The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 01-13-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO Crry COUNCIL Monday, January 18, 1997.7 p -m. Mayor:" Bill Fair Councilmembers: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Bruce Thiele., Roger Carlson 1. Call to order. 2. Oath of office for new Mayor and Councilmembers. 3. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 9, the special meeting held December 18, and the special meeting held December 30, 1996. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complainer 6. Consent agenda. h ��, 1�r.,..nrc� - lZa��.,1i r�N�`�� uf- r / C At i S`•�y �ti''"•.r Gtr ,l�. c....-�• 1 1 (oA T A. Consideration to approve the agreement amending the Contract for �4 Private Redevelopment among the HRA, Cedru, Creek Craftsman, f Inc., and the City of Monticello. B. Consideration of authorizing city staff to prepare environmental assessment worksheet for the high school construction project. C. Consideration of purchase of a micro computer for building permit applications. 7. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 8. Consideration of a request by Monticello Post Office to utilize city property for establishing a second driveway exit from post office facility. 9. Consideration of selecting a financing alternative for wastewater treatment plant construction loan. i /�!, �,,,y „ T " I , -3 , + r 10. Consideration of amendments to the snowmobilo ordinance specifying that it is unlawful to operate snowmobiles on city pathways. 11. Consideration of annual appointments for 1997. 12. Consideration of establishing a plan for prioritizing projects Agenda Monticello City Council January 13, 1997 Page 2 13. Consideration of a resolution authorizing ISTEA grant application for pedestrian walkway overpass. 14. Consideration of bills for the last half of December. 15. Adjournment. s SN o w d I S (N Sig o „1 - (IR f u 6° do,,+t_ 7'."4 S%dti,%cce. 1J.4f— M1NUTE8 REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 8, 1886 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None Approval of minutes of the special meeting 1hP.1rj November 12. t" hpreg ,lnr meptino h ld November 25, and the aeecisal meeting held December 4 1916, Mayor Brad Fyle requested that the dollar amounted noted in paragraph 3 of the November 12 special minutes be changed from $30,000 to $15,000. Councilmember Tom Perrault requested that "the addition of Block 55 and Block A" be added to paragraph 4 on page 6 of the November 25 regular meeting minutes. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 12 AS CORRECTED, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 25 AS CORRECTED, AND THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 4, 1996, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously. A. Assistant Administrator Jell' O'Neill reported that the purpose of the meeting was to describe the four river -crossing options in more detail. The options will be scrutinized during the next year in an effort to narrow down the options further. O'Neill noted that State planners voiced the importance of maintaining limited freeway access and encouraging development to remain in existing communities whero utilities are already present. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that he continues to work with the County Auditor's offloo in using the best method for conveyance of the tax -forfeited parcels located in the Meadow Oak subdivision. Page 1 Council Minutes - 12/9/96 Mayor Fyle stated that he would like to see the City market the lots in order to get them back on the tax rolls. A. Mr. Robert Jameson congratulated the City for a job well done in taking care of the roads during the 1995-1996 winter months. Con_aent arrPa n, A. Consideration of fund r naf rs far 1996- Recommendation: Approve the transfers as proposed. .o aid ration of igpetini home occupation perm -it which would allow ,na i h services in gn R-1 7.nnp Apphicnn`t, Daniel Wermera_ Recommendation: Approve the special home occupation permit which would allow gunsmith services in an R-1 zone with the following condition: A aecurity system must be installed in the home. Approval is based on the finding that the gunsmith service as proposed would be virtually transparent to the neighborhood and would have no effect on the residential character of the area, and the operation is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously. None. Kathy Adams, representing the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF), presented the City Council with a plaque thanking the City of Monticello for its $1,000 donation for the year 1997. Funding support enables the CMIF to make grants and loans to various businesses and community organizations throughout o 14 -county central Minnesota area. No action was needed by Council. Pago 2 0 Council Minutes - 12/9/96 Vnngidp.ration nftipfininp, f holaoa Road/I-94/Highway 26 roadway intersection alignments. Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that the concept of improving transportation access at I-94 and Highway 25 was the result of a transportation study completed in 1994. After a general study of three alternatives was completed by OSM, option #1 was deleted since it didn't meet MN/DOT standards, and the City began obtaining input from the public on options #2 and 03. City staff conducted an open house on December 5, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed Chelsea Road intersection with the public. ONeill noted that opinions and concerns regarding alignment options #2 and #3 were mixed; however, most agreed that a problem existed and that the City should pursue a solution for the long-term benefit of the city as a whole. In addition, the concept of developing the loop ramp financed by the State for eastbound I-94 was well received. ONeill stated that although cost figures at this time are vague, it is necessary to select an option so that the figures can be better identified. Ron Bray of WSB explained that there have been operational problems and lack of storage space for left turns at the Oakwood Drive to I-94 area. After reviewing traffic volumes and accident rates, Bray summarized each option, noting that option #2 would address safety, capacity, vehicle storage, future development, and was the most -preferred option by the public. In addition, he noted that option #2 would have the least overall impact to businesses in the affected area. Option 03 would address safety and capacity but would reduce the amount of vehicle storage, and it would have the most impact on existing businesses. This option would also provide less opportunity for future development in the area because it would sever parcels that are currently undeveloped. Therefore, after reviewing each alternative, WSB & Associates recommended alternative 4#2 as the best overall plan. Council discussed options #2 and 03, and it was noted that option #3 was not included in the information packet for this meeting. Bret Weiss of WSB noted that both options #2 and #3 would impact businesses and that it was difficult to identify all possible impacts at this time. He stated that there would be long-term cost issues for the City regarding the purchase of property along Chelsea Road and that the City would be responsible for payment of damages to the owner of the 18 -acro parcel which would be severed if option 03 was selected. It was Weiss's opinion that option #2 would be the cleanest option for the City. Page 3 0 Council Minutes - 12/9/96 Dorothy Ritz, co-owner of Total Mart, stated that construction plans showed that a median would be installed to prevent cars from turning left from Highway 25 to Total Mart and that traffic would be rerouted to enter from the backside of the building. It was Ritz's opinion that this, along with the City's strict sign ordinance, would be deadly to their business. She suggested that the City consider installing a center turn lane such as those used in the downtown area, or perhaps the City could delay installing the median for 5- 10 years until needed. Ron Bray and Bret Weiss of WSB explained that setting up left turn lanes would take away from the storage capacity for the major intersection. In addition, it was noted that MN/DOT has the authority to close a median opening at any time, which they have exercised in the past. Mark Scott requested that the City also consider the property that would be severed with option #2 near the RV Center. The property was purchased for expansion purposes, but option #2 would destroy that opportunity. Bob Abel, a real estate developer from St. Cloud, noted that he has been working with the City for quite some time regarding development of the 18 - acre parcel along Chelsea Road. Abel explained that option 03 would direct that parcel and leave much of the land unusable; however, option #2 would allow development of the full 18 acres by businesses that have a current interest. Public Works Director John Simola questioned whether the City would save any money with option #2. He recommended that the City select option #3 because it would allow the City to build up the east side of Highway 25. Option #2 would impact the Sandberg pond where the City's main storm sewer system is located. Simola was concerned about hidden costs to the City in trying to negotiate and purchase properties and noted that he would prefer to see MN/DOT take this project rather than the City. Dan Mielke, owner of Ultra Lube, noted his support for option #2. It was his view that option 02 would present the most opportunity for the City and its residents, as it would create multiple undeveloped prime commercial properties and bring substantial tax base to the city. Option #3 would create only one undeveloped commercial parcel. Dean Carlson of D & D Bus also noted his support for option 02 since it would have the least impact on his business. Carlson also pointed that option #2 would allow sufficient stacking room for the school buses which access his business four times a day. Pago 4 0 Council Minutes - 12/9/96 The City Council discussed the various impacts of each option, and it was noted that perhaps the Council should hold a workshop in order to discuss the impacts of each option in much more detail. City Engineer Bret Weiss assured the Council that it was not mandatory that they select an option at this meeting and that he would welcome the opportunity to schedule additional public meetings or workshops with the Council and interested parties. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO TABLE SELECTION OF AN I.94/HIGHWAY 25/CHELSEA ROAD ALIGNMENT PENDING FURTHER STUDY BY THE COUNCIL. Mayor Fyle recommended that staff present funding estimates for both options at the future workshops. Motion carried unanimously. