broadway to four lanes from the high school to the lights at County
Road 118/East County Road 39 within the next couple of years, which would likely
increase the amount of truck traffic; therefore, if the City favors rerouting traffic, it
should be discussed with the County prior to their investment in Broadway
improvements. Concerns were also raised regarding the current amount of traffic
at the Highway 25 interchange and the amount it would increase if option A was
implemented.
Planning Commission member Jon Bogart stated that the group should concentrate
on traffic patterns in relation to encouraging the downtown to develop into
something that will thrive. It was his view that traditional downtown retailing is
no longer viable and that the City should encourage development using the river as
an asset. Option A could accomplish that by lowering the amount of traffic on
Broadway and making it a safer area for use by pedestrians.
Planning Commission Chair Dick Frio noted that a large amount of the Broadway
traffic comes fiom commuters and vacationers using the route as a shortcut to the
detriment of the city. A plan should be developed to encourage this traffic to use
Highway 25 as access to the freeway.
Consulting Engineer Bret Weiss noted that the Minnesota Department of
Transportation also has some control over the use of Broadway, as they provide
funding to the County. He noted that it has been suggested in the past that the
signal lights on Highway 25 be re -timed so that traffic doesn't have to stop at each
light, which would make Highway 26 a more positive roadway for truck travel.
Also, improvements to the Chelsea Road/Iiighway 26 intersection in conjunction
Page 2 0
Special Council Minutes - 1/18/96
with the re -timing of signal lights could greatly impact the current congestion on
Highway 25. In addition, Weiss noted that an interchange at County Road 118 has
been discussed, and if 7th Street was extended to the area of this interchange, it
would likely deter much of the traffic from traveling on Broadway.
Planner Steve Grittman noted that once the City establishes goals for the
Broadway and downtown areas, then the City can meet with County officials to
determine if and how those goals can be accomplished.
It was the consensus of the group that the long-term conceptual goal for Broadway
would be to maintain it as residential and to reduce the amount of heavy vehicle
traffic. Grittman noted that the final comprehensive plan could state the long-term
conceptual goal and the mention of options to accomplish the goal rather than
declaring a specific plan at this time. Assistant Administrator ONeill noted that
City staff will be meeting with County officials on January 29, and staff could
inform them that the through-traffic/truck traffic is an issue that the City would
like to work with the County to resolve.
The group also discussed how to control the residential growth in the community.
Planner Steve Grittman noted that the City could use the zoning ordinance to
identify a single family zone with a larger minimum lot size and limit the amount of
traditional single family lot size areas, which would still allow for a complete range
of housing to occur. It was noted by staff that creating PUD zoning areas would
allow some negotiation with developers, which could help increase the step-up
housing market. Consulting Engineer Weiss also noted that the City could raise
fees, which may slow some of the growth. If development continued with the higher
fees, the additional finds raised would help to maintain the community. He also
noted that the City could allow smaller lots but in exchange require amenities such
as additional park land, etc. The comprehensive plan could also state a specific
amount of unite per acre in PUD areas to allow the developer some flexibility in
development.
Planner Steve Grittman stated that he will revise the comprehensive plan
document accordingly and distribute copies for review.
There being no fluther business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 3
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 22,1996 - 7 pm
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom
Perrault
Members Absent: None
Approval of minuter. of thp. regrular meeting held 1nnLry A 1998.
It was noted that on page 6 of the minutes, the Shingobee plat is located
directly south of the Tom Thumb store rather than north.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 8, 1996, AS CORRECTED. Motion carried
unanimously.
I
Assistant Administrator Jeff O Neill reported that Kent Kjellberg has
been negotiating with the City in an attempt to arrange hook-up of the
Kjellberg East and West Mobile Home Parks to the city sanitary sewer
system. The conceptual proposal describing the terms for connection of
the east park was summarized by O'Neill. He noted that the proposed
terms were conceptual only and would need to be incorporated into a
development agreement.
Council discussed the east park proposal in regard to on-site storm
ponding and the private sewer system in the park. It was suggested
by Consulting Engineer Bret Weiss that the City should retain the
option of charging the fee at the time the east park contributes to the
storm water run-off system; however, if additional ponding is provided,
credit can be given against the required fees. In regard to the private
sewer system, Public Works Dim -cur Simola noted that the present
manholes don't meet construction standards and should be upgraded.
Kent Kjellberg, owner of the mobile home park, stated that he agreed
to bring the manholes up to standards.
Based on the Council discussion, the proposal for sanitary sewer
connection for the east park was as follows:
Page 1 9
Council Minutes - 1/22196
East Park Proposal
1. Kjellberg will extend a utility line to the city system located
north of the east mobile home park and provide a deposit equal
to the coat of a city inspector monitoring the private line
installation.
2. Kiellberg agrees to paying an area assessment charge of $37,500
as a special assessment over 15 years.
3. The City will obtain storm water easement rights in excess of
that which is required for the site in lieu of storm water access
fees. Any difference in value between the extra land provided
for storm water ponding and the required storm water fees shall
be paid to the City by Kjellberg.
4. Nellberg will pay a hookup fee of $36,300 (120 units x $300/
unit) prior to hook-up of any individual units installed in the
expansion area.
5. Kjellberg will pay the total cost to install a sewage flow meter
device.
6. Kjellberg will be allowed to place new mobile homes in the
expansion area contingent upon the following:
A. Prior to moving new homes into the expansion area, the
sewer system installed in the expansion area must be
upgraded to assure that the system is completely
watertight and has increased capacity to handle all flows.
Kjellberg must install all of the necessary improvements
required under code such as installation of bituminous
paving, completion of all grading, and installation of curb
and gutter.
If Vjellberg desires to move mobile homes into the expansion
area prior to completion of the above work, he will be required to
enter into a disbursement agreement.
At the time the development agreement is executed, F4ellberg
must provide a deposit of $18,000, which is equal to one-half of
the connection fees. In addition, Kjcllberg must provide a
$2,000 deposit immediately to help fund the coat of completion
of the development agreement.
Page 2 ' �y
Council Minutes - V22196
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON
AND SECONDED BY BRIAN SfUMPF TO APPROVE THE ABOVE
PROPOSAL FOR CONNECTING THE KJELLBERG EAST MOBILE HOME
PARK TO THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM AND TO AUTHORIZE
PREPARATION OF A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT CONTINGENT ON
KJELLBERG PROVIDING A $2,000 DEPOSIT. THE DEADLINE FOR
MAKING THE DEPOSIT WAS SET AT JANUARY 22, 1996, AND THE
DEADLINE FOR EXECUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WAS SET AT FEBRUARY 22,1996. Motion carried unanimously.
O'Neill then outlined the proposal to hook-up the west mobile home
park. He noted the PCA has agreed to increase the City's wastewater
treatment loading limits in an amount equal to the load the City would
receive from the west mobile home park. The connection of the west
park would not take place until late 1997 or until there is sufficient
capacity to serve it.
Council discussed 1ijellberg's request to pay the 1995 hook-up rates for
the west park expansion area. It was Council's view that all
developers should pay the current hook-up rate and that charging a
lesser rate for Iljellberg's expansion area would set a precedent.
Based on the Council discussion, the proposal for sanitary sewer
connection for the west park was as follows:
West Parr Proposal
1. iijellberg agrees to pay the cost to extend the necessary sanitary
sewer linea; however, the City will install the line following city
design standards and assess the expense against the west park.
The assessment amount will be based on a diagonal alignment
across adjacent City -owned property.
2. Kjellberg will pay to obtain land or easements needed to
accommodate the sewer line.
3. At such time that the City sells or develops its site adjacent to
the mobile home park, a portion of the revenue equal to the
value of the sanitary sower line serving the site will be provided
to Nellberg as a repayment for his cost associated with
extending the lino.
4. Kjellberg will pay an area assessment fee of 1675,000 and hook-
up fees in the amount of $180,000. These fees reflect the 1995
rates because it is an existing development and the City has
Pago 3 0
None.
Council Minutes - 1/22/96
been negotiating hook-up with Kjellberg for a number of
months. Kjellberg agrees to pay $200,000 in cash, with the
remaining amount of $55,000 to be assessed against the
property.
6. Kjellberg will provide sanitary sewer and utility easements
through his property and to points west of his site.
6. The prevailing policy for collecting garbage at the west park will
apply, and the overall policy is subject to change.
7. Kjellberg must pay the prevailing rate for hook-up of a future
west park expansion area at the time of connection to city
sanitary sewer service.
8. Kjellberg will pay the standard quarterly sewer service fee.
9. The west mobile home park will be allowed to connect to the city
sanitary sewer system after the wastewater treatment plant
expansion project is completed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD FYLE AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE ABOVE
PROPOSAL FOR CONNECTING THE KJELLBERG WEST MOBILE HOME
PARK TO THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. MOTION INCLUDES
AUTHORIZATION FOF. THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR TO MEET
WITH KJELLBERG TO NEGOTIATE A METHOD OF FINANCING THE
631,000 GAP BETWEEN THE 1996 (PREVAILING) AND 1995 HOOK-UP
RATES IN REGARD TO THE EXPANSION AREA. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Fyle noted that the public works department did a good job
getting the streets cleared after the last snowstorm; however, he
requested that the fire station area be given a higher priority. In
addition, Fyle requested that the streets in the downtown area be
plowed before the outlying residential streets.
The Public Works Director noted that the addition of another
operator/mechanic will also help increase the efficiency of the plowing
crow.
Pago 4 0
Council Minutes - 1/22/86
Consent Agenda.
A. Congideration of liquor store 1 rk/ saghipr aptwintment.
Recommendation: Appoint Michael Fischbach to the permanent
full-time liquor store clerk/cashier position at Grade 3, Step 2,
$10.18/hr.
B. Considpratinn of approval of final pla - S ipgobee guhdivisinn.
Recommendation: Approve the final plat of the Shingobee
subdivision contingent on preparation and execution of a maintenance
agreement covering the service road.
:�. y' . I �. 1. 11 •. M
Recommendation: Approve the Second Amended and Restated
Assessment Agreement for the Private Redevelopment Contract
between the HRA and Tappers.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY
ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing.
City Administrator Rick Wolfstellor explained that the delinquent utility
accounts included in the assessment roll aro at least 60 days past due, and
the amounts shown include the additional $26 administration fee previously
approved by the Council.
There being no public comment, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing.
Mayor Fylc requested that the City Administrator check with the County on
whether the property owners with delinquent utility accounts are also
delinquent on paying real estate taxes.
Pago 6 0
Council Minutes - 1/22196
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS AS
PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 96-4.
Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing.
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that the
modification to the Central Redevelopment Project No. 1 would allow the
HRA the flexibility to consider acquisition of properties they have identified
for possible redevelopment.
Councilmembers noted that there did not seem to be any benefit to the City
in the HRA purchasing parcel #155-015-003060. It was suggested that
perhaps the City should consider the condemnation process prior to
purchase. Koropchak explained that the HRA's intention was not to hold the
property but to demolish the building and re -sell it to a developer.
There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public
hearing.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MODIFYING
CENTRAL. MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; MODIFYING TIF
DISTRICT NOS. 1-1 THROUGH 1-18; AND APPROVING THE CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TIF PLANS RELATING THERETO.
Motion includes that the HRA notify the Council prior to purchase of parcel
#155-015-003060. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 96-5.
8. (7on_aidcration of porehaao ngMern nt with Kon Bob non to purchase Ifi8-
Rem fhrm•
Public Works Director John Simola reported that at the last meeting, Council
authorized staff to enter into a purchase agreement for the Bohanon farm at
a price of $525,000. A basic guideline for the purchase and contract for deed
was formulated by staff, from which the City Attorney would draft a
purchase agreement.
Page 6 G
Council Minutes - 1/22196
Councilmember Herbst stated that he had received a call from Henry
Blonigen regarding 80 acres on East County Road 39 which could be used for
sludge application. Herbst suggested that the City research the site for
class B sludge application, which would allow the City to maintain the
Bohanon farm site as a class A sludge application site. The Mayor responded
that the Blonigen site was rolling and also contained some low marginal
land. Simola also noted that if the property in question was the old George
Johnson farm, the City had used a portion of the property for sludge
application in the past but quit using it after run-off concerns due to the
slopes and a neari)y intermittent stream.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT AND
SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR
THE BOHANON FARM AS DRAFTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY. Voting in favor: Tom Perrault, Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson,
Clint Herbst. Opposed: Brian Stumpf. It was Stumpf's view that the City
should investigate smaller sites rather than purchase a 158 -acre parcel at
this time. Motion carried.
Public Works Director John Simola reported that since topographic
information is a required part of the MPCA sludge facility application and
concerned neighbors have raised questions about the run-off from the
Bohanon property, he suggested that the City hire MARKHURD to produce
topographic information of the farm, including a 300 -ft radius around the
property, at a coat of $2,980. In addition, if the Council intends to consider
the YMCA farm land as an additional sludge site, topographic information
could be obtained for an additional $900. This information would then be
reviewed by HDR to determine if there are any concerns of run-off from the
property in regard to using it as a sludge application facility.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO AUTHORIZE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING OF
THE 158 -ACRE BOHANON FARM, INCLUDING A 30D -FT DISTANCE AROUND
IT, AT A COST OF 82,980. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst,
Brad Fyle. Opposed: Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf. Motion passed.
10. Co sideration of rn iWng purrhnse of Krum nronert. .
City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that at the previous meeting, the
City Council made a counteroffer for the 6 -acre Kruse parcel adjacent to the
wastewater treatment plant in the amount of $300,000, with Floyd Kruse
Page 7 0
Council Minutes - 1/22./96
required to pay all deferred assessments estimated at $22,000 with interest.
Floyd Kruse then made a counteroffer indicating he would accept $300,000,
with the City assuming any deferred assessment debt.
Wolfsteller noted that after speaking with each Council member, a counter-
proposal was relayed to Kruse to purchase the 6 -acre parcel for $300,000
with the requirement that Kruse pay the original deferred assessment
totaling $9,150, which would result in the City acquiring the property at a
cost of $290,850.
It was also noted that HDR had been instructed to halt design work relating
to location of the treatment plant expansion on only the City's property and
to begin preparing to use the additional 6 acres in the final design. The cost
of the additional engineering design work was estimated at $50,000.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO RATIFY THE PURCHASE OF THE 6 -ACRE
KRUSE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FOR A NET DOLLAR AMOUNT OF $290,850. Voting in favor: Shirley
Anderson, Tom Perrault, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Brian Stumpf.
It was Stumpfs view that the City should expand the plant on the current
site. Motion carried.
11. ro aid ra .inn of relnenting wastewater ren .mon .In grit P panainn to Kruse
parcd-
Public Works Director Simola reported that by locating the plant on the
Kruse property, the City would avoid between $435,000 and $520,000 in
construction cost which would have been necessary if the plant was expanded
on the current site; however, he also reviewed the added cost of locating the
plant on the Kruse property, which was estimated between $242,000 and
$254,000. In addition, the cost of the engineer's redesign work was estimated
at $48,000. Simola also discussed the need to fast-track the first stage
digester cover replacement and the inevitable impact of the plant expansion
on the wetland on the Kruse parcel.
Based upon the improvement to the plant hydraulic profile, the easier
expandability of the treatment plant toward the center, and the information
presented by HDR regarding the avoidance costs, staff recommended that the
Council approve relocating the plant expansion to the Kruse parcel.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO RELOCATE THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SBR TANKS AND HEADWORKS BUILDING TO THE
KRUSE PARCEL BASED UPON THE PREMISE THAT THE AVOIDANCE COSTS
Page 8 O
Council Minutes - 1/22196
OF CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PARCEL FAR OUTWEIGH THE COSTS OF
REDESIGNING AND ADDING ADDITIONAL FENCING AND PIPING AND THE
TIME NECESSARY TO DO THESE TASKS. Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson,
Tom Perrault, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Brian Stumpf. Motion
carried.
City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that based on the Council's
indication at the last meeting that WSB would be considered as the City's
primary consulting engineer, a proposed contract had been negotiated. He
noted that the fee schedule proposed by WSB for hourly services was
approximately 10-20% lower than the previous fee arrangement with OSM.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPOINT WSB & ASSOCIATES AS LEAD
CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND,
SPECIFICALLY, BRET WEISS AS CITY ENGINEER, CONTINGENT UPON
APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Motion carded
unanimously.
City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the Building Official has
requested that Council consider allowing the building inspection department
a clothing allowance for purchasing shirts, pants, and jackets due to the
higher -than -normal wear and tear on his clothes compared to office
personnel and for better identification of building inspection employees. The
City currently provides weekly rental of clothing, including laundering, for
the public works department employees at a cost of $460 annually.
Quotes received for purchasing the sportswear typo clothing from R & D
Sales amounted to $891.60 and $949 from MVP Sports. G & K Services
quoted the purchase of commercial -type clothing at $614. The cost of renting
commercial -type clothing from G & K Services would be $8.37/wk, or
$435.24/yr.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF 3
LONG SLEEVE AND 3 SHORT SLEEVE SHIRTS, I PAIR INSULATED
COVERALLS, AND 1 PAIR UNINSULATED COVERALLS FROM R & D SALES.
Page 9 0;)w
Council Minutes - L22196
Voting in favor. Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault, Brad Fyle.
Opposed: Brian Stumpf. It was Stumpf s view that the Building Official
should be given a clothing allowance to purchase items he felt were
necessary. Motion carried.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE BUI S FOR THE MONTH OF
JANUARY AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously.
15. Other matters.
A. Chuck Lepak of OSM stated that, in light of WSB's appointment as
City Engineer, OSM would work with City staff and WSB to maintain
an orderly transition of information to WSB, and OSM would oontinue
to work to meet the needs of the projects currently in progress.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 10 9
Council Agenda - =2196
1. 1 • 1:1 INVA
A_ RPFFRPNrP ANU2:
We are currently in the process of renewing our annual liability insurance
coverage that will again provide for an additional $1,000,000 in excess
liability coverage over the required $600,000 minimum. By state statute, the
City is not liable for any tort liability claim in excess of $600,000 damages;
however, because the City has purchased an excess liability coverage policy
in the past, the City has the option of waiving our rights under Statute 466,
which would allow someone to seek damages from the City in excess of the
$600,000 limit up to $1.6 million provided by our excess liability coverage.
Although we have typically purchased the excess $1,000,000 coverage, we
have done so to ensure that in a major catastrophe where the City was liable,
sufficient funds would be available to pay any and all claims. Even though
we are not responsible for any tort liability claim of more than $600,000, the
City Council has to formally decide whether or not we want to waive our
limits established by state statute. Since a formal Council action is
necessary before the application can be renewed, the Council should formally
indicate that it does nn want to waive its monetary limits established by
statute. This will allow us to retain our rights under the $600,000 limit, but
we would always have excess liability coverage available if it was ever
needed.
W ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council should formally indicate that the City of Monticello does not
waive the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minna=
Statute 466.04.
Copy of liability insurance application form.
0
LMCIT EXCESS LIABILITY COVERAGE
Cities obtaining excess coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must
decide whether or not to waive the statutory liability limits to the extent of the excess coverage
purchased. This decision must be made by the city council. CITIES PURCHASING
EXCESS COVERAGE MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO LMCIT
HEFORP THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE COVERAGE.
For further information, refer to the accompanying memo. City officials may also want to
discus these issues with the city attorney.
The City ofMONTICELLO/TOWNSHIP accepts excess liability coverage
limits of $ 1.000.000 from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
Check one:
_IL The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on tort liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
-OR-
The city WAIVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota
Statutes 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the excess liability coverage obtained
from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
Date of city council mating:
Signature:
Position: payor
Return this completed form to Berkley Risk Services, 420 Second Avenue South, Suite 700,
Minneapolis, MN 39402.4023.
4/92
LMCIT31 (2)
SA1t
L ICIT EXCESS LIABILTY COVERAGE
Cities obtaining excess coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must
decide whether or not to waive the statutory liability limits to the extent of the excess coverage
purchased. This decision must be made by the city council. CITIES PURCHASING
EXCESS COVERAGE MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO LMCIT
HEFORIF THE EF-,,I:LTIVE DATE OF THE COVERAGE.
For further information, refer to the accompanying memo. City officials may also warn to
discuss these issues with the city attorney.
The Cityof Monticello accepts excess liability coverage
limits of S 1,000,000 from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
Check one:
_x The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on ton liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
-OR-
The city WAIVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota
Statutes 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the excess liability coverage obtained
from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
Date of city council meeting:
Signature:
Position: Mayor
Return this completed form to Berkley Risk Services, 920 Second Avenue South, Suite 700,
Minneapolis, MN 554024023.
4/92
LMCM1 (2)
5008
Council Agenda - 7112/96
5a. Consideration nt gmnting a seasonal R_2 beer license to the
(R.W.)
The Monticello Softball Association has again requested a 3.2 beer license to
sell at the NSP softball field concession stand. The Softball Association will
be presenting a letter of intent to acquire dram shop liquor liability
insurance upon the approval of the City issuing the license; and as a result,
the Council can approve this license contingent upon receipt of the certificate
of insurance for liquor liability and the appropriate fees for the seasonal
license. The fee for this license is $137.60.
Also enclosed for the Council's review is a copy of the 1995 Softball
Association income report showing a breakdown on the concession stand
revenue and expenses only. The Softball Association has brought all their
fees up to date with the City for the year 1995, including their contribution
for the lighting of the softball complex and their agreement to pay all
electrical costs for the softball lighting.
Grant the license contingent upon receipt of necessary insurance
documents and appropriate fees.
Deny the license.
It is the staff recommendation that the license be granted contingent upon
proper insurance coverage being provided. The City has not been made
aware of any problems with this license in the past and can see no reason
why the Association should not be granted the license for the 1996 season.
Copy of 1995 financial reports.
MONTICELLO MEN'S SOFTBALL 1995 CONCESSION STAND INCOME
Income 20,409.82
Expenses
Liquor License
137.50
Dram Shop Insurance
1066.00
Lindfelser Meats
2484.09
Dahlheimer Dist
4522.47
Viking Coke
2646.34
Maus Foods
766.42
Sam's Club - Candy b Chips
2478.06
Concession workers
4220.00
Misc
576.82
TOTAL 18,897.71
INCOME 20,409.82
EXPENSES 18,897.71
CONCESSION STAND PROFITS 1,512.11
i
, 6A
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
"
•
The EDA requests that City Council review GMEF Loan No. 012 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 January 23, 19%, the EDA approved GMEF Loan No. 012 for Standard
Iron & Wire Works, Inc. The loan was approved on the face -value character
of the company subject to lender and Central Minnesota Initiative Fund
(CMIF) commitment and approval. 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 GMEF equipment loan was approved for $70,000 at a 6.6% fixed interest
rate amortized over 7 years. Loan fee was set at not -to -exceed $1,060 and the
GMEF legal fees the responsibility of the applicant. Collateral, guarantees,
and other condition requirements to be determined and prepared by the
GMEF attorney. Approved GMEF Loan No. 012 to be disbursed from the
liquor fund.
The GMEF Loan No. 012 requested a shared second-poaition with the CMIF
behind the lender. The CMIF Board has approved the loan, and the Loan
Committee Board will review the loan on February 8. Recommendation is to
approve the $60,000 equipment loan, 6.5%, seven-year amortization, balloon
in five years, shared second -position with the GMEF.