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the growth of the community over the past several years has had an effect on the water and sewer collection department in that each one of the new homes, commercial buildings, or industrial buildings being constructed need to have sewer and water services inspected and tested, a water meter installed, wires run for the remote reader on the outside of the building, a final inspection, and at least one or two turn-ons/turn-offs for the water. Also added are manholes, hydrants, sanitary sewer, and water main, which all need to be maintained on a regular basis. In addition, each new home or building constructed requires four additional visits per year for water meter readings, with some requiring more for re -reads or problems. Simola went on to note that an analysis of the workload and discussions with other communities indicated that the easiest way to free up man-hours is to have the water meter installed by the plumber and the reader wire installed by the electrician. This would cut the visits to each house by at least two. The additional cost to the home for these changes should be minimal since the plumber and electrician are already at each home. In addition, Council was asked to consider purchasing motors with encoded meter heads since the manual read meter hand is being discontinued. The encoded meter head would increase the cost of a meter by $18 plus tax; however, it would allow the City to plan for newer technologies in the future such as reading the meters by phone, radio, or scanner. Flmola noted that he would notify all the builders and would allow 60.90 days for builders to plan for the change. Page 5 r Council Minutes - 12/9/96 A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO REVISE THE POLICY FOR WATER METER INSTALLATION BY REQUIRING THAT THE WATER METER BE INSTALLED BY THE PLUMBER AND THE READER WERE BY THE ELECTRICIAN, AND TO INCREASE THE WATER METER CHARGE BY $18 PLUS TAX IN ORDER TO USE ENCODED METERS. Motion carried unanimously. Public Works Director John Simola noted that sanitary sewer and water use rates were last increased in 1993, the sewer rate by 8.9% and the water rate from 10'% to 16.7'%. For 1996, it was projected that the water fund would break even; however, for 1997, it was estimated that an additional $21,000 in revenue would be needed to meet the projected budget. Because growth in the community is not expected to make up the difference, Council was asked to increase the water rate by 5%. In regard to the sanitary sewer, an additional $15,000 would be needed for 1997. It was expected that new users would come close to covering the $15,000 difference; however, since the operations of the wastewater treatment plant are expected to increase by 20% over the next few years as the now plant comes on line, Council was asked to begin increasing the rates now rather than all at once in the future. A 5% increase to the overall sewer rate was proposed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO INCREASE THE SEWER AND WATER RATES EACH BY 5'%, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997. TILE MINIMUM WATER BILL WOULD BE MAINTAINED AT $7.50 AND THE MINIMUM SEWER BILL AT $10 PER QUARTER. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Brad Fyle. Motion carried. 11. Consideration of reviewing hida received for Inndfill a ianoea_I rhargres, Public Works Director John Simola reported that staff placed an advertisement in the local newspaper and sent a request for proposals regarding landfill charges to Superior FCR Landfill on County Road 37 in Monticello Township and Elk River Landfill on Highway 169 in the city of Elk River. Two proposals were received on December 5, with Elk River Landfill quoting a price of $28.83 per ton and Superior FCR Landfill quoting a price of $38.66 per ton. Simola stated that the proposal from Elk River Landfill appeared to be the most favorable to the City and that he is in the process of checking references. Page 6 y Council Minutes - 12/9/96 Simola went on to note that he and the City Administrator had met with Superior FCR Landfill representatives, who indicated they are in the process of expanding the landfill. They noted they could be much more competitive in a year and requested that the City consider a one-year contract at this time and bid the contract again in one year rather than two as proposed. Council discussed the terms of the contract and noted that locking into such a good price for two years would be very beneficial to the City. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO AWARD A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT TO ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC., FOR LANDFILLING AT A COST OF $28.83 PER TON BASED UPON THEIR PROPOSAL, CONTINGENT ON SATISFACTORY REFERENCES BEING OBTAINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of p r hm;ing a hydraulic valve for installation ofl� ow on in8d,£I. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the public works department would like to have the flexibility of using the spare 12 -ft reversible snow plow on the 936 Caterpillar loader. The loader has a quick hitch attachment already installed but does not have the necessary hydraulic valve to operate the reversible feature of the snow plow. An amount of $5,500 was placed in the 1996 budget; however, the actual coat of adding the used valve and necessary hoses was recently estimated at $9,000. Additional funds were placed in the 1997 budget to make up the difference. Installing a now valve would increase the estimate by $2,000. It was Simola's view that using the reversible plow on the loader would increase the department's efficiency in plowing some of the alleys, parking lots, and cul-de-sacs in the community. Councilmember Brian Stumpf stated that unless the used valve has been completely reconditioned, it may make more sense to install a now valve for the additional $2,000. It was Mayor Fylo's view, however, that the City would get very little for the investment and that he would rather see the City sell the current equipment and invest in a now loader with a plow and wing. Simola noted that the current loader could be used more often by attaching additional equipment. He estimated that a now loader would cost about $100,000. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF THE NECESSARY HYDRAULIC VALVE AND HOSES ON THE 936 CATERPILLAR LOADER AT A COST OF $9,000 WITH THE OPTION OF PURCHASING A NEW Page 7 0 Council Minutes - 12/9/96 VALVE FOR AN ADDITIONAL $2,000 IF THE PROPOSED USED VALVE HAS NOT BEEN TOTALLY RECONDITIONED. Voting in favor. Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault. Opposed: Brad Fyle. Motion carried. 13. Consideration of hiring Chief B ,il ina,Offirial_ Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the City received 12 applications and interviewed 4 candidates for the vacant Chief Building Official position. Due to his tremendous level of experience, Fred Patch was offered the position of Chief Building Official, and he accepted under the terms of a private contract. His experience includes 9 years as Chief Building Official at Brooklyn Park and a number of years as a building inspector for the City of Golden Valley. In addition, he has a degree in architecture. The terms were negotiated based on the understanding that in the near future, the contract arrangement may change to become a full-time position as originally contemplated. O'Neill stated that because of Fred's experience and current salary, the terms of the negotiation included a starting salary as a private contractor at a rate equal to the highest step in the pay range plus benefits. It was noted that Fred's level of experience would enable him to perform at a high level, thus justifying the starting rate. The private contract arrangement was requested because it would provide Fred with more flexibility in personal financial planning with regard to PERA benefits. Vacation benefits were negotiated to accrue at the rate of two weeks the first year and three weeks thereafter, which would accrue only at such time that Fred would become a full-time employee. Councilmember Herbst noted his concern with veering from the vacation schedule since it had not been changed for the previous Chief Building Official. Councilmember Stumpf explained that the increase in vacation benefits was justified due to his experience. He noted that the previous individual that held the position did not possess this level of experience. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO HIRE FRED PATCH AS THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL UNDER A PRIVATE CONTRACT AT A RATE OF PAY EQUAL TO THE HIGHEST STEP IN THE PAY RANGE PLUS BENEFITS, WITH THE PROSPECT OF BECOMING A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE IN THE FUTURE, AT WHICH TIME HE WOULD ACCRUE TWO WEEKS OF VACATION THE FIRST YEAR AND THREE WEEKS OF VACATION THEREAFTER. MOTION WAS AMENDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO LIMIT THE PRIVATE CONTRACT TO A MAXIMUM OF 8 WEEKS. Pago 8 0 Council Minutes - 12/9/98 Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault, Brad Fyle, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Motion carried as amended. 1 , - - • 1 , 1 M :,: YJ City Administrator Wolfateller reported that as part of the ongoing maintenance of the current salary system for all non-union employees, the City Council annually reviews the salary schedule and makes adjustments in order to retain the City's pay relationship to the market. In order to provide sufficient dollars within the budget for posshle increases, an amount was included in the 1997 budget equal to a 5% cost of living adjustment. Wolfateller noted that the Minneapolis/SL Paul consumer price index indicated that the current inflation rate for the metro area is between 3.1% and 3.3% on an annual basis. In addition to the CPI information, a salary survey conducted of various communities indicated that the proposals or actual adjustments all appeared to be in the 3% range. Wolfsteller also pointed out that the City of Buffalo establishes a percentage for merit adjustment, which authorizes the Administrator to grant a lump sum merit to employees. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CUNT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ESTABLISH A 3.1% COST OF LriNG INCREASE TO THE NON- UNION PAY SCHEDULE. Motion carried umaimously. lb. rnnaid ration of hill; to date for the mnnth or December. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE BILLS TO DATE FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting wasadboumed. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 9 a.. MIIVUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, December 18, 1896 - 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller explained that as part of the Truth in Taxation requirements, the City Council is required to hold this second public hearing on the adoption of the 1997 budget and the resulting tax levy. At the initial public hearing on Wednesday, December 4, the Council's decision was to keep the proposed tax levy at the $3,059,880 amount, which would result in an estimated 2.86% increase over the 1996 tax levy. There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING THE TAX LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR 1997 AT $3,089,880, A 2.86% INCREASE OVER THE 1998 TAX LEVY. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 96-50. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the latest engineer's estimate for construction of the wastewater treatment plant expansion project, was slightly over $9.2 million, not including engineering, contingencies, first stage digester cover costs, and SBR shop drawings. Nine bids were received on December 12 ranging from a low base bid of $11,283,200 from Adolfson & Peterson to a high bid of $12,980,000 from John T. Jones Construction Company. Bob Peplin of HDR noted that these were very competitive bids and recommended that Council award the project to Adolfson & Peterson. Page 1 0 Special Council Minutes - 12/18/96 John Simola stated that, based on the bid from Adolfson & Peterson, he estimated the total project cost to be $14.7 million, which included past, current, and future costs. It was Simola's view that the bids received were the best the City would receive for the project as designed and that re- bidding the project would not result in lower bids. Mayor Fyle expressed his concern with the increased cost from the original $647 million that was proposed by HDR at the start of the project. He felt that perhaps the City should consider starting over with the project. Council members noted their disappointment with the increased price of the project, but they also pointed out that the City did add some items to the project which increased the cost. Simola cautioned the Council that there is a possibility the City may not meet permit limitations in the spring of 1997. If the project did not go forward at this time, the treatment plant would not meet permit limitations in 1998, and the City would likely have to consider placing a moratorium on future development until another plant was designed and constructed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR PROJECT 93-14C, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION, TO ADOLFSON & PETERSON, INC., AS RECOMMENDED BY HDR. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Brad Fyle, Brian Stumpf. Motion carried. SEE RESOLUTION 9661. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the first contract with HDR for expansion of the wastewater treatment plant stated that the City would pay HDR 8% of the estimated bid price of $8,600,000 for engineer design fees. The contract also stated that engineering fees would be raised to 8'% of the actual bid, which came from Adolfson & Peterson at $11,283,000. After adding the cost for shop drawings for the SBR and the cost of the digester cover, the project cost would total $11,649,000, which is the figure City staff felt should be used to calculate the 8'% fee due to HDR for the design phase. However, HDR disagreed. It was their view that additional fees are due because of the complexity and broadness of the scope of the project. Page 2 oa- Special Council Minutes - 12/18/96 Simola recommended that Council table entering into an agreement with HDR for the neat phase of the project until fees can be negotiated for the Brat portion of the project. It was Simola's view that staff would be able to create the necessary documents to award the project in the meantime. Ed DeLaforest of HDR stated that most of the services rendered have been substantially agreed to. A number of extra services needed to be negotiated, but DeLaforest was confident that an agreement could be reached. A draft proposal by HDR for future services had been provided for Simola's review. Simola suggested that Council authorize staff to continue negotiations with HDR and table this item for consideration at a special meeting. DeLaforest stated that HDR would assist the City with the necessary paperwork for the award to the contractor at no charge to the City. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF ENGINEERING FEES FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION UNTIL A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE HELD MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1996, AT ? P.M. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 3 0 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, December $0, 1986 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of reviewing HDR's engineering fees for wastewater treatment plant expansion and inspection services. Public Works Director John Simola reported that he and City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller held three meetings with HDR representatives, Ed DeLaforest and Bob Peplin, to negotiate additional fees requested by HDR for work already completed. HDR originally requested an additional $139,000 for services rendered, which was negotiated to a price of $29,765. In addition, staff negotiated a price of $803,342 for construction engineering services, which would be broken down into various per diem categories with not -to - exceed maximums. Simola noted that the areas of shop drawing review and change orders would have some flexibility in cost. Once budget amounts have been reached, HDR would only receive additional fees under specific circumstances such as requests for information, additional shop drawings, change orders, or field orders as a result of enhancements added by the City. It was Simola's view that the contract format as negotiated was satisfactory for both the City and HDR, with a reasonable increase to compensate HDR for extra work performed and only a slight increase to the City's anticipated cost. Therefore, he recommended that the Council approve the format of the contract as negotiated with HDR and authorize the project to proceed. Ed DeLaforest of H DR thanked the City Administrator and Public Works Director for their negotiation efforts and stated that the agreement reached would be satisfactory to HDR. With respect to the construction phase services, DeLaforest noted that HDR has worked with Adolfson & Peterson in the past, and they are an excellent contractor. He noted that the agreement would provide for the City paying only for hours actually worked if less than what was originally estimated, and the City would not be charged additional fees if HDR accumulated more hours than estimated. Bob Peplin of HDR added that costs would be tracked on a monthly basis with categories included on each invoice. Page I cd -A-) Special Council Minutes - 12/30/96 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT AND ENGINEERING FEES AS NEGOTIATED BY JOHN SIMOLA, RICK WOLFSTELLER, BOB PEPLIN, AND ED DELAFOREST, INCLUDING PAYMENT TO HDR OF ADDITIONAL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,765 FOR WORK ALREADY COMPLETED AND A PRICE OF $803,342 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES. Motion carried unanimously. John Simola also requested that the Council discuss the possibility of the City hiring a second construction inspector. The second inspector would perform inspections at the wastewater treatment plant project rather than paying the cost of an inspector through HDR, which would cost approximately $160,000 during the 2 - year construction period. It was Simola's view that another inspector on staff would cost the City approximately $35,000 to $40,000 per year plus benefits. Based on the expected growth of the community, there would be more than enough work to employ two construction inspectors once the plant construction is complete, and it was noted that keeping the construction inspector on staff with the knowledge of the plant construction would be very valuable to the City. After discussion, it was the unanimous consensus of the Council to recommend that the new Council authorize City staff to hire a full-time construction inspector to perform inspections at the wastewater treatment plant construction site with the anticipation of keeping the inspector on staff after completion of the plant for other project inspections. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Pago 2 9 Council Agenda • V13/97 r: U 1 , , •, , : 4r:,• , , : ,1 , r: , A. RFFFRFNCF AND BACKGROUND: The Contract for Private Redevelopment is among the HRA, Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc., and the City of Monticello. The overall project objective relates to the redevelopment of Prairie West Second Addition and Prairie West First Addition. As a party to the Contract, the City Council is requested to consider approval of the enclosed agreement. As you recall, a contract defines the level of assistance granted a redeveloper and defines the terms and conditions governing the assistance. An excerpt of the contract dated July 3, 1996, reads: "Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of Phase 1, by December 31, 1996." Therefore, the final plat for Prairie West 2nd Addition to be filed and recorded no later than December 31, 195.6. On December 4, 1996, John Komarek of Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc., the redeveloper, requested the HRA amend the contract amending the commencement date for construction of Phase 1 by December 31, 1996, to July 1, 1997, and the final plat for Prairie West Second Addition filed and recorded by April 1, 1997. It appeared unlikely that the redeveloper would meet the deadline for plat approval because of the need to contact Burlington RR for casement rights to pond or for drainage. Komarek foresees no problem with meeting the completion date for construction of four twinhome units in Phase I by December 31, 1997. In order to prevent default of the contract, the HRA approved the request amending the commencement date for construction for Phase I by July 1, 1997, and the final plat filing and recording date for Phase I by April 1, 1997. It is important to encourage the redeveloper to meet the construction completion dates as defined in the contract, thereby protecting the