Standard Iron has received a "Term Credit Facility" from First Bank
(St. Cloud) outlining the terms of the $660,000loan.
As of February 7, 1996, per a telephone conversation with Don Hunter,
Controller at Standard Iron, the company elected to proceed with purchase of
and funding for the laser cutting machine first. The brake press and
horizontal machine center will be purchased later this year. Therefore, the
leveraging term and condition of the GMEF Guidelines has changed since the
EDA approval of January 23; however, it remains well within the guidelides.
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
Leveraging Lender
$550,000 ( 76.5%)
Change: GMEF
$ 70,000 ( 9.69.)
CMIF
$ 60,000 ( 8 2%)
Equity
$_50.480 ( &R%.)
$730,000 (100.0%)
After review of the approved EDA outline for GMEF public purpose and
policy compliance, the EDA requests the City Council consider the following
actions.
A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA approval
of GMEF Loan No. 012 for Standard Iron was approved 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. 012 for Standard Iron 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 February 19, 1996, Council meeting
would violate the 'within 21-cW guideline for City Council to review
the EDA's decision of loan approval.
( _ STAFF F. O MRNDATION:
Staff supports Alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the GMEF criteria used by the EDA; Copy of the preliminary loan
application; Copy of the GMEF Approval Form.
HDA AGENDA
JANUARY 23, 1996
6. Consideration to review for approval the preliminary GMEF Loan
application from Standard Iron a Wire works. Inc.
Bill Demeules, Standard Iron & wire works, Inc. will represent
the company at the EDA meeting.
A. Reference and. Background.
GMEF LOAN REQUEST:
$70,000 equipment loan, 5 years.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Standard Iron S Wire works, founded in 1930, is a metal
fabricating job shop. In 1993, the company relocated their
company headquarters to Monticello and constructed a 52,000 sq
ft manufacturing/office facility along Dundas Road and
purchased 10 acres of land for future expansion. The company
also has facilities in Sauk Centre and Alexandria.
The company plans to invest in $1,500,000 of equipment in
1996. In addition to the $70,000 GMEF request, the company is
submitting an application to the Central Minnesota Initiative
Fund (CMIF) for $60,000. The machinery includes a laser
cutting machine, a press brake, and a second, smaller
horizontal machine center. The company is in the process of
lender negotiations for financing the equipment. The three
prospects are Norwest, First Bank (St. Cloud), and First
National of Sauk Centre. Selection of the lender is expected
in a couple of weeks with funding in place by mid February.
it is my understanding a laser cutting machine is on reserve
for Standard Iron and based upon funding approval, the laser
could be delivered by late March or April.
The average wage of the projected 14 additional employees is
$10.30 which does not include benefits. It is not necessary
for the company to expand their Monticello facility at this
time.
The proposed uses/sources of funds for this project are
estimated as follows:
Usen of Funda
Laser Cutting Machine $ 800,000
Press Brake $ 400,000
Horizontal Machine Center a 300.000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $1,500,000
i
Page 1
rCA
EDA AGENDA
JANUARY 23, 1996
GMEF $ 70,000
CMIF $ 60,000
Lender $ 670,000
Equity (Brake/machine center) S 700.000
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $1,500,000
This project would be structured as a participation between
the lender, the GMEF, and the CMIF for the laser cutting
machine. Equity will be utilized for the press brake and
horizontal machine center.
PUBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA: Must comply with four or more of the
criteria listed below, criteria #1
being mandatory.
1. Creates new jobs: 89 jobs currently, 14 additional
(37.5 hpw) jobs within two years.
Average wage, $10.30 ph.
2. Increases the community tax base:
Annual Estimated
Market Value,
$1,250,000. Tax
Increment received
in 1995 at 43%
Market value,
$23,200.63. The
expanded operation
does not increase
the tax base.
3. Factors: Assist existing industrial business to 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.
4. Used as a secondary source to supplement conventional
financing: Approximately 471 of the total financial
package will be financed by the unnamed
lending institution. The CMIF/GMEF may
share a second position or sometimes the
CMIP request a 2nd position with the GMEF
in 3rd position.
Page 2
67eb
SDA AGENDA
JANUARY 23, 1996
February 7, approximately 75% of the
total financial package will be financed
Page 3
by First Bank.
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), the bank, and
GREATER
equity.
MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND POLICIES
I.
BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY:
Industrial business: Yes.
Located within city limits: Yes, zoned I-2.
Credit worthy existing business: Undetermined, have
not requested
current financial
statements. The
1993 $75,000 GMEF,
$50,000 CMIF, and
$250,000 State loan
paybacke are all
current.
$10,000 loan per each job created, or $5,000 per every
$20,000 in property market valuation, whichever highest:
$140,000 by job created, no increase in property value.
Compliance and approved: $70,000
II.
FINANCING METHOD:
Companion Direct Loan: All such loans may be
subordinated to the primary lander(o) if requested by the
primary lender(s). The GMEP is leveraged and the lower
interest rate of the GMEF lowers the effective interest
rate on the entire project.
Page 3
HDA AGENDA
y JANUARY 23, 1996
Approved shared 2nd position with the Ce2y. 3rd position
also ok.
III. USE OF PROCEEDS:
Equipment.
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Loan Size: Maximum not to exceed 50% of the
remaining GMEF balance. Annual GMEF
Appropriation Balance, January 20, 1996,
$150,000 (Borrowed $50,000 for Tappers.)
Loan request, $70,000. Remaining GMEF
balance, $80,000.
Compliance and approved: $70,000.
Leveraging: Minimum 60% private/public non-GMEF.
Maximum 30t GMEF. Minimum 10% equity of
GMEF loan.
Lender $670,000 (44.6%)
CMIF $ 60,000 ( 4.0t)
GMEF $ 70,000 ( 4.6%)
Equity $700,000 (46.6%)
(99.81)
Noted change in leveraging early in agenda supplement.
Loan Term: Personal property term not to exceed life
of equipment (generally 5-7 years).
Compliance and approved: 5 or 7 years.
Interest Rate: Fixed rate not less than 21 below
Minneapolis prime rate. Prime rate per
National Bank (First Bank) of Minneapolis
on date of EDA loan approval. (Prime 1-
19-96, 8.5%)
Compliance and approved: 6.5% fixed interest rate.
Loan Fee: Minimum fee of 0200 but not to exceed
1.5% of the total loan project. Fees are
to be documented and no duplication of
fees between the lending institution and
the GMEF.
I'
Page 4
CGD
EDA AGENDA
V JANUARY 23, 1996
IN
Compliance and approvedt $70,000 E .015 . Not to exceed
$1,050.
Prepayment Policy: No penalty for prepayment.
Deferral of Payments: 1. Approval of the EDA
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 SDA.
Assumability of Loan: None.
Business Equity Requirements:
Subject to type of loan; Board of Directors will
determine case by case, analysis under normal
lending guidelines.
Collateral: Mortgage deeds, securities, and/or
guarantees as per the GMEF attorney.
CoWliance and approvedt As per the 0=9 attorney.
Non -Performance: This approved GMEP loan shall become
null and void if funds are not drawn
upon or disbursed within 180 days
from the date of EDA approval
(January 23, 1996). Null and void
July 23, 1996.
GMEF Legal Fees: Responsibility of the GMEF
applicant.
Page 5
OE
GREATER N.CNT:C^-..LO E>T1--R_ R:5E
250 EAST BACACWA'!
NANTIC� I0, MINNESC'"a
PRELLMINA?Y APBLICAT:CN FCR IRAN
APPLIr_Vr: Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc.
PL4M OR ':RADE NAME:
BUSINESS ADDRESS: 207 Dundas )toaa, monxice—u, MN 553x,2
(1 & Street) (C:ri 6 State) (Zip Code)
TELE"nCNE: BUSINESS 0512 295-8700 Eax ( )
DATE ES*aBLISEM: March 1930 EBLOY1-R I.D. f: 41-0652355
SOLE PROPRIETOR x CORPORATION PAR=`NE?SEIP
NANAGMIMr"
NA"ELawrence T. Demeules RKbsident 1
Richard Demeules Vice President - Ind. Products Div.
33Z
Joseph Demeules Vice President - Operations 337.
William Demeules Vice President!- Mar.uracturing 337.
7.0C. -ECT LOCATION: 207 Dundas Road. Monticello. MN 55362
NEW BUSINESS x ESIS:INO BUSINESS
TOTAL PROJEC" CCS" EST-"iATZ: $ 1,500,000
PROPOSED USES: RECUEST:
LAND S A!'AUN: OF LOAN $70.000
EXISTING BUILDING 1Ak19RI7: i TERCS
5 Years
CONSTRUCTION REQUESTED
MACHINERY CAPITAL 1.5001!.000 APPLICANT- IS
700,000
WORK=% CAPITAL EQUITY
OT3E_R LOAN PMWOSE Purchase of Equip.
TCTRL USES $ 1,5006,000
PROPCSE7 BEC,NNrM D.%TE: January 1, 1996
ESTLIAT.D COMPLETION DAME: December 31. l9R(i
TITL'c TO
PROJECT ASSETS TO BE GELD BY: x OPERA"M LWITY x MM ECA
PAR_'ICZPAT-'= LENDER: Currently undor negotiation.
( Name) Uw=eoa )
( 1
(Contac: Person) ITelepmm 0)
PRESS >T i OF E"'9LOYE85: 89 PROJEC'._D # OF OWLME£S 103
ADDIT:CNAL PFDJECT II7FORYATICN:
APPLIC:Atr: SICCA URE: a '�g ��yTG roP.r DATE BIMTED: 1/11tc1
APPROVAL OF P
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUNDS or
BY
ECONOMIC DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Preliminary Loan Application Approval. JANUARY 23, 1996
Loan terms negotiated and agreed upon EDA and BORROWER.
betweeen the developer, rq:
iY. a..a...., and the EDA Executive Director.
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. NO BUILDING EXPANSION
Building Permit approval or construction
commitment.
Loan documents reviewed and/or prepared TO BE PREPARED BY KENNEDY 6
by the CW4XANWZ6VaW HRA ATTORNEY. GRAVEN.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL:
LOAN NUMBER GMEF LOAN NO. 012 LOAN APPROVED YES
BORROWER STANDARD IRON 6 WIRE WORKS, INC.
ADDRESS 307 DUND6S ROAD, MONTICELLO, MN LOAN DISAPPROVED XXXX
LOAN AMOUNT S70.009.00 FOR EQUIPMENT
RATE 6.5% FIXED INTEREST RATE DATE JANUARY 23, 1996
TERMS 7 YEARS
FEE NOT TO EXCEED $1.050. GMEF LEGAL FEES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT.
OTHER*
A motion was made by EDA Commissioner Al Laraon to
(approve - nMWAV4ffiM) Greater Monticello Enterprise Funds in the
amount of Seventy Thousand Dollars and No Canto ($70.000.00) dollars
and cento to developer Standard Iron 6 Wire Worka, Inc.
this 2�rd day of January 1996 Seconded
by EDA Commiooioner Tom Perrault
YEAS; AL LARSON NAYS: NONE
TOM PERRAULT ABSENT: HARVEY KENDALL
RON HOGLUND CLINT HERBST
BARB SCHWIENTEK ABSTENTION: BILL DEMEULES
GMEF dioburoed 19 _ by Check No.
BDA Treasurer
DISBURSE MONIES FROM THE LIQUOR FUND.
CITY COUNCIL MAY REVERSE AN EDA LOAN DECISION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS OF EDA APPROVAL. CITY COUNCIL RATIFICATION SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 12, 1996.
S'G
GMEF Approval
Page 2
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
Xkx (We) hereby accept the terms stated above as approved by the
Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Monticello.
DATED
• OTHER
IF APPROVED GMEF LOAN NO. 012 DOLLARS OF $70,000 ARE NOT DISBURSED BY
JULY 23, 1996, THE APPROVED LOAN BECOMES NULL AND VOID.
GMEF LOAN NO. 012 REQUESTS A SHARED SECOND -POSITION WITH THE CENTRAL MINNESOTA
INITIATIVE FUND BEHIND THE LENDER. IF NOT, A THIRD POSITION IS ACCEPTABLE.
APPROVED GMEF LOAN NO. 012 IS SUQJECT TO LENDER AND CMIF COMMITMENT AND APPROVAL.
COLLATERAL, GUARANTEES, AND OTHER CONDITION REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AND
PREPARED BY THE GMEF ATTORNEY.
REQUEST CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE EDA PRIOR TO DISBURSEMENT OF
GMEF DOLLARS. (STANDARD IRON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)
CHEF FEE TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF GMEF DISBURSEMENT.
50
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
51). Consideration of hiring ndditionswi Ooerator/Mec anis for the street
(J.S.) -
With authorization from the City Council, a position for Operator/Mechanic
was advertised and the City received 110 applicants for the position. City
staff, consisting of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and Street
and Parks Superintendent, selected seven individuals whose applications
and resumes indicated experience in tasks referred to in the job description.
Those seven candidates were interviewed the week of February 5, 1996.
Based upon the results of the interviews, the rating system chosen by City
staff, and reference checks, the most qualified individual is Tim Guimont of
Albertville. City staff would, therefore, like to recommend that Mr. Guimont
be hired for the additionally -created position of Operator/Mechanic, pending
passing of the required physical examination.
The first alternative is to hireTim Guimont for the position of
Operator/Mechanic pending completion of the physical examination.
The second alternative is not to hire Mr. Guimont for the position of
Operator/Mechanic.
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director,
and Street and Parks Superintendent that the City Council him Tim
Guimont for the position of Operator/Mechanic pending passing of the
physical examination as outlined in alternative ill. Mr. Guimont has worked
for Lange Underground and Northern Dowatering in the past and has a wide
variety of skills to successfully fill the position of Operator/Mechanic.
None.
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
r: i 5T1 W T 7 ti1 •t ',I,I j
Charlie Pfeffer is requesting improvements to a short section of Dundas
Road, which includes extension of sanitary sewer, water main, road, and curb
and gutter. This project will be completed in conjunction with development
of the Pipeline Supply facility discussed in an agenda item that follows.
The Pipeline Supply project cannot proceed without improvements to Dundas
Road as proposed. The road surface will serve the storage)
contractor pick-up area. Utility service connection to the site will be
extended from water and sewer mains installed under the Dundas Road
section.
Charlie Pfeffer has indicated that he will provide sufficient funds up -front to
complete the feasibility study. Once the project is completed, the funds
needed to initiate the feasibility study would be returned to Pfeffer, with said
expense then incorporated into the assessment roll. Pfeffer has requested
that the assessment be placed against the balance of the large unplatted
parcel that Dundas Road will serve.
Motion to adopt a resolution accepting petition and authorizing
preparation of a feasibility study for improvements to a 400 -ft
extension of Dundas Road. Authorization to proceed with preparation
of a feasibility study is based on the condition that the developer
provide funds sufficient to cover the feasibility study expense.
Motion to deny adoption of a resolution accepting petition and
authorizing preparation of feasibility study for improvements to a
400 -ft extension of Dundas Road.
V . STAFF COMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site location map; Resolution to be provided at meeting.
1'l
I
40.01 ►_ _ 400.ti� _ . �... ..
-----'----- __.---- -------
---
W ���,
Z L 0 T 1
Q BLOCK 2
40
;-------------------40D GB..!.__..__._..�._...
s I
DUNDAS ROAD
C
i s -C
C
' -------
- � - - 7 M NO • • 1 -
The portion of
Dundas Road Charlie
Pfeffer is requesting
Lot 1 Block 2
Monticello Commerce
Center Third Addition.
.609P 4
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
1 1 1 1 1 h1 1
1 1' 7■ 71-TITT"VA11
1 1 I y 1 a ,1 ,1 . 1 M. /. 1 1
1 1 : 1 L 1 \/ 1 1 I,' I MR 6
A RPFFRRNrF AND BA .K =RO iND:
As you recall, Planning Commission reviewed the original wastewater
treatment plant site plan and recommended approval of a conditional use
permit allowing expansion of the facility. In turn, Council reviewed and
approved the same plan but a few weeks later purchased additional land to
the east of the original site, which would allow a redesign of the facility,
resulting in short- and long-term cost savings to the City. Due to the fact
that additional property was acquired and significant site design changes
resulted, it is necessary that the wastewater treatment plant again go
through the conditional use permitting process.
The purchase of the Kruse property will result in the facility being recessed
into the hill which will reduce the visual impact of the facility as seen from
CSAR 75. The extra land will also allow the facility to be constructed closer
to the road, which will result in a greater setback distance from the river,
thus reducing the impact, on the native river setting. After additional review,
it was found by HDR that the project can be constructed without placement
of 611 material in the wetland; therefore, a variance to allow filling of the
wetland is not necessary. Finally, the setback on the east side is 70 ft, which
is 40 ft greater than the original plan.
In summary, as compared to the original plan, the additional setback
distances and use of the hillside as a screen have resulted in an improved
site plan.
B. LT '.RNATfV . ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the conditional use permit which would allow
expansion of the wastowater treatment plant in a PZM zone subject to
the following conditions:
Items required by code,
A. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is
maintained and required setbacks and cited requirements
aro met.
Council Agenda - 2112196
B. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and
landscaping as provided in accordance with Chapter 3,
Section 2, of the zoning ordinance.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
The facility must have direct access to a county or city
state aid highway.
Installation of odor control measures necessary to maintain or
reduce the current problem.
No tree clearcutting to occur within 50 ft of the rivers edge.
City buffer yard requirements must be met on the Hoglund side
of the property. The top side of the bank to meet the buffer yard
for an institutional/multi-family boundary; the lower valley side
to buffer institutional use/single family.
This motion could be based on the finding that the facility is consistent
with the character of the area, and the screening and landscaping is
designed to preserve to the extent possible the value of adjoining
property; the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan for
the city; the expansion will not have an appreciable negative effect on
the property to the west (Bondhus); screening and buffer yard
techniques will be employed to limit the impact on the property to the
east; odor control efforts have been designed into the plans. In
addition, the site plan as proposed will result in much of the facility
being recessed into the side hill, thereby resulting in less of an impact
on the view of the facility from the road right-of-way.
This is the alternative recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit which would
allow expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in a PZM zone.
City Council should select this alternative based on the finding that
the facility as proposed is not consistent with the nature and character
of the area and will result in depreciation of adjoining land values or is
not consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city.
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is our view that the site plan as proposed improves upon the site plan
prepared and approved a few weeks ago; therefore, it would make sense that
the City Council would grant approval of the conditional use permit. As with
the previous site plan, odor control measures are being employed that will
result in a land use that is compatible with adjoining properties. The odor
control measures will actually improve upon the current situation and reduce
existing odor problems; therefore, staff recommends approval.
Excerpt from comprehensive plan; Copy of the site plan.
COMP R l EX cEkf T 09A4)
UTILITY POLICIES
1.
As urban development proceeds, adequate plans will be made for
the increased storm water run-off that can be expected; to the
extent feasible, such water will be impounded to help recharge
i
the area's ground water supply. Drainage plans will be
i
coordinated on a watershed basis.
2.
where on-site sever and water facilities are to be used, soil
percolation tests shall be required when considered necessary
and there is evidence to indicate that larger lot sizes may be
required or development should be permitted for reasons of
danger to the public and health.
3.
Attempt to design and encourage the use of gravity flow for
sanitary sewer systems rather than using lift stations and force
mains for long-term sewage solutions. Lift stations and force
mains may be appropriate as interim solutions to sewage problems
that may be served by gravity flow at a later date.
a.
Select routes for utilities, either above or below ground, with
careful regard for the preservation of natural resources, such
as wetlands, extreme slopes, water sources, and other wildlife
habitat.
S.
Restore the 'nature' of the land which has been altered by
construction work to the extent possible as soon after
construction is completed.
6.
Prohibit extension of sewer systems into areas where development
{
should not occur, ouch as flood plains and designated open
spaces. In certain instances, sewers may, of necosoity, have to
traverse such areas in order to serve upland areas. However,
connection to the line should not be allowed in those areas.
7.
Privately owned sanitary cower systems should be prohibited.
S.
Under certain circumstances, surface water run-off may require
consideration of a treatment system to occurs the quality of
effluent diocharges into water bodies or waterways.
9.
Municipal utilities should not be extended beyond the corporate
limits of the City. `
10.
The City shall actively participate in industrial and eomarreial
growth to ensure conformance with treatment and protteatment
requirements, in order to enhance maintenance and operation, and
to protect and prolong the life expectancy of the Wastewater
Treatment Plan.
11.
The extension of privately owned sewer and water lines beyond an
individual's property line in order to tie into municipal mains
/
y
oholl be prohibited.
Open space Policies
Before delineating open apace policies, a definition of the term is
necessary. Traditionally, open apace has been primarily defined as
that area which is retained in or restored to a condition where
natural systems predominate and which may be used for recreation,'or_
preservation purposes. Open space wan often regarded so a separate
and contained entity usually under the ownership of a governmental
jurisdiction.
Recant trends indicate that open space, like the people it serves, is
becoming more directly integrated with its surroundings. Becoming'
more a part of the -total urban fabric, open apace is being more
closely integrated into the urban living and working environment.
Bocauao of this integrating phenomenon, many of the advantages and
responsibilities of open apace are equally applicable to public and
private lands.
i
V
COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICY
1.
Presently, the development of land for public facilities such as
parks and playgrounds is considered more important than the
acquisition of such land. However, with respect to acquisition,
land must beurchased before proper per sites are usurped by
private developments or high land prices make acquisition
unfeasible. It is a desirable goal of the City to balance
acquisition and development efforts.
2.
All public facilities are to be developed according to generally
accepted standards and the results of thorough study.
3.
Where feasible, private developers will be required to set aside
a portion of their land for public user where this is not
feasible or desirable, developers will be required to contribute
cash in lieu of land, with such money to be utilized for the
purchase and development of recreational facilities.
4.
School facilities should be fully utilized by making building
and land available to the public for use when such does not
conflict with normal function of the school facilities.
S.
Private developers will not be required to donate land for
school sites.
6.
Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping,
potential expansion, and off-street parking. Parking should be
provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches should be
located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector street and have
easy access to the area served. They should not be located on
minor residential streets and in the midst of residential
neighborhoods.
7.
The City should not accept substandard lands such as swamps,
puwer line easements, etc., for the development of park lands.
This shall include lands laid out in subdivision plans.
Open space Policies
Before delineating open apace policies, a definition of the term is
necessary. Traditionally, open apace has been primarily defined as
that area which is retained in or restored to a condition where
natural systems predominate and which may be used for recreation,'or_
preservation purposes. Open space wan often regarded so a separate
and contained entity usually under the ownership of a governmental
jurisdiction.
Recant trends indicate that open space, like the people it serves, is
becoming more directly integrated with its surroundings. Becoming'
more a part of the -total urban fabric, open apace is being more
closely integrated into the urban living and working environment.
Bocauao of this integrating phenomenon, many of the advantages and
responsibilities of open apace are equally applicable to public and
private lands.
i
V
V
. 1 1 - - . - . ... ........