HRA's investment and return of investment. The HRA reimbursed the redeveloper with upfront assistance for the acquisition of the Hanawalt, Banyai, and Katzmarek parcels in the amount of $177,800 at the closing and paid the City $40,000 for the Gille parcel, providing the redeveloper with a quick claim. Additionally, the HRA agreed to reimburse the rodaveloper an additional $97,500 over time per the contract for a total assistance of $315,000. Council Agenda - 1/13/97 A motion to approve the agreement amending the Contract for Private Redevelopment among the HRA, Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc., and the City of Monticello. A motion to deny approval of the agreement. A motion to table any action. RT FF RFrQMMFNDATIQN, Recommendation is for alternative #1. This agenda item is a housekeeping item. However, remember it is important to encourage the redeveloper to commence and complete the construction of the units as outlined in the contract, thereby protecting the HRA's investment. Agreement; Map. AGREEMENT AMENDING THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of day of , 19_, by and among the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, a public body corporate and politic (the -Authority), Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the "Redeveloper"), and the Cay of Monticello, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "Cay'). WHEREAS, the Authority on December 4, 1996, approved amending the Contract for Private Redevelopment by and among the Cay of Monticello, Minnesota, and Cedrus Creek Craftsman Inc., and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the Cay of Monticello dated July 3, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and agreements made by each other, do hereby accept and agree to the amendments of the Contract as follows: 1. ARTICLE IV. Construction of Minimum Improvements- Platting Section 4.3, Commencement and Completion of Construction. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence corturuction of Phase 1 by July I, 1997. 2. ARTICLE IV. Construction of Minimum Improvements_ Platting. Section 4.5, RkU. The final plat for Phase I shall be filed and recorded by April 1, 1997. CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN, INC. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA AByL�W Its Ctt person Its Its Executive Director CTIV OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA Its Mayor Its Administrator - — -- Preliminary Plat V, CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN c%s. .4 y ,� �/ N .. -r. :' � \n. � iii' - f*. ns✓ W.! ~ e t PRAIRIE WEST 2ND ADDITION r / „ • �� .o o � ..., `�\ .•o°dam %`y � ��// �,l �•�t4`�1�"•)� `e O O �' ;tom'` _ \ �VI�,G• \ h0 �` \` Ih � ,J"Min,% " �.• �•"., ��, ��l � `�\ �., �• `.'ems, �-1t'- .rh/ ~. �.�.. �!P 'Q O � 1 ++may S` ., • CfC [si ff ii fx bA •j4f aia �•�' l �1 C � worouu owcw� � Council Agenda - 1/13/97 =11" I I ' �: MTM-787MI 111. 41 : 1 dr 9 O.T5 •1 1 =1: :SII , I 1 1 1,1 :1�• M7 1 1 1J�1 a City Council is asked to consider authorizing City staff to proceed on development of the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) that must be completed in conjunction with the high school construction project. According to state guidelines, the project proposed by the School District is of a magnitude that requires completion of an EAW and the associated environmental review process. Under this process, the City Engineer, working with the School architect, will prepare data outlining environmental issues relating to the construction and operation of the high school as proposed. This document will then be reviewed by the City Council and submitted to various environmental groups for the purpose of obtaining feedback on the potential impacts of the project. After completion of the response period, the City Council will then review the concerns expressed by the public and various entities that might be concerned and then respond to those concerns in writing. If the concerns can be addressed, then the City Council will be asked to consider making a "negative declaration of impact," which indicates that the project will not have a negative environmental impact and that no environmental impact statement (EIS) is needed. The total coat of this EAW is $9,280, which will be financed by the School District. Motion to authorize preparation of an EAW for the high school construction project. The City will bill the School District for City Engineer expenses as they occur. Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Engineer to complete the EAW on the high school construction project. Under this alternative, the City Engineer will work closely with the school architect to collect data and complete the EAW. This worksheet will then come to the City Council for review and approval at an upcoming meeting followed by the initiation of the publication of the EAW and associated comment period. Motion to deny authorization to prepare an EAW. Council Agenda - 1/13/97 C. STAFF REVOMMFNDATIO : Staff recommends that City Council authorize City stab to begin to work with the School District on this matter immediately. The environmental review process can be time consuming, and it is important that the process begins soon so that the City does not hold up or delay the development of this important project. It is understood that the School District will pay for the coat to complete the EAW process at an estimated coat of $9,250. None. Council Agenda - 1/13/97 ;1, 1 1 As you may know, Fred Patch started with the City today as Chief Building Official. City Council is asked to consider authorizing purchase of a personal computer for use by Fred. Fred is very familiar with personal computers and has used the PC as a tool in completing his duties at Brooklyn Park. The computer will be used for word processing, spreadsheet applications, data base development, building permit report preparation, and for other applications as they arise. Please note that the actual computer purchased under this request may go to Karen Doty, with Doty transferring her computer to Patch. At this point in time, we have not rxWe a determination as to exactly what type of computer to purchase or who will get the new computer. What we do know is that an additional computer is needed, and we are seeking authorization to move forward to purchase the computer once City staff has decided who should get the new computer. In the 1997 budget, $3,000 has been identified for the purchase of this new computer. An additional $5,000 is in the budget for building inspection software. Authorization to spend these funds will occur at some point in the future. 1. Motion to authorize City staff to purchase a personal computer and accessory equipment with the total amount not to exceed the budget amount of $3,000. Under this alternative, City staff will take a little time to determine who should got the new computer and then purchase the equipment accordingly. It is likely that the actual cost will be less than $3,000 due to recent decreases in computer costs. 2. Motion to deny authorization to purchase a personal computer. 3. Motion to table consideration of purchasing a personal computer. If the City Council is not comfortable with authorizing the purchase of a computer without knowing exactly who is going to got the computer, then perhaps the item should be tabled until additional detail is available for the City Council. Council Agenda - 1/13/97 C. STAFF R O RN )ATICN: This item is in the budget, and Patch is well versed in the use of computers; therefore, providing him access to one will make Fred and his department more efficient. To expedite the matter, we think it is reasonable to authorize City staff to move forward in purchasing the equipment as it deems necessary to get the job done. However, if you feel more comfortable in waiting to authorize the purchase until you have a better idea of who is getting what computer, then perhaps the item should be tabled to the next meeting of the City Council. None. Council Agenda - 1/13/97 properly for PstableRhing n second driveway exit from the pmt affi facility- This general topic, in one form or another, has been discussed by the HRA and City Council a number of times in the past few years. The request at this time has been made by Postmaster Jack Hutchinson to see if the City would be agreeable to allowing the post office to construct a simple driveway exit through the rear of their property onto Linn Street through property owned by the City. Enclosed with this agenda package you will find previous Council updates, agenda packages, letters, and other documents that relate to the post office location and adjoining property owned by the law firm of Metcalf, Larson, and Munth. For some of the newer Councilmembers, you may not be aware of some of the history regarding the closure of one of the entrances into the parking lot of the post office from Locust, and it seemed simpler to provide the past agendas and other information for a reference rather than attempting to repeat the entire history that has occurred. To briefly summarize, the Metcalf and Larson partnership was to provide the HRA with a permanent 20 -ft easement from Locust to allow access to the post office facility as part of a tax increment financing project. The developers had entered into an agreement with the HRA to provide the easement but have failed to do so. Metcalf and Larson had requested assistance from the post office property owner for help in maintaining the driveway leading to their property, and the post office and landlord did not feel obligated to provide any maintenance assistance since the easement was supposed to be provided by Metcalf and Larson anyway. Metcalf and Larson chose to close the access off of Locust Street, and the HRA has decided not to pursue any action against the developer to obtain the reopening of the easement, as they felt it's a private matter between the post office, post office landlord, and/or Metcalf and Larson to solve. The result so far is that the post office facility only has one access, that being off of Broadway, and the Postmaster feels it is going to become a safety problem eventually with traffic entering and exiting onto Broadway. The Postmaster would like to see if the City would be willing to allow the post office to construct a gravel exit across the parcel the City owns at the rear of their building to Linn Street. Although the City has offered the property for sale to the post office landlord. I have not had any offers or direct interest in acquiring the property for a reasonable value at this time. I'm sure Mr. Hutchinson is simply looking for a way of providing separate exits from Council Agenda - 1/13/97 the post office without committing a large amount of funds for its construction. The problem will be if the City is agreeable to allowing them to use the property, would we allow a substandard driveway access to be constructed when we wouldn't on any other development? Naturally, the simplest method would be to reopen the 20 -ft easement off of Locust that should have been provided by the developers through the TIF project. It doesn't appear that this is going to happen unless the HRA is willing to seek enforcement of their agreement. Although the idea of using the City property for another access may be reasonable at this time, I do not believe we want to simply allow a gravel driveway to be established without the access meeting our normal design standards. A proper driveway would likely result in tree removal occurring from our property and could also cause some concerns from adjoining property owners due to larger traffic volumes on their streets. Even if the idea warrants further study, the Council would have to decide whether we would provide the lot free of charge or whether a nominal annual lease should be established. Although the post office certainly provides a definite benefit to the downtown area, the Council should remember that the building is privately owned and is leased for profit to the post office. This item was discussed by the Council in April of 1996, and a decision was made to request that the HRA first attempt to enforce its provisions of their own development agreement and re-establish the original 20 -ft easement from Locust Street. As part of that previous action, the City lot was made available to the developer of the post office facility for purchase if he desired to use it for an additional access from Linn Street. Since that does not seem to be occurring, the Postmaster is simply asking for permission to use the property for driveway purposes without their landlord actually buying it. en Council could again request that the HRA attempt to enforce the provisions of their own development agreement and have the driveway easement. re-established (from Locust Street. Council could allow the post office to use or lease the City parcel for access purposes contingent upon the driveway being constructed to normal city standards and provided the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. Council Agenda - 1/13/97 The City could continue to offer the property for sale to the Cinco Corporation, landlord of the post office. The City could decide to deny the request and let the post office, its landlord, and Metcalf and Larson deal with the issues. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It would seem that the simplest procedure for re-establishing two accesses to the post office would be to have the HRA enforce its own agreement with Metcalf and Larson. Since it does not appear that this is going to happen, the Council can decide whether it wants to become involved in this dispute or simply continue to offer the City parcel for sale or agree to a lease arrangement as requested. If an outright purchase is not requested, I would recommend that some type of annual lease payment be received for the use of that property and that the post office and/or its landlord be required to construct the driveway to normal city design standards. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Sketch of Block 50; Various correspondence between Metcalf and Larson and the post office, HRA minutes, and agendas relating to this topic in the past. city parcel 20' easment (now blocked) PID/ 155-010- TIF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 17 10UNOARIE9 DISTRICT DURATION 21110 51 .Intl[9 05014I P �' TAtIgER � �QUI1T'050b10 O FMV 131,011 J 11. i LYSr/. PSO.-I �9 051111 C CHI 117.100 T 7174.70. . 05U110 ,l' •IAV 146.90 T 144 ). el 0 Env µ1.1n0 T 1411.70 I RIVER PARR VIEW' 011110 T 1761.6 ' ' 1 ENV 1403/00 ' ' 1fir I f .92 1 uoUenbolk 050111 y MY 15/.40 T-1905.90 I I I ILfAeUPE /7 /Q /3 /a 051 y1p W 151.100 \S I \4 \•� \1 11 IEMv {III T 11. L55. 4U 1 for I I nRTGA4,C A-LARILW6 n17 l r 1:1 TT d b51g1 X11 I I 1R0A14AE. d1110iirP 1 _— ' $ � 1 In 11IV 11 1 .5110) � �• v•`•yt I 1 I I I 1 [.Y1j1yyn. TT nv i -Ti 1RIIAl1YAT SI$PAIL LIn171:0 PAR7UL1 N1. �•• •' 05111)U ( I 1 I I I ry � U.S. 7'V55T I I I I 1 8 1 101 1 1 = Ip w I V 1100 OKA c bJ � L WT w V. )�prliY j CMV 1619.111I/6L a � Ir 111.496.10 1q1. 05V1161, cul.r� 115goI J.Nv 161.e00� 1 05 i �1� • IA1l)Ledo ..w T It,770. 11 I y I 1 [M� 111) 900 T 3 V I S i 5. 1 _ _ _ 1 '� I 1�•I�- I t 1 [ CC 1 I 1 to - O\4.5C\ 5 0 Broadway 41\. K IS M `rV COUNCIL UPDATE May 2,1986 HBA decision r Lamin. (R.W.) At the previous meeting, the Council was presented with background information on the status of re-establishing a 20 -ft access easement from Locust Street to the Post Office property. It was noted that the original 12 -ft easement was to be relocated to the middle of the Metcalf and Larson property's parking lot through a development agreement between the HRA and Metcalf and Larson. It was noted that an actual easement had net been obtained as required by the agreement, and the Council requested that the HRA first contact Metcalf and Larson to see if they would provide the easement that was originally agreed to. This update is to simply inform the Council that the HRA, at their meeting Wednesday, May 1, chose to not pursue enforcement of their development agreement at this time and will not be requesting Metcalf and Larson to provide the easement. It continues to be their opinion that the HRA and the City should not be involved in this access dispute and that it simply should be an issue to be negotiated between the Post Office landowner and Metcalf and Larson. In regard to the Council's decision to offer the Hass property to the owner of the Post Office property, I have contacted Mr. Charles Ehlen of the Cinco Corporation and offered to make available the Hass property for $30,000. I am waiting for a response as to their level of interest and/or a counteroffer if one is proposed. I will keep you informed of any progress regarding a potential sale of this parcel. ;OR Council Agenda - 4/22/96 A RFFFRRNrF AND BA ,K .RO iND: The City of Monticello owns the north half of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 50 (the former Hass property), located north of Fred's Auto Repair and directly west of the existing Post Office. The property borders on Linn Street. The purpose of this agenda item is to find out whether the City of Monticello has an interest in possibly selling this lot to the owner of the Post Office facility to be used as an additional access point to their property. While the request may sound simple, I will attempt to provide some background information as to why this request is being made by the landlord of the Post Office, Mr. Charles Ehlen of Cinco Corporation. As you may recall, until recently the Post Office has had a second access off of Locust Street to the Post Office property through the parking lot of the Metcalf and Larson properties. Last fall, Metcalf and Larson blocked off the access when their request for assistance from the Post Office or the landlord for help in defraying the cost of maintaining the alley easement was denied. At the time Metcalf and Larson had requested some assistance in maintenance cost, it was brought to the City's attention that a 20 -ft easement was never recorded against the property as originally planned, which the attorneys felt allowed them to block off the access at their discretion. What becomes ironic is that the 20 -ft easement through the Metcalf and Larson property was to be supplied by them in exchange for the City releasing a 12 -ft easement that crosses their property directly behind their existing buildings. The fact that Metcalf and Larson failed to live up to their own agreement is now causing the City to become involved in this dispute. As additional background, before the Post Office was originally built, a 12 -ft easement crossing the former Larry Flake vacant property abutting Locust Street was provided to the City so that the Post Office site would have two accesses, one off Locust Street and one off Broadway. This 12 -ft easement access was used for n number of years until Metcalf and Larson proposed a plan to build an office building on the corner of Locust and Broadway. As part of their development plan, additional parking was necessary, and the HRA became involved in acquiring and demolishing n home at the north end of Lots 8, 9, and 10, so that Metcalf and Larson could build a larger building on their property. In order to do so, the City had intended to vacate the 124 easement that was originally used as nccess to the Post Office and relocate it farther north in the middle of what would become Metcalf and Larson's parking lot. The HRA spent approximately $32,000 to acquire and demolish the property and resold it to Metcalf and Larson for $10,000 as part of a TIF district. Metcalf and Larson were to provide the City with a now 20 -ft Council Agenda - 4/22/96 dedicated recorded easement so that the Post Office would continue to have two access points. As I noted earlier, because the developer failed to provide a recordable easement, they are now blocking access to the Post Office site. I believe originally Metcalf and Larson had hoped to receive some sort of assistance from the Post Office or the Post Office building owner to help them defray the cost of snow removal, sealcoating, and other maintenance in the parking lot. The Post Office has indicated they did not feel it was their responsibility to pay for any additional cost, as they were leasing the property; and the building owner, likewise, did not feel it was their responsibility to help pay for maintenance of an easement that was supposed to he provided originally. The HRA has discussed this topic on a couple of occasions and has yet to take any enforcement action against Metcalf and Larson to provide the easement as originally proposed in a development agreement. Instead, it has been suggested by Mr. Brad Larson and also supported by the HRA that possibly the City of Monticello should sell, donate, or whatever, our property on the west side of the Post Office so that a second access could be provided to the west rather than through Metcalf and Larson's property. While I agree that this could be a possible solution to the problem by not only providing additional access but possibly additionally parking for the Post Office, the Council needs to decide whether this is the intended use of this property and, if so, the value you would like to receive for this property. The City of Monticello acquired the former Hass property a number of years ago for approximately $45,000 plus demolition. While the property may not be worth this as vacant property, if the Council is interested in offering the property for sale to the Cinco Corporation, the owner of the Post Office facility, we should probably obtain an appraisal to establish a fair price. Recently, the Postmaster has indicated that the Postal Service is looking at building a second facility near Burger King soon but will keep the present location open for customer service. It's very possible that if this location becomes a problem for them traffic -wise in the future, they may consider relocating the entire Post Office facility to their property near Burger King some day. In a related matter, it may be interesting to see what the downtown revitalization study indicates will happen in the downtown area, which might also include a possible site for a new Post Office in the future. While I don't know if there are any plans for relocating in the downtown area, it might be something that the committee will be looking at. In order to keep their options open, Mr. Charles Ehlen of Cinco Corporation did inquire as to whether the City of Monticello would be interested in selling its property and for what price. 