. ......... ....... ................. ...
l'kopb.?Ea PAV'IN(YI
r
VTV�e GoN
t4A,,-
8
Council Agenda - 2112196
City Council asked to consider recommending approval of two conditional use
permits relating to development of a wholesale pipe supply company in an 1.1
zone. This company provides pipe to retailers for resale and provides pipe
directly to contractors. The site is located across from Custom Canopy in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Fallon Avenue and Dundas Road.
The total land area occupied by the site amounts to 2 acres. Of this amount,
about 1 acre is dedicated to outside storage.
The plan calls for access to both Fallon Avenue and to Dundas Road. Dundas
Road is not improved at this time and would be completed as a public
improvement project in conjunction with this project.
The plan meets all setback and parking requirements. Staff has provided the
developer with some direction to assist in preparation of a landscaping plan
that will soften the impact of the steel warehouse building as much as
possible. No tax increment financing is being used to support this project.
Please see the site plan for detail.
OUT311DE STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
According to the site plan, the storage area will be surrounded by a 6 -It
opaque cyclone fence. Slats will be installed in a basket -weave fashion to
assure full opacity. As you know, some of the cyclone screening fences in the
industrial area have vertical slats only. We have learned that vertical slats
alone do not provide for sufficient screening. Staff has been informed that
the materials will not be stacked higher than the height of the fence. It
appears that the developer will comply with all ordinance requirements
relating to outside storage.
STALL AISLE DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This silo is somewhat unique in that the area used for outside storage is
adjacent to a proposed staging area for product pick-up. In the past, the City
has required that any area commonly used by the public must be paved.
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
Under the proposed plan, a relatively large staging area designated as a
product pick-up location would be covered with a heavy granular material.
The developer notes that this material is preferred because it can stand-up to
the weight and turning movements of trucks using the space, whereas a
bituminous surface will not stand-up. He notes that they might expect up to
ten customers per day to pick up products at this location. In checking with
the City Engineer, he agrees with the developer that it is not uncommon in
other cities to allow gravel surfacing in this type of storage yard. It is likely,
however, that bituminous would stand up better to the tight -turning
movements necessary for the semi -trailer deliveries. A gravel surface will
require regular maintenance even if it is a crushed material. It is likely that
there would not be a significant cost savings between a bituminous surface
and the proposed gravel surface; however, if there is limited public access to
the storage yard, the impact would be mostly internal to their operations.
See the site plan for detail.
DECISION A. OUTSIDE STORAGE
Motion to recommend approval of a conditional use permit allowing
outside storage. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed plan
is in conformance with outside storage conditions as required by
ordinance. In addition, the cyclone screening fence must utilize slats
in a manner that achieves 90% opacity. This is the alternative
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Motion to deny the conditional use allowing outside storage.
This motion should be selected if it is determined that outside storage
is not appropriate at the site given the comprehensive plan, character
of the area, etc.
This alternative does not appear to be appropriate because the plan
meets standards required by ordinance and is consistent with what the
City has allowed to occur at other sites.
DECISION B: STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY
Motion to approve a stall aislo and driveway conditional use permit as
proposed by the developer.
Under this alternative, the City Council is comfortable with the plan
for not paving the material pick-up staging area. This alternative
should be selected based on the finding that the pick-up area is not
Council Agenda - 2/12/86
used consistently by the general public; therefore, it is not necessary
that it be paved. Furthermore, a heavy granular surface is suitable to
support the type of pick-up and delivery activity at the site featuring
tight turning movements by heavy trucks.
This motion should be subject to the adherence of conditions noted by
ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall install the heavy granular base in a manner
consistent with recommendations by the City Engineer.
2. The public trips shall be limited to contractor pick-up only.
3. The storage area surface shall be maintained to a rut -free
condition or the area would be required to be paved.
4. The fence at the entrance to the storage area should be set back
far enough to avoid truck parking on the boulevard while the
fence gate is being opened.
This is the alternative recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Motion to deny a stall aisle and driveway conditional use permit.
The City Council should select this alternative if it feels that a poor
precedent is being set by allowing a material pick-up area to be
developed without the required paving. Perhaps the City Council
wishes to require concrete to be installed at this location or is not
convinced that bituminous paving will not work.
C STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While the argument that bituminous surfacing will not support the
anticipated truck traffic is questionable, it is common to allow gravel
surfacing of storage areas that are used less frequently by the retail
consumer. If Cho number of pick-ups is kept to a reasonable level and the
staging area is hard surfaced, it is the opinion of the City Engineer that the
proposal would be acceptable. Some method of enforcement should be
enacted to allow for future hard surfacing if conditions change.
Copy of site plan; Excerpt from zoning ordinance regarding outside storage
and drive aisle design conditional use permit.
12
Outside Storage Area I
Front of
Buelnese - I
I I Paved
M FOMED FLOOR ElEV 98800
Crushed Concrete t
I r '
I
15B-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an
"I-1" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon
procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance).
(A) Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided
that:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a
residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public
right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control
dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (H), of this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
L"
(s) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT:
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements
as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and
Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened
subject to the following conditions:
i. Any reduction in requirements requires
completion of the conditional use permit
process outlined in Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.
Li. Final approval of parking and driveway
drainage plans associated with
conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the City
Engineer. Engineering expenses greater
than portion of building permit fee
allocated for engineer plan review shall
be paid by applicant prior to occupancy
of structure.
iii. A surmountable "transition" curb or
cement delineator must be installed as a
boundary between an outside storage area
and a parking or drive area.
iv. Development of a curb along the boundary
between a parking area and an area
designated on site plan for future
parking is not required if said curb
line is not needed for drainage purposes
as determined by the City Engineer.
V. Exceptions to the standard• curb
requirements do not apply to any parking
or driveway perimeter that runs roughly
parallel to and within 20 feet of an
adjoining parcel.
Vi. This conditional use permit is allowed
only in I-1 and I-2 zones.
V vii. Drive areas that are secondary and not
7� used by theea nsrnl Aublic_and not used
for routine delivery of goods or
services do not require hard surfacing
or curb unless hard surface and curb is
needed for drainage purposes as
determined by the City Engineer. Access
to such drive areas may be restricted by
a gate which must be closed after each
use. At such time that routine use is
noted, the drive area shall be paved.
(#192, 7/9/90)
1 CJ
Council Agenda - 2112t96
PBm Ieidolt. (R.W.)
Senior Citizen Center Coordinator Pam Loidolt will be in attendance at the
meeting to update the City Council on the activities that have taken place at
the center during 1995. Enclosed with the agenda is a summary of the 1995
senior center statistics covering the activities and the usage that has
occurred this past year. Other than review of the report and Pam's
presentation, no other specific action is necessary by the Council.
13
IA01111c%o Monticello Senior Center
107 Cedar Street, Monticello, MN 55362
;ZiPhone: (812) 2952000
Senior Venter
TO: Monntticello Mayor & City Council Members
FROM: Pam Loidolt, Senior Center Director
SUB1: Senior Center Update
DATE: February 8, 1996
I have enclosed a statistic sheet comparing 1994 and 1995 Monticello Senior Center
usage. 1 will be at your February 12th City Council meeting to update you on senior
center programs and to answer any questions you may have. Our Green Thumb
employee was unable to total the unduplicated participants and unduplicated activities by
the time this information needed to be at City Hell. I will bring those two figures to the
meeting on Monday.
As you can see fiom the other categories, the 1995 totals have increased across the board.
Senior center participation continues to increase and pan of this can be attributed to the
Senior Dining meal program sponsored by Catholic Charities. The meals are served at
noon Monday through Friday at the senior center. There is a suggested donation of S2, or
what they can afford, for those age 60 and over and spouse regardless of age.
I look forward to seeing you on February 121h.
y
�
MONTICELLO SENIOR CENTER
1995 COMPARATIVE STATISTICS
Unduplicated
Duplicated
Dupl. Panicipaau Volunteer Haus
Phone Calls
Acthities Offend
Senior Dining
Panicip=
Panimpants
(organized fi unorg,
R =,cd
(unduplicmed)
Meals Sencd
(or&--od act.) octnilies)
1994
493
2,997
4,200 1,375.5
892
43
NA
1st Quarter
1995
437
3,039
4,330 1,613
833
45
NA
1994
•696
3,544
4,900 0•2,097.5
870
42
NA
2nd Quarter
1995
637
3,795
5,100 1,745.5
1,034
46
$94
1994
669
3,348
4,800 1,611
744
46
NA
3rd Quarter
1995
735
3,593
4,900 1,941
1,045
49
2,042
1994
421
2,889
4,000 1,700
689
44
NA
4th Quarter
1995
665
3,339
4,700 1,995
1,243
44
2.062
TOTALS -1994
1,259
12,778
17,900 6,784
3,195
73
NA
TOTALS -1995
13,766
19,030 7,294.5
4,155
4,698
QQ •Includes Open House
guests.
04 **Includes remodeling
volunteer hours - senior 6 non -senior.
Council Agenda - 2112/96
9- Review of year-end liquor store 9nanciel reports. (&W.)
A FFRF.N .. Nn RA .K .RO M:
Liquor Store Manager Joe Hartman will be in attendance at Monday night's
meeting to review with the Council the year-end financial report. Overall,
the operation has produced a very handsome profit for the City of Monticello
and continues to exceed previous year's sales and profits.
In summary, total sales for the liquor store were up approximately $104,000,
or about 6.7% over last year. 7be resulting groes profit also showed an
increase of over $26,000, or 7% compared to 1994. The resulting operating
income, which is the most important figure we are concerned with, also
increased $19,425 over last year to an all-time high of $179,046. The
operating income at 10.8% of total sales is in line with our expectations and
was in the area we had hoped to achieve. As you may note on the financial
statement, the adjusted net income shows a negative figure as a result of
$432,000 being transferred to cover the second phase construction cost for the
public works building expansion project. As I noted earlier, the important
figure relates to the operating income and not the adjusted net income.
Other than reviewing the financial report with Mr. Hartman, there isn't any
other specific action required.
Copy of year-end financial report.