1 believe the landlord wants to keep the Post Office as its tenant, although they did feel they had good traffic circulation in 10 SD Council Agenda - 4/22/96 the past with the access where it was originally established. The Council will have to decide whether you are interested in trying to find a solution to a traffic problem by using our own property or whether we should simply insist that the HRA re-establish the original 20 -ft easement through the Metcalf and Larson parcels. If the Council is interested in selling the City parcel to the Cinco Corporation, an appraisal should be obtained to establish the price. Council could request that the HRA first attempt to enforce the provisions of their own development agreement and re-establish the original 20 -ft easement from Locust Street. The City could decide to not sell its property at this time nor to request that the HRA obtain the original easement and let the Post Office, its landlord, and Metcalf and Larson deal with the issues. When the City originally acquired the Hass property, it was for the intent of removing a blighted structure and for future redevelopment of the area. I have always assumed that this property would eventually be either used when the corner auto repair facility was redeveloped or possibly in conjunction with an expansion of the Post Office facility. While the sale of the property to the Post Office landlord may be a good solution for utilizing this property, I've also questioned why the HRA is not willing to enforce their own agreement and require Metcalf and Larson to provide and re-establish the alley easement off of Locust Street. According to our records, the City of Monticello has never vacated or sold the original 12 -ft strip of property located directly behind Metcalf and Larson's back door. Although this property falls a few feet short of providing access to the Post Office property, possibly the City could look at turning over this strip of land to the Post Office property owner to be used as a negotiating item to re-establish the original 20 -ft easement. Regardless of the Council's decision, if there's an interest in selling the City property, I would suggest the property be offered for fair market value and an appraisal obtained before making any offer to sell. E31=11440 Sketch of Block 50; Various correspondence between Metcalf and Larson, Post Office; HRA minutes and agendas relating to this topic in the past. HRA AGENDA APRIL 3.1996 C ly A Jack Hutchinson. Local Postmaster, requested to be on the HRA agenda. Mr. Hutchinson will update the HRA on the potential plans of the West Broadway postal service and fume expansion plans. Additionally, he and Administrator Wolfsteller request the HRA consider action to enforce the Development Contract between the HRA and Metcalf & Larson as the area now poses an unsafe and hazardous situation. Mr. Hutchinson was informed to contact the owner, Cinco Corporation. to be present at the meeting. Brad Larsoa has been contacted of the April I meeting. This issue has been reviewed by the HRA on numerous previous occasions. On January 11, 1995, the HRA recommended Brad Larson address a letter to the Cinco Corporation, owner, giving a 30 -day notice to close the driveway. The HRA's objective was to encourage the two property owners to resolve the problem or for Cinco Corporation to inquire to the City for purchase of the Old Hass property. Within the 1983 Development Agreement between the HRA and Metcalf/Larson. the developers agreed to file of record a twenty (20) foot wide easement for purposes of ingress and egress in favor of the City of Monticello to be approved by the City Attorney. NO record of the 20 foot easement exists. A letter dated September 6 from Brad Larson indicated a willingness of the developer to file the easement subject to the City entering into a Maintenance Agreement. ne 1983 Development Contract has no provision relating to a Maintenance Agreement. On September 6, 1995, the HRA passed a motion of a "wait and see approach". Again, in hopes of encouraging the two property owners to resolve the issue of maintaining the driveway access to Locust or to encourage Cinco Corporation to contact the City of Monticello for consideration to purchase the old Hass property. The HRA elected not to seek legal advise in September. It appears the US Postal Service has on numerous occasions contacted the Administrator Wolfsteller, as previously the City promised the postal service access to Locust Street. Normally, the HRA takes the position "acontract is a contract" and has stood behind the content of a contract. Attorney Bubul will attend the meeting to advise the HRA. Page I FF HRA AGENDA APRIL 3. 1996 B. Alternative Action: A motion to stand behind the HRA recommendation of January 11, blockage of the driveway for purpose to encourage the two property owners to resolve the issue. Wait and see approach. 2. A motion subject to the advise of Attorney Bubul for enforcement of the Development Contract whereby the developer files a 20 -ft wide easement. 3. A motion subject to the advise of Attorney Bubul whereby the developer files a 20 -ft wide easement and the HRA and developer enter into a Maintenance Agreement. 4. A motion subject to the advise of Attorney Bubul whereby the developer files a 20 -ft wide easement and the City consider providing a temporary driveway through the old Hass property with an access to Linn Street. 5. A motion to table a,y action. C. Recommendation; Without legal advise, staff has not offered a firm recommendation. HRA members should keep in mind the potential of a new Redevelopment District and the relationship between the pedestrian traffic created by the post office and the activities of a successful community/riverfrout development project. D. SujfApltjp$ Data: September 6 agenda, Development Contract, map of the area, letters and minutes following. Page 2 w� HRA At3ENC4 SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Consideration to review for further lirectiog the Development Agreement between the HRA and Larsos.MetcaIf relar•1Ry_to a 20 foot, easement. Reterence and Rackgrnund_ Within the last week Larson/Metcalf blocked off the access from the Post Office to Lncust Stroat. On January 71, 1995, the HRA recommended Brad Larson addreAs a letter to the Cinco Corporation (ownor of tho post uffic:a building) giving a 30 - day notice to close the driveway. The HRA's objective was to oncourags- the two property ownors to rasolv,a the problem or for Cinco Corporation to inquire to rho rity for purchase of the old Hass Property. (Soo onclosod letter of April 95, 1998.) As Jeff O'Neill indicated at the January 11 meeting, the public has the right -to -cross. within the 1983 D-�velopmont Agreement berween the HRA and Larson/Metral." (the "devolopers"), the developers agroed to filu of record a twenty (20) tuot wide easnment fur purposes of ingress and ogress in favor of tho City of Monticollo to hti approved by rho City Attorney. No record of the 20 font easement exists. Tho City does own a small strip of property to the north of the Larson!Mot,calf offico building; however, thr strip does not run westerly to a point joining the property owned by Cinco Corporation. Brad Larson has repeatedly re.luesred the HRA or City to provide a tomporary drivoway for postal use with an access to Linn Street through the old Hass Property. Postmaster Jack Hutchinson has callod Administrator wolfstellar stating the City promisod US Post Office an ingress and egress. Although City Administration dons support the MRA's recommendation and objective, they do teal the public has, the right -to -cross and that the developers have not complied with tho Devalnpment Aproement of October 31, 19A3. Aftor diocussion, tho HAA may wish to conaider the following a1tornativee. Altarnativo Actions: A motion to stand firmly bohlnd HRA rornmmondatinn of January 11, encouraging the two property owners to r000lve tho IGGuo. PAUe I V HRA AGENnA i SEPTEMBER 5: 1995 2. A motion to obtain legal advise relating to possible enforcement of the Dovplopment Agreement. 3. A motion for the HRA or City to provide a temporary driveway through tho Hass proporty with an accnss to Linn ,t.raat,. 