N
Current Assets:
Cash
Change Fund
Investments
Accounts Receivable
A/R - NSF Checks
Inventory
Prepaid Insurance
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
31Dec95
108,600.:5
1,600.00
158,425.09
69.48
172,611.87
3,280.98
------------
444,587.57
Fixed Assets
Land 6 Parking Lot
Buildings
Furniture a Equipment
lees: Accumulated Depreciation
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS
TOTAL ASSETS
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Due to EDA Fund
Sales Tax Payable
Salaries Payable
Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave
Other Accrued Expenses
TOTAL LIABILITIES
RETAINED EARNINGS
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
46,591.03
215,451.48
82,393.13
(227,101.78)
------------
117,333.86
------------
561,921.43
neeeeennnece
2,466.25
50,000.00
15,989.62
2,392.56
19,398.55
1,177.12
91,424.30
470,497.33
561,921.43
oaecaoeaooao
914
^4NERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
Personal Services
Salaries
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
109,534
PERA
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
4,626
FICA
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
5,314
Insurance
ENDING DEC 31, 1994 AND 1995
9,823
Unemployment Benefits
1994
1995
Severance Pay
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
SALES
Liquor
429,073
469,492
Beer
912,620
954,822
Wine
164,970
183,804
Other Merchandise
47,211
49,109
Misc Non -Taxable Sales
2,906
4,106
Discounts
----------
----------
TOTAL SALES
1,556,779
1,661,333
COST OF GOODS SOLD
(1,189,761)
(1,267,938)
GROSS PROFIT
367,018 23.62
a oeaaaeaaa
393,395 23.72
aaeaaoca�c
^4NERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
Personal Services
Salaries
111,503
109,534
PERA
5,011
4,626
FICA
8,311
5,314
Insurance
9,93U
9,823
Unemployment Benefits
Severance Pay
58
----------
2,669
----------
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
134,813 8,72
134,967 8.12
supplies
Office Supplies
374
991
General Operating Supplie
6,803
7,705
Other supplies
199
202
TOTAL SUPPLIES
7,376 .5Z
8,898 .5Z
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING DEC 31,
1994 AND 1995
1994
1995
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
Other Services & Charges
Professional Services
3,350
2,807
Maintenance Agreements
1,575
1,650
Communication
1,730
2,105
Travel -Conference -Schools
268
54
Advertising
6,899
5,421
Insurance
13,467
12,049
Utilities, Electric
11,517
12,164
Utilities, Heating
1,369
1,206
y
Utilities, Sewer & water
655
t91
,
Maintenance, Equipment
2,481
9,583'
Maintenance, Building
3,132
3,527
Maintenance, Other
74
Depreciation --Acquired As
16,422
16,882
Other Misc Expenses
2,113
----------
2,796
----------
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH
65,208
4.22
70,524
4.2%
TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS
207,397
----------
13.3%
214,349
----------
12.92
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME
159,621
0000000000
10.3%
179,046
0.00e0000a
10.8%
Other Income (Expense)
Interest Income
12,196
59,139
Cash Long/Short
123
177
Sale of Property
----------
----------
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
12,319
.81
59,316
3.6%
NET INCOME (EXPENSE)
171,940
0000000000
11.01
238,363
000.000000
14.32
Transfers In/Out
(35,000)
(2.21)
(432,296)
(26.01)
ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE
136,940
0000000000
8.82
(193,933)
00000000.0
(11.72)
q
I
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
GROSS PROFIT
BY PRODUCT
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING DEC 31,
1994 AND 1995
1994
1995
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
Liquor Sales
429,073
469,492
Discounts
Cost of Sales
316,637
344,655
GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR
112,435
26.2%
124,836
26.6%
Beer Sales
912,620
954,822
Cost of Sales
717,713
743,760
GROSS PROFIT - BEER
----------
194,907
21.4%
----------
211,062
22.1%
Nine Sales
164,970
183,804
Cost of Sales
115,066
136,394
GROSS PROFIT - NINE
----------
49,903
30.2%
----------
47,410
25.8%
isc Sales
47,211
49,109
Cost of sales
31,277
33,297
GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE
15,934
33.8%
15,812
32.2%
Mlsc Non-taxable Sales
2,906
4,106
Cost of Sales
1,697
2,544
__------_-
GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAXA 1,209
41.62
----------
1,562
38.0%
TOTAL SALES
1,556,779
1,661,333
TOTAL COST OF SALES
1,182,390
1,260,651
TOTAL FREIGHT COST
7,370
7,287
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
367,018
0000000000
23.6%
393,395
0900000000
23.7%
0
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
The City Council is asked to review updates to the comprehensive plan
document and to consider supporting initiation of the public hearing process
leading to potential adoption of the plan in March. The changes that have
been made to the document by Steve Grittman stem from the recent
discussions at the joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning
Commission. These changes have been reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission. Following is the schedule for formal
acceptance of the document assuming Council approval of this recent re-
draft.
February 12, 1996: Council reviews recent changes and indicates
support of formal presentation to the public at a
public hearing at the regular meeting of the
Planning Commission in March.
February 19, 1996: Monticello Township supervisors review document
and submit comments to Planning Commission.
March b, 1996: Planning Commission conducts public hearing,
obtains comments, and considers changes to the
document. Unless major changes are needed, plan
is approved and submitted to City Council.
March 11, 1996: City Council reviews input from the public hearing
and looks at any changes to the document made by
the Planning Commission. Council considers
making its own changes and either accepts or
rejects plan. If the plan is rejected, it goes back to
the Planning Commission for further review.
Once the comprehensive plan is adopted, the HRA, Parks, and Planning
Commissions will prepare a 1.6 year work plan based on the goals outlined in
the plan. The work plans prepared will be reviewed jointly at a meeting in
April. Once the work plans have been completed, they will be submitted to
the City Council for review and comment at the second meeting in April. The
work plan should then represent a common view of priorities and work
activities resulting in every group pulling in a common direction. Future
budget requests should stem from agreed-upon work plan items.
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
R- ALTERNATIVE: ACTIONS:
1. Motion to accept modifications to the original draft of the
comprehensive plan and support initiation of the public hearing
process.
This alternative should be selected if Council is satisfied with the plan
as prepared and/or has additional comments that could be
incorporated into the document prior to the March Planning
Commission meeting. It should be stressed that, from a staff and
Planning Commission standpoint, there is no great need to complete
the plan adoption process in March 1996. Council should take
additional time to review the document if needed.
2. Motion to table or deny acceptance of modifications.
If Council wishes to take additional time to review the document and/
or has a number of changes that need to be made and reviewed prior to
calling for the public hearing, then this alternative should be selected.
Staff recommends that the Council support calling for the public hearing if
comfortable with the document. This document becomes the basis for
development of commission and staff work plans; therefore, it is very
important that everyone has a common understanding of the policies and
goals as outlined. If additional time and review is needed to obtain this
collective understanding, then this preliminary approval should be tabled.
Comprehensive Plan draft submitted directly to Council a few days ago.
16
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
This item is presented to comply with City Ordinance Amendment No. 172,
Section 2-3-6 (A), "The Authority shall prepare an annual budget projecting
anticipated expenses and sources of revenue;" and (B), "The Authority shall
prepare an annual report describing its activities and providing an accurate
statement of its financial condition. Said report shall be submitted to the
City Council by March 1 of each year."
The financial reports were prepared by Executive Director Koroprhak and
reviewed by Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller. The Economic Development
Authority (EDA) approved the year-end reports and budget at their annual
meeting held January 23, 1996. All Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund
(GMEF) loan paybacks are current.
Therefore, the EDA submits to the City Council a copy of the EDA-GMEF
Balance Sheet; Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balance for the Year; Annual Activity Report; and 1996 Cash Flow
Projections (Budget) for review.
Additionally, year-end fund balances for the UDAG and ERG funds are
enclosed as supporting data. However, no Council action is necessary
relating to these reports, as the reports serve as information only. Also, note
the letter from the H -Window withdrawing their application for state and
local dollars.
After questions or comments by City Council, the EDA requests the City
Council make a motion to accept the GMEF reports. This is to affirm
ordinance amendment compliance.
A motion to accept the EDA Balance Shoot; Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance; 1996 Cash Flow
Projections; and the Annual Activity Report as presented.
A motion to deny acceptance of the EDA Balance Sheet; Statements of
Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance; 1996 Cash
Flow Pr*ctions; and the Annual Activity Report as presented.
Council Agenda - 2112/96
C_ STAFF O ENDATION-
Reoommendation is for alternative &1. Reason for the recommendation is
that all reports are reported as true and correct; the budget is based on
projections only; and thereafter, said motion would affirm compliance of City
Ordinance Amendment No. 172.
Copy of the Year -End Statements, Activity Report, and 1998 Cash Flow
Projections for the EDA; Informational data.
Is
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Year Ended December 31, 1995
8
Appropriations -
1994 Liquor Fund
$
50,000.00
1994 UDAG
-0-
Interest Income - Notes
$
16,956.88
Interest Income - Investment (est.)
$
2,900.00
Interest Income - Investment (adj.)
(
474.051
Loan Fees
$
750.00
Miscellaneous
S
1.275.00
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
Legal Fees
Professional Fees
Service Fees
Int. Adjustment - Notes
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures
FUND BALANCE - Beginning of Year
FUND BALANCE - End of Year
$ 1,257.00
$ 112.50
$ 60.00
$ 0
$ 71,407.83
$ 69,978.33
9659.875.61
5729.853.94
110
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
Balance Sheet
December 31, 1995
Cash in Bank
Notes Receivable - Tapper, Inc.
Notes Receivable - Muller Theatre
Notes Receivable - SMM, Inc.
Notes Receivable - Aroplax Corp.
Notes Receivable - Custom Canopy, Inc
Notes Receivable - Standard Iron
Notes Receivable - Vector Tool
Appropriations Receivables -
1995 Other
1995 Liquor Fund
TOTAL ASSETS
t and Balance
Reserved for Participation Loans
(Economic Development)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
$202,495.31
$ 75,938.49
-0-
$ 44,975.93
$ 51,643.23
$ 38,941.03
$ 65,958.88
$ 49,901.07
$100,000.00
S100.000.00
IE
1995
ECONOMIC DEVELOPDffiiT ADTEORITY ACTIVITY REPORT
MEETING DATE SUBJECTS
Annual Meeting EDA officers elected for 1995:
held 3-7-95. President - Ron Hoglund
Vice President - Barb Schwientek
Treasurer - Rick wolfsteller
Assistant Treasurer - Harvey Rendall
Secretary - 011ie Roropchak
Accepted EDA 1994 Year -End Financial
Statements and Activity Report. All
existing GMEF loan paybacks are current.
Bill Demeules appointed EDA member
replacing Bob Mosford.
7-25-95. Reviewed the preliminary and formal GMEF
applications from the H -window Company.
Loan No. 008 became null and void, 1-15-
95.
Approved GMEF Loan No. 009 for the H -
window in the amount of $50,000 at 5.04
fixed interest rate and amortized over 7
years for equipment. ,
In preparation of planning for the 1996
City Budget, the EDA requested $100,000
from the Liquor Fund.
9-13-95. Reviewed the preliminary and formal GMEF
application from Vector Tool &
Manufacturing, Inc. (VTM).
Approved GMEP Loan No. 010 for VTM in the
amount of $50,000 at 6.751 fixed interest
rate and amortized over 20 years, balloon
in 5 years for real estate. Disbursed
11-21-95 from Liquor Fund.
11-28-95. Reviewed the preliminary and formal GMEP
application from Tapper'o, Inc.
Approved GMEF Loan No. 011 for Tappers in
the amount of $100,000 at 6.751 fixed
interest rate and amortized over 20
years, balloon in 5 years for real
estate/equipment.
In preparation of annual appointments,
the EDA recommended the EDA and HRA
remain aS two independent c(x=iooion
organizationo, waive the city reoidency
requirement for commicoicnero, and re-
appoint Ron Hoglund.
ICG
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
1996 Cash Flow Projection
BEGINNING CASH BALANCE, January 1996
$202,495.31
BiiCEIPT;i
Appropriations, Expected -
Liquor Fund
$100,000.00
UDAG
$100,000.00
Notes Amortization Payments -
Tapper Inc. ($736.07 Mo.) 8-97
$ 8,832.84
Muller Theatre
-0-
SMM, Inc. ($316.32 Mo.) 12-97
$ 3,795.84
Aroplax Corp. ($1,241.73 Mo.) 12-99
$ 14,900.76
Custom Canopy, Inc. ($269.03 Mo.) 6-98
$ 3,228.36
Standard Iron ($795.49 Mo.) 7-01
$ 9,545.90
Vector Tool ($380.18 Mo.) 11-00
$ 4,562.16
Interest Income - Investment
$ 3,000.00
Loan Fees
$ 2,500.00
Miscellaneous
S 1.300.00
TOTAL RECEIPTS
8251.665.96
OTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND RECEIPTS
$454,161.17
EXPENDITURES
GMEF Loans -
Tapper, Inc. (approved 11-95 UDAG)
$100,000.00
Standard Iron
$ 70,000.00
Other
$ 30,000.00
Legal Fees
$ 1,000.00
Service Fees
S 150.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
8201.150.00
EXPECTED CASH BALANCE, December 1996
$253.011.17
11D
EDA AGENDA
JANUARY 23, 1996
Consideration to Reviewa -.r au.-UDAG. and ERG Funds.
-
All GMEF loan payback payments are current as accounted for in
the 1995 year-end statements. The approved $50,000 H -Window
Company GMEF Loan No. 008 became null and void in early 1995.
Loan No. 009 for $50,000 was approved on July 25, 1995, for
the H -Window and becomes null and void on January 25, 1996.
The VTM loan of $50, 000 was disbursed from the Liquor Fund
November 21, 1995. The Tapper loan of $100,000 will be
disbursed in 1996.
Copies of the UDAG-FSI and SCERG-Aroplax fund balances are
enclosed. The payback payments are current and the fund
balances are available for use by the EDA. The 1994 awarded
$250,000 SCERG-H-Window Loan was canceled by the company.
The $250,000 SCERG and $100,000 CMIF-Standard Iron loan
payback payments are current as accounted in the 1995 year-end
statements. Remember, this SCERG was awarded to Wright County
for a loan to Standard Iron. The EDA receives $1,000 annually
from Wright County to administer the SCRRG loan and $15 and
$10 per month to service the SCERG and CMIF loans,
respectively.
a
�4P
Or
or
URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT (UDAG) - FSI
FINANCIAL REPORT
December 31, 1995
Payback began in January, 1988 for 12 years ending in January, 2000.
Annual principal and interest payback total is $27,971.40.
ORIGINAL
PAID REMAINING
Principal $256,957.71
$159,615.81 $97,341.90
Interest $78,700.35
$64,155.39 $14,544.96
TOTAL $335,658.06
$223,771.20 $111,886.86
REVENUES
Principal Payback
$159,615.81
Interest Payback
$64,155.39
Interest Income - Investment:
1990
$6,342.02
1991
$8,593.59
1992
$8,436.32
1993
$8,647.10
1994
$3,756.77
1995
$0.00
Transfer from GMEF - [company)
Transfer from GMEF - (company)
TOTAL REVENUES $259,547.00
EXPENDITURES
1991 Transfer to GMEF
$65,000.00
1992 Transfer to GMEF
$20,000.00
1993 Transfer to GMEF
$42,500.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$127,500.00
FUND BALANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $132,047.00
;"�oha1
UDW.wrc1: 01r4M 11
SMALL CITIES ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT (SCERG) - AROPLAX
FINANCIAL REPORT
v
December 31, 1995
Payback began in December, 1992 for 7 years ending in November, 1999.
Annual principal and interest payback total is $29,801.40.
Fast $100,000 principal payback ends January, 1997.
GRANT TOTALS
Grant must be expended by December 31, 1994, up to $170,000.
EXPENDED: $116,556.75
ORIGINAL
PAID
REMAINING
Principal
$170,000.00
$73,355.98
$96,644.02
Interest
$37,969.92
X18,531.77
$19,438.15
TOTAL
$207,969.92
$91,887.75
$116,082.17
Principal
Jan. 1997
$170,000.00
GMEF
$100,153.60
STATE
$69,846.40
Interest
$29,634.75
$23,659.34
P.975.41
TOTAL
$199,634.75
$123,812.94
$75,821.81
Grant must be expended by December 31, 1994, up to $170,000.
EXPENDED: $116,556.75
1993
$16,996.18
1993
$12,356.59
1993
$4,021.10
1/18/94
$15,132.50
4/13/94
$4,936.88
7/20194
$170,000.00
REVENUES
Principal Payback $73,355.96
Interest Payback $18,531.77
Interest Income - Investment:
1993 $1,061.92
1994 $1,256.00
1995 (est.)
TOTAL REVENUES $94,205.67
EXPENDIT tREa
Transfer to GMEF X0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0.00
FUND BALANCE FOR SMALL CITIES GRANT
i'
.554
rW4�.
SCERG-A.WKt: Will 8
$94,20"'T
11 G
SUMMARY
GMEF Cash Balance
$202,495.31
UDAG Cash Balance
$132,047.00
SCREG-Aroplax Cash Balance
$ 94,205.67
Subtotal
$428,747.98
Liquor Fund Appropriation
$100,000.00
TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR 1996
$528,757.98
114
CENTRAL MINNESOTA INITIATIVE FUND (CMIF) • STANDARD IRON
FINANCIAL REPORT
December31,1995
Payback began in July, 1994 for 7 years ending in June, 2001.
Annual principal and interest payback total is $13,322.52.
EXPENDED: $100,000.00
1994
$100,000.00
REVENUES
Loan Payback
$19,983.78
Interest Income - Investment:
1994
$0.00
1995
TOTAL REVENUES
$19,983.78
EXPENDITURES
Reimbursement to Wright County
$19,803.78
Transfer to GMEF
$0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$19,803.78
FUND BALANCE FOR CENT MN INITIATIVE FUND
CMiFSINK4: 01I19M
$180.00
ak°�a1
%rM
S^
,, y
SMALL CITIES ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT (SCERG) • STANDARD IRON
FINANCIAL REPORT
December 31,1995
Payback began in July. 1994 for 7 years ending in June, 2001.
Annual principal and interest payback total is $33,306.12.
Grant must be expended by December 31, 1994, up to $250,000.
EXPENDED:
REVENUES
Loan Payback
Grant Administrative Fee
Interest Income- Investment:
1994
TOTAL REVENUES
p_ PENDITURE t
Reimbursement to Wright County
Transfer to GMEF
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$250,000.00 8/18194
FUND BALANCE FOR SMALL CITIES GRANT
$49,959.18
$2,000.00
$51,959.18
$49,689.18
$0.00
$49,689.18
$2,2/0.00
SCERO$I.WK1:01/19M 11 T
w)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUND (EDA)
FINANCIAL REPORT
December 31, 1995
GMEF Loan 001- Tappers: $88,000 at 8% amortized 20 year;; balloon 7 years.
GMEF Loan 002 - Muller Theatre: $50,000 at 8% amortized 20 years; balloon 5 years.
GMEF Loan 004 - Bargees: $50,000 at 4.5% amortized 20 years; balloon 5 years.
GMEF Loan 005 - Schoen's: $85,000 at 6% amortized 7 years.
GMEF Loan 006 - Birkeland: $42,500 at 4.5% amortized 20 years; balloon 5 years.
GMEF Loan 007 - Demeules: $75,000 at 5% amortized 7 years.
GMEF Loan 010 - Blue Chip: $50,000 at 6.75% amortized 20 years; balloon 5 years.
ORIGINAL
Tapper/Genereux (1990)
LOAN
$88,000.00
PRINCIPAL PAID INTEREST
$12,061.51
PAID BALANCE
$35,782.92
REMAINING
$75,938.49
Muller/Monti Theatre (1990)
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$13,839.95
$0.00
Barger/Suburban (1992)
$50,000.00
$5,024.07
$8,680.52
$44,975.93
Schoen/Aroplax (1992)
$85,000.00
$33,356.77
$12,587.24
$51,643.23
Birkeland/Custom Can (1993)
$42,500.00
$3,558.97
$4,780.96
$38,941.03
Demeules/Stand Iron (1993)
$75,000.00
$9,041.12
$5,277.70
$65,958.88
Blue Chip/Vector Tool (1995)
$50,000.00
X98.93
$281.25
$49,901.07
TOTALS
$440,500.00
$113,141.37
$79,030.54
$327,358.63
INVESTMENT INTEREST EARNINGS:
1990
$18.00
Walk 1991
3Q
$696.78
1992
$663.02
,} 1993
$2,017.48
a 1994
ItF
$2,839.86
(est) 1 995
�
$6.235.014
EDA.WKI: 0123M
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
LOAN STATUS
December 31,1995
Economic Development Authority (EDA) was created in 1989.
APPROVED LOANS
Tapper/Genereux (1990) $88,000.00
Muller/Monti Theatre (1990) $50,000.00
BargertSuburban (1992) $50,000.00
Schoen/Aroplax (1992) $85,000.00
Birkeland/Custom Canopy (1993) $42,500.00
Demeules/Standard Iron (1993) $75,000.00
Blue Chip DevNector Tool (1995) $50,000.00
TOTAL APPROVED LOANS
LOAN DISBI
Liquor Fund:
1991 to Tapper
$73,000.00
1992 to Suburban
$50,000.00
1992 to Aroplax '
$65,000.00
1994 to Standard Iron
$75,000.00
1995 to Vector Tool
$50,000.00
Total Liquor Fund
$313,000.00
UDAG Fund:
1991 to Tapper
$15,000.00
1991 to Muller
$50,000.00
1992 to Aroplax
$20,000.00
1993 to Custom Canopy
$42`500.00
Total UDAG Fund
$127,500.00
TOTAL LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
GMEF.WK1: 01/18198
$440,500.00
0 WO -6
��r��pnal
II I-
IFN 03 '96 06:41PM H WINDOW COMPANY
Sow FbNo►uramntr
January 3, 1995
011ie Koropchak
Economic Development Director
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 65382-9245
Dear 011ie:
I would like to formally confirm our telephone conversation Informing the ctty that
The H Wtndow Company Is no longer interested In pursuing the $150,000 loan
through the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development as well
as the $50,000 approved through the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund. The
company tools that the conditions imposed on us by Brad Simonson and the
state to secure the loan are unreasonable and not in Ilne with what was
approved in the original application. It is truly disappointing considering the fact
that the company prooeeded forward In good faith to finance the expansion
project on Its own until the loans were dosed on and disbursed.
1 appredate your assistance in trying to complete this transaction. it would have
been a benefit for both us and the city.
Regard
Jahn F.
Operatlons Manager
= Bradley Simonson
Ww,V.cmWY - ,moD.
o—. UM
�1 M
PtWM: rou) n5- Aw (n7) QD "M - (=) T 44-Ww
Council Agenda - 2/12196
T -TPA r" M--- M.- :, TMrWW,TLTtr7w.- t r.TM 17 l:1
A RFFFRENrE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to review the documentation prepared by SRF traffic
engineers working on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The purpose of the study is to define the best location for a future Mississippi
River Crossing. The bridge crossing is slated for construction in 15 to 20
years. Please see the study for detail.
In summary, the study determined that there are three options that deserve
further consideration. The Hasty/Enfield option (DD places the bridge 5-6
miles northwest of Monticello. The second option is located near Clearwater
(C). The third option is located near St. Cloud (A). It was the view of the
Planning Commission that the City Council should formally support the
Hasty/Enfield option because it results in the greatest level of improvement
to congestion expected at Highway 25. According to the attached table
developed by SRF, the traffic at Highway 25 under the no -build alternative
will amount to a remarkable 39,000 vehicle trips per day. (The current
vehicle trips per day at the river crossing is estimated at 16,000). To give you
additional perspective on the level of traffic that 39,000 vehicles represents,
the current level of traffic on Division Street in St. Cloud is about 21,000 to
25,000 trips vehicle trips per day.
The Hasty/Enfield option will reduce Highway 25 congestion by 4,600
vehicles. Option C reduces congestion on Highway 25 by 3,100 vehicles, and
Option A reduces Highway 25 traffic by 2,100 vehicles. Option A reduces
traffic at the Clearwater Bridge ( Highway 24) to a greater degree than
Options D1 and C; however, the level of congestion on Highway 24 is not as
severe as is expected on Highway 25; therefore, from a system standpoint, it
should be a priority to build a bridge that reduces traffic on Highway 25
versus a bridge that will reduce traffic on Trunk Highway 24. Thus, Option
D 1 should be the preferred option because it optimizes operation of the state
highway system by resulting in the greatest positive impact on the bridge
that will be experiencing the highest level of congestion.
W ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt resolution supporting further exploration of Option D1
(Hasty Enfield).
Motion to deny adoption of a resolution supporting fLrther exploration
of Option DI.
Council Agenda - 2tl2t96
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has been informed that there is considerable pressure to locate the
bridge near St. Cloud based on the nearby land development potential
associated with a bridge construction near a large city. It is the view of the
Planning Commission and City staff that the criteria for selecting the bridge
location should be based on state transportation system efficiency and not
based on special land development interests; therefore, staff and Planning
Commission recommend approval of a resolution supporting the Hasty/
Enfield location.
Study summary data; Resolution to be provided at meeting.
20
SRF
m magm OWW"WR of TM%Frt im DIutrIG D
6 1 Rhe Cn=bV
141 Ir2m
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSING STUDY
OPEN HOUSE
AGENDA
January 31, 1996 Becker City Hall
February 1, 1996 St Cloud City Hall
5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
...................................Informal Viewing of Exhibits
7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
...................................Short Consultant Presentation
► Background
► Analysis
► Findings
7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
...................................Question and Answer Session
8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
...................................Informal Viewing of Exhibits
9:00 P.M.
................. I ................. Adjournment
Written Comments Will Be Accepted Through February 15th
N
ob
IN
WHY DO A RIVER CROSSING STUDY?
► Improve understanding of issues and problems
► Determine local community concerns and issues
► Coordinate local and regional transportation goals
Focus financial resources on best solutions
► Prevent/minimize future transportation problems
Mississippi Riven Crossing Study Study
Purpose
c�„pc.a..uc
IN
i
EXP"NAT M
(IOA lI Op V• rY)
.(ICJ CL".~ CO r CO r Cl Oa
rrmb Or f1110. 1M o.Y.
cin 1-II��.R1f r.lr.V�y/.I �CLLf r•(.O..�w�r�Iwlly w�fl.�\�[iy wr.t�i wn�Cw+
Orlr CrrYrrrU
O Yd w1 ee.1r Il�r
a rna.e wa.n
n r..rn.&AP tarbo
-- c.wm."
04 Pi -ml RUSSISSIPPa nuvenr cros5�e Saudy
mala14n/D' F)Wtrk-t 3
Crossing Cort i)rs
OSI. Cloud
@Clearwater - Expanded
@Clearwater - New
@Hasty/Decker
of Enfield/Decker
@Monticello
OAllleriville
Slud
Corridor
TABLE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSING STUDY
COMPARISON MATRIX
Corridors
Corridor A
(St. C104
Corridor 8
(Clearwater Exp.)
Conl(W C
(Clearwater New)
Corrldot 0
(HoslyBacker)
Corridor 01
(Enfield-Baoke4
Corridor E
(Monticello)
• Good
O Fair
O Poor
-mom
N
V
aRF Co W&V Croup, fro.
Jewry 25.1086
SvAem Evaluation
Benefit Cost Evaluation
Travel
Congestion
Types
System
Safely
Benefits
Improvement
Benefit/Cost
Imorovement
of Trios
Conneclions
Benefits
VMTNHT
Costs
O
O
O
O
O
NIA
WA
O
•
O
•
•
O
•
O
O
O
•
O
•
O
O
•
O
•
•
O
•
o
•
•
o
0
o
0
O
•
O
O
•
O
•
•
O
O
O
t7
•
0
fi
SRF
MhV9M De(MM" of Tm mW mn Dagn- J
Aftsump RfvW Cm=Vstay
IMM
STUDY FINDINGS
► There are significant seasonal traffic fluctuations to the major highways within the study area. Summer
volumes can exceed average annual volumes by 30-40 percent and peak recreational volumes can
exceed average annual volumes by as much as 60.70 percent
► River crossing segments of TH 24, TH 25 and TH 101 have accident rates that are significantly above the
average nates for similar facilities.
► TH 10 from Big Lake to Elk River has an accident rate that is significantly above the average rate for
similar facility.
' ► If no additional river crossing capacity is constructed, the operational characteristics on TH 24 and TH 25
will degrade to a point where congestion regularly occurs on weekdays throughout the year by 2015.
► If no additional capacAty improvements are made to 1-94 between Monticello and Rogers, the operational
characteristics on this segment of 1-94 will degrade to a regularly congested level by 2015.
► The TH 24 and TH 101 river crossings carry predominately medium and long range trips while TH 25
carries a higher number of short trips.
► The Albertiville corridor was screened from further study because it would attract only half as many of the
medium/long range trips as compared to the other corridors. This corridor also would not adequately
resolve the congestion on TH 24.
P. The study found that the specific alignment within the individual study corridors was a significant factor in
determining travel time savings and vehicle operating savings.
► The Monticello and Hasty - eecker corridors did not compare favorably to the other corridors in terms of
travel time savings, vehicle operating savings and accident savings. This resulted in a poor benefit/cost
ratio and a recommendation that these corridors not be considered for further study.
P. Current land use trends Indicate that the Mer corridor will continue to develop. If nothing is done to
preserve a future corridor a new river crossing location will be difficult to develop.
D. The Mississippi River corridor within the study area is designated as a Wild and Scenic River. Any
additional crossing will have to oonfomh to the rules and regulations that govem this designation.
P. The St. Cloud, Clearwater and Enfield -Becker corridors have significant benafit/cost advantages over
other corridors. These corridors are recommended for further study.
Local communities along the study area indicated a desire to have the crossing dose to their
municipal limits to gain development benefits. In addition, they also indicated a desire to remove
through traffic on congested facilities within their communities.
CZE
t2o- 5-56 MON 1626 SRF FAX 110. 4752425 r. uc
W Cw WM* Om*. WL BV •.CT AI
I� r
TABLE
ORF No 2702.1
MMAM36R RNER
CROSSM0 STUDY
m 1.77;8
111PACTi OF ALTER7LATNES OR EXSTMO CROSI WW
RIw Goswv Limb (1)
A7bA1lr
TH 23
TH 24
M23
CR 42
TM 101
N" Lb*
N. DwrA
2.700
3CLM]0,000
1%100
NAW
0
am"vdr )
SOJ
BABE -70
ALTAl
Ow
-1300
•1AW
-M.7W
4x00
i,100
.7m
. 0
•740
O
0
.26AW
ALTA1.70
-1.00
-20.100
.2.400
.700
-100
•2OA0
ALT A2
•7m
.2O,Ym
.2,100
0
0
.20.7W
ALT Al
4500
.27,100
.2.00
0
0
.31AW
ALTM
4500
,2YAW
-2,700
0
0
.i1.2W
ALT AS
3m
.21,1W
.3,tW
.200
.200
4722W
ALTS
dW
.2AW
.2.100
O
0
0
C /c p e wrkr'
ALT Cl
400
-,1, 00
.3,T00
—
.200
.22_400
ALTCt•70
.300
•11.00
JAW
HOD
-M
•21,700
ALT CT
0
.21.700
-0,000
-700
•200
.51,100
ALTs
.200
•11,100
JIM
JW
-240
.22.000
ALT U
.Too
.11,400
.3.000
,100
,100
.22,000
ALT 01
0
•11.100
•2,100
.200
-400
.20,SW
ALT DO L
0
•11,4004
.3W
-200
.21.000
AL7 08 i
0
-17.100
-IW
.2m
.21Am
rAW
ALT E1
0
-17A0D
•100
d0O
•25,190
ALT1
0
•1.00
4w
•2.100
.12.000
•w OI
i+ �t
f�
W Cw WM* Om*. WL BV •.CT AI
I� r
Council Agenda - 2/12/96
I i V 1/ i-1 I �% • I
Council is asked to consider appointing a member of the City Council to
represent the City Council on the Monticello Community Partners (MCP)
Board of Directors. The MCP nominating committee has reviewed and
developed an organizational structure for the Board of Directors, which
includes a City Council member. The Board also includes membership from
the Planning Commission, HRA, Parks Commission, Chamber of Commerce,
Merchants group, and three members of the community at large. As you will
see on the attached organizational chart, the MCP group is charged with
organizing the private initiative efforts associated with redevelopment of the
downtown/riverfront area. Integral to the success of the program is good
communication and coordination between the MCP and city hall. The
Council member appointed to this position will be responsible for providing
this important link.
Following is information recently submitted to the Board of Directors for
review at a recent meeting. Please note that in the packet you will find a
copy of a request for proposals for planning services associated with
redevelopment planning efforts initiated by the HRA. This planning effort
will be funded by pooled TIF funds available to the HRA. The planning
effort represents an implementation step of the comprehensive plan and will
feature coordination of visioning workshops already completed by the MCP
via Theresa Washburn. The redevelopment planning process will also
feature continued public input and discourse. Of course, City Council will
provide a major source of input on this plan. Council members interested in
serving on the MCP board should step forward or face the possibility of a
nomination by another Council member.
Council should note that City staff has been providing support to the MCP
throughout the initial organization development process. The MCP is
currently looking at hiring a full-time staff person and has already been
granted free office space at the Chamber office. It is expected that in the
future, the full-time MCP staff person will be taking over any secretarial
duties that City staff is currently providing to the group. City activity
relating to the MCP will then be focused on assisting with the redevelopment
planning process and other duties relating to Parks Commission, Planning
Council Agenda - 2112t96
Commission, City Council, and HRA activities. Finally, Jeff O'Neill and 011ie
Koropchak will be serving as staff liaisons to the MCP Board. Wanda
Kraemer will be serving as staff liaison to the Promotions Subcommittee, and
Rick Wolfsteller will be serving as staff liaison to the Economic Restructuring
Subcommittee.
I believe the community should be commended for pulling together to develop
the organizational framework to move forward toward tackling difficult
redevelopment issues. The next few months will be very interesting as the
planning consultant selected via the RFP process helps guide the community
toward development of a plan for redevelopment.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Information packet provided to the MCP Board of Directors at recent
meeting.
250 Fast Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
.134. �.
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
TO: Board of Directors
Monticello Community Partners (MCP)
FROM: Jeff ONeill and 011ie Koropchak
DATE: February b, 1996
RE: February 7 agenda and information regarding downtown/riverfront
development
Enclosed is information regarding the MCPs downtown/riverfront development project for
your review. Please read each document prior to your next committee meeting so that you
are aware of the status of the project to date.
Following is a brief explanation of each document enclosed:
RFP AND LETTER - The Request For Proposals (RFP) and letter for planning
services were mailed to 14 planning/architectural firms on January 26. The
deadline for return of the RFP is March 4. Selection of a planner will occur in mid-
March. The planning project is funded by the HRA and will include extensive input
from the MCP, its subcommittees, and City commissions.
The planning/architectural firm selected through the RFP process will be
responsible for working with the committees and citizens to develop a design, traffic,
market, and financial plan for redevelopment of the traditional downtown and
nearby riverf ont area. The final plan must stem from community involvement and
reflect the desires of the public.
ORGANIZATION CHART - Shows the organization of the MCP/City commissions
and their role in the redevelopment process.
113
Memo
J MCP Board of Directors
February 5, 1996
Page 2
MCP MEMBER LIST - A complete listing of all committee members, along with
possible volunteers and interested citizens who attended the first general meeting.
If your name, address, or phone numbers are incorrect, please notify 011ie
Koropchak at city hall, 295-2711.
MCP SIGN-UP FORM - If someone you know is interested in joining one of the
committees or volunteering for a specific phase of the project, please have them
complete this form and submit to 011ie Kompchak at city hall, 250 East Broadway,
PO Boz 1147, Monticello, MN, 55362.
OVERVIEW OF TETE VISIONING WORKSHOP - THERESA WASHBURN.
It is expected that the MCP Board will hire a staff person. This position will be
responsible for coordinating the activities of the MCP Board and the three MCP
subcommittees. City staff will continue to provide support until this person is available for
duty.
If you have questions regarding the RFP, committees, or project, please call Jeff or 011ie at
295-2711.
cc: File
as