4. A motion to take a "wait and see" approach. C. Staff recommendation: Tt appears the HRA and City has been thn nub?nct for n.t resulvtng the 1,4Aue. Staff supporta alternative. No. 2 or 4. n. Suoportlnn Data: Development Agreement, Map, and Letter of April 98. Page 2 Sr DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT t.r THIS AGREEMENT, executed this 2I_d1y of October, 1983, by and between. the Sionticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (hereinafter referred to as -the HRA") and Bradley V. Larson and James G. Metcalf (hereinafter referred to as "the developers") set out provisions for the disposition of lands and the orderly development thereof in accordance with the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan. The HRA and the Developers do hereby agree as follows: THE DEVELOPERS AGREE: 1. That development of land and all buildings shall be in accordance with this agreement, the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan, and all other applicable, municipal ordinances. That for the purposes of establishing valuations for taxes payable, the building and appurtenant facilities to be first constructed on the following described real property, to -wit: The Northeasterly Fifty Feet of Lots Eight, :line tod Ten in Block Fifty, of the Village of Monticello, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Wright County Recorder, which parcel may also be described as follows: Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of Lot Ten, Block Fifty, Townsite of Monticello; thence Southwesterly along the Easterly lire of said Lot Ten a distance of Fifty Feet; thence Westerly at a right angle to the last described line across Lots Ten, Nine and Eight in said Bloch Fifty to the Westerly line of Lot 8; thence Northeasterly along the Westerly line of Lot Eight to the Northwesterly corner thereof; thence Eosterly along the Northerly line of Lots Eight, Nine and Ten to the point o1 beginning, all in Block Fifty, Townsite of Monticello. AM That part o1 Lots 9 and 10, Block 50, Twnsite of Monticello, described as follows: Beginning at the SE-ly corner of said Lot 10; thence NE-ly along the SE-ly line of said Lot 10, a distance of 102.84 feet to a line parallel with and distant 62.00 feet SW-ly of, as measured at a right angle to the NE-ly line of said Lot 9 and 10; thence NII-ly along said parallel line, a distance of 40.21 feet to a line parallel with and distant 7.00 feet NW-ly of, as measured at a right angle to the SE-ly line of said Lot 9; thence SW-ly along said parallel line, a distance of 102.86 feet to the SW-ly line of said Lot 9; thence SE-ly along said SW-ly line and the SW-ly line of said int 10, a distance of 40.20 feet to the point of beginning. shall be deemed to be totally complete and aosesood as ouch as of December 31, 1983. That in the event the Coun:y Auditor or County Assessor will not record evaluations for a complete bui:dinn prior to its actually berg complete, Bradley V. Larson and James G. Metcalf will pay to HRA the difference be -wean the tax increment baaod upon the partial building and the tar incremont based upon tho completed Structure. Q� V 4. That in any year in which the tax increment generated by the development does not meet or exceed the amount required by the HRA to meet its debt retirement demands, the developers shall pay directly to the HRA the difference between the actual tax increment collected, m d the required debt retirement payment, said payment to be made no later than the 15th day of December in the year in which the taxes are due and payable. 5. That they shall purchase from the HRA the following described real property, to -wit: The Northeasterly Fifty feet of Lots Eight, Nine, and Ten, in Block Fifty of the Village of Monticello, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. on or before the 16th day of November, 1983, and they shall remit payment in the sum of $10,000.00 to the HRA on the date of purchase. 6. That no "project land" acquired by the developers from the HRA may be resold prior to improvements being made without the prior written consent of the HRA. 7. That there shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, creed or national origin in the sale, lease, transfer or occupancy of the property covered by this agreement. 8. That the property shall be devoted only to the uses that fall with". the scope of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of this agreement. 9. That, except where physically impossible, all public and private utilities serving the parcels within this agreement shall be under- ground. 10. Developers agree to file of record a twenty (20) foot wide easement C for purposes of ingress and egress in favor of the City of Monticell. to be approved by the City Attorney. THE HRA AGREES: 1. That the HRA will convey to the Developer title to the following described real property, to -wit: The Northeasterly Fifty feet of Lots Eight, Nine, and Ten, in Bloch Fifty of the Village of Monticello, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. on or before the 16th day of November, 1983, for the sum of $10,000.( 2. That, prior to the conveyance of title to the developers, the HRA will demolish existing structures and generally prepare the site for now construction. 8 'i 3. Tha: they will provide a deed to the following described real property, to -wit: The Northeasterly Fifty feet of Lots Eight, Nine, and Ten, in Block Fifty of the Village of Monticello, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register o1 Deeds in and for said County. 4. That for all sales of land referred to herein, the cost is the total cost. No existing special assessments shall be transferred to the developers, unless the developers request such transfer. The HRA further agrees that when the price agreed upon herein is paid by the developers to the HRA, the title to the parcel will be transferred free of all encumbrances. FOR THE HRA FOR TH�EVELOPERS PhlipsNh to /7� g�r�dleyLan YThomas A. Eidem- Ja) This 1day of November, 1983. Notary Public awwMamalaw A. d{II� t1, tiN11 -3- 91 Aletcall & eLa,jon ATTORNEYS AT LAW PO Bo. ub ]U vhu Broaw�r MenlKnb, N-12 SLU210W JAMES G. METCALF TELE?HCNE BRAOLEY V. LARSON rotz 295-3232 April 25 , 1995 METRO (51Z 421-3M FAX (812) 29-5-3132 Cinco Corporation P. O. Box 185 St. Cloud, Minnesota 56302-1185 Gentlemen: Please be advised that we are the adjoining land owners to the east of the post office. I believe you own the building and rent to the United State Post Office department. Over the years we have had some discussion with your predecessors in title with regard to the driveway that your patron's use through our parking lot. In the past there has been no desire on the part of you or your tenants to participate in the cost of maintaining the driveway which exists primarily for your benefit. Therefore, we are putting you on notice that on August 1, 1995, the drive will be terminated at our common boundary lines unless, prior to that time, you contact us and we reach an accord with regard to future sharing of expenses with regard to the driveway and its maintenance. Respectfully yours, METCALF S LARSON By. Bradley V. L son, Esq. BVL/gla cc: United State Post Offico ATTENTION: Postmater City of Monticello r ATTENTION: Jeff O'Neill Broadway Partners 1M A.tanll - Zauon AT MANEYS AT LAN 313 'Mrt Smw-v 0.0. 9m u6 MO, .ft MnMfpp 53362-0"6 SPACL-_IY LAP.SON TELEPMONE JAMES G. METCALF. Cs COurtitit (atZ) 295-3232 J197}99" August 31, 1995 (612% 21 -3132 Carol A. Gabriel Real Estate Specialist United States Postal Service 6800 W. 64th Street, Suite 100 Overland Park, Kansas 66202-4171 Re: Monticello Post Office access Dear Ms. Gabriel: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 28, 1995, and a copy of the deed whereby Monticello Ford reserved an easement for ingress and egress over the 12' strip. I was out of the office on August 29th. I do not know if the City or Monticello Ford ever granted an easement to your landlord. When we constructed an office building next door, the City caused us to relocate the driveway. I do know the City and your landlord will not take responsibility for the driveway that is primarily used by your patrons. Ir. any event, the easement reservation would appear to be void as there was a historical gap between our office building and your landlord's property. Neither Monticello Ford, Inc. or the City of Monticello can grant or reserve an easement over property that they never had title to. we have since acquired that strip. I have no desire to create a hardship for you or your patrons but the failure of your landlord to communicate and the City's position that it has no responsibility forces the issue. I am willing to negotiate a driveway license agreement for your use of the driveway. The various owners of our parking lot have spent thousands of dollars over the years for snow removal and maintenance. The traffic current flow also presents a safety hazard. Your landlord can provide you with an alternative access via adjacent City owned property and increased parking that would facilitate a safer traffic flow onto another public street. I am open to any suggestions but the barricade posts will remain until a resolution in reached.. I suggest your landlord approach the City regarding an alternate access. This action should come as no surprise to you since your landlord, the Post Office and the City wars put on notice of what I intended to do back on April 25, 1995. I enclose a copy of that letter in the event that you were not provided with one. W Carol A. Gabriel Page Tao August 31, 1995 Please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully yours, METCALF, LARSON 6 MUTH By: Bradley V. Larson, Esq. BVL/gls Enclosure cc: Monticello Post Office ATTN: Jack City of Monticello v ATTN: 011ie fo The two commisaioners did agree to extend tho dare, for execution of the Purchase and Development Contract to 11:59 p.m., October 4, 1998. 4. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR FURTHER DIRECTION THE DEVELOPMENT. AORESDI6HT_ BBTkEBN THE HRiA AND LARSON!METCALF RELATtNG TO A- 20 FOOT EASEM NT. Sinue the post office access to Locust Street was blocked. Administrator wolfateller has heard from the US Postal Sorvico In St. Louie. He informed postal service of Development Agreement between the HRA and Larson!Metcalf relating to rho 20 foot easement. Roropchak informed members that Brad Larson was faxed a cony of the Development, Agrooment of 1983. With an incorrect fax number, the fax was dost received today. Brad Larson has not responded at this point. After a brief discussion, Al Larson made a motion to rake a "wait and see approach." Roger Carlson seconded the motion and with no further diseaasion, the motion passed unanimously.. 8. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR FURTHER DIRECTION THE COMPARISON RET`4EEN' _THE TAX ITJCRE NT GUARANTBE AND THE AK �7NCREMENT RECEIVED RELATING TO CERTAIN TIF DISTRICTS. HRA members reviewed the information provided in the agenda supplement and asked why the shortfalls. Although some Individual diatricts may correct their shortfall prior to decertification through an increase in the estimated market valuo, the main reason for the shortfall is tho result of the reduction of the preferred classification rates for commercial and industrial property. With the HRA's belief ma contract is a contract", Al Larson made a motion authorizing the issuanra of an annual tax Increment guarantee shortfall notice (not due and payable) with an explanation that tho HRA will nnmpare for compliance the total amount of tax increment received upon decortification of the district and the tax increment guarantee. This for TIF District Nos. 1-8 NSP, 1-9 Tappers, 1-10 Remmele, and 1-12 ArnpJax. Also, the motion authorized a senonA letterhe issued to Jay Morrell relating to the i 813,003.80 tax noremont guarantee shortfall duo and payable for decertifed TIF District Non. t -i and 1-4. Roger Carlwnn seconded the motion. Additionally, the HRA tabled any TI Uuarantae enforcement decisions until such time as necessary. With no further disnusslon, the motion passed unanimously. Xoropnhak reported the City Administrator was notified by the State Department of Rovunuo that the City of Montloollo's Tax Increment Alit Reduction (RAGA Penalty) for 1998 is $31,431 for Page 2 M HRA AGENDA OCTOBER 4, 1995 A In order to encourage the two property owners to resolve the issue of maintaining the driveway access to Locust or to encourage Cinco Corporation to contact the City of Monticello for consideration to purchase the old Hass propoerty, the HRA recommended Metcalf & Larson address a letter to Cinco Corporation giving a 30 - day notice to close the driveway. On September 6, 1995, the HRA faxed Brad Larson a copy of the Development Agreement between the HRA and Metcalf and Larson wherein the developers agreed to file of record a twenty foot wide easement for the purposes of ingress and egress in favor of the City of Monticello to be approved by the City Attorney. In order to allow time for Brad Larson to respond to the HRA fax, the commissioners passed a motion of a "wait and see approach'. The attached letter (Letter #I) from Brad Larson is a response to the fax. To improve communications and upon HRA Chairperson approval, the Executive Director submitted the copy of the Development Agreement to Cinco Corporation. See attached Letter #'_'. This is a fellowup agenda item for informational purposes and the HRA may wish to continue the "wait and see approach" since little time has lapsed from the date of the two attached letters. Page I 8 a City of Monticello 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245 ATTENTION: 011ie Dear 011ie: Thank you for your fax of today attaching the 1983 Development Agreement between Jim and I and the City. We had not been able to find an executed copy. with regard to paragraph 10 wherein we agreed to file a twenty foot (20') wide easement in favor of the City of Monticello to be approved by the City Attorney, as I recall, that was never done. I am willing to file a formal easement in favor of the City which I assume would be assigned to the post office landlord but I think it appropriate a Maintenance Agreement be entered into or, since it is going to be a public easement, that the maintenance be borne by the City. If the City is not interested in entering into a Maintenance Agreement or maintaining the easement, maybe it is appropriate at this point in time to look at opening up the "Hass" lot access. Thanksl BVL/gla cc: David Hyttnten Respectfully yours, METCALF, LARSON b MUTH By: /✓- Bradloy V. Larson, Esq. Q L. et e r \ S Aateatf, Luan & effutA ATTDRNEFS AT LAW 313 Nra alndn" P.0 6a. us more -ft sue .0"s BRADLEY V. LARSON TELEPHONE STEVEN I MUTH September 6, 1995 (6121 3232 FAX JAMES G. METCALF. OP COwSE� tw6"M (612) 2953132 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245 ATTENTION: 011ie Dear 011ie: Thank you for your fax of today attaching the 1983 Development Agreement between Jim and I and the City. We had not been able to find an executed copy. with regard to paragraph 10 wherein we agreed to file a twenty foot (20') wide easement in favor of the City of Monticello to be approved by the City Attorney, as I recall, that was never done. I am willing to file a formal easement in favor of the City which I assume would be assigned to the post office landlord but I think it appropriate a Maintenance Agreement be entered into or, since it is going to be a public easement, that the maintenance be borne by the City. If the City is not interested in entering into a Maintenance Agreement or maintaining the easement, maybe it is appropriate at this point in time to look at opening up the "Hass" lot access. Thanksl BVL/gla cc: David Hyttnten Respectfully yours, METCALF, LARSON b MUTH By: /✓- Bradloy V. Larson, Esq. Q L. et e r \ S I Lk LOP 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 Fax: (612) 295-4404 Cinco Corporation P.O. Box 185 St. Cloud, MN 56302-1185 Gentlemen: September 27, 1995 Enclosed is a copy of the Development Agreement between the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and Bradley V. Larson and James G. Metcalf. As noted the developers agreed to file of record a twenty (20) foot wide easement for purposes of ingress and egress in favor of the City of Monticello to be approved by the City Attorney. There is no mention of the HRA agreeing to enter into a Maintenance Agreement relating to 20 foot wide easement. As property owners, you may wish to consider participation in the cost for maintaining the easement or driveway to appease your tenant, the United States Post Office. Also enclosed are copies of letters from Bradley V. Larson dated April 25, 1995, and September 6, 1995. Sincerely, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO 011ie Koropchak Executive Director cc: United States Post Office, Postmaster Bradley V. [arson, Attorney at Law HRA File PUHR PMEW HRA MINUTES NOVEMBER 1. 1995 meeting: thereafter, will the Council consider all recommendations for direction of commission appointments in January, 1996. �111.I a. r. .r :. � „tat .� . u• � • s. t a ,!j I wo t. EelI •,ta.a Administrator Wolfsteller requested the HRA consider enforcement of their agreement with Metcalf/Larson relating to the 20 ft easement. If the HRA has no plans to enforce their agreement, Mr. Wolfsteller may bring the matter before the City Council for consideration to block -off the City -owned property behind the Metcalf(Larson building or for the Council to consider a temporary access through the old Hass property. HRA members felt the benefactor of the 20 ft easement was the Post Office and perhaps they should consider entering into a maintanence agreement with Metcalf/Larson. HRA members suggested Koropchak invite Brad Larson to the December HRA meeting to determine the HRH's role if any. OTHER BUSINES& a) Authorization to pay bills • The HRA monthly bills. b) Koropchak invited and encouraged NAHRO Conference on November interest if his calendar was clear. i t : ! aA�ITta21iA The HRA meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. OD-� \\,L'O o-' 011ie Koropchak. Executive Director authorized payment of the enclosed members of the HRA to attend the 30. Chairperson Larson expressed Page 4 1' HRA iv 4UTES JANUARY 10. 1996 limitation, the HRA recommended the Council consider the request for assistance. Other - The HRA members accepted Brad L.arson's satisfaction of the blocked easement as it relates to non-maintanence agreement between the owners. The HRA meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. \<000u O n/lQSLZ:�- 011ie Koropchak, Executive Director Page 6 9 U. I Council Agenda - 1/13/97 UKAH (R.W.) With the recent decision to award the contract to Adolfson & Peterson for the construction of the $14.5 million wastewater treatment plant expansion, we will need to make a decision on the length of term we want to use for borrowing money to pay for this project. During the initial discussions on the wastewater treatment plant project, we had been anticipating a project cost of $8 - $10 million and had discussed the annual debt payment that would result from a $10 million project being financed over 15 or 20 years, the expected life of the plant. Since the project has grown to an estimated cost of over $14.5 million, it is very likely we may want to concentrate on borrowing the money over a 20 -year period rather than 16 years to keep the coat at a reasonable level for the taxpayers. The financing for the project has been arranged with the Public Facilities Authority. It was initially determined that this would likely be the least costly method of borrowing the money rather than selling bonds ourselves. We received approval from the PFA last year for the estimated $10.3 million project cost; and during my recent discussions with the PFA, they are willing to increase the funding to whatever we need in the $14.5 million range. There aro a number of options available to the City, including 15- or 20 -year paybacks, which affect the amount of interest rate we would be charged, and a third alternative that also has a bearing on the initial interest rate. Generally speaking, we had anticipated the funding through the PFA to be very attractive by providing a low interest rate and also would not have any interest accruing during the first 18 months of the project. While this option is still available, it may be more attractive to select another financing option through the PFA that starts interest accruing from the date we obtain the funds, but the overall interest rate is lower for the term of the bonds. It appears at this point that wo may be able to save a few hundred thousand dollars by selecting this third option even though we're paying interest from the day we receive funds. A decision on which option we will ultimately select can be made later by the City Council; but for the initial document materials, the Council should select which term we anticipate using, 15 or 20 years. Enclosed with the agenda is a summary of the annual estimated debt payments that would be required under various interest rates of 3.7676 to 4.25' using a $14.5 million debt. Council Agenda - 1/13/97 I've provided some examples of what typical homes would be paying under each of the interest rate options under a 15- or 20 -year term. These examples are assuming that the entire debt is paid by ad valorem taxes, although it is assumed we will provide some other revenue sources to lower the tax requirement. Even with the present $600 per hookup being applied to debt service, this becomes a small contribution toward the eventual annual payment of over $1 million. Since the plant has been designed to have a 20 - year capacity based on estimated growth rates for the community, it may make sense to finance the project over the same time period, 20 years. In this way, new homes and businesses that are added years down the road to our system will be helping to pay for the wastewater treatment plant that is being constructed today. Thia will lessen the burden to the home owners and business owners today and help spread the cost out over a longer period of time. According to the Public Facilities Authority's calculations, a 16 -year loan with the first 18 months being interest free would have an interest rate of 3.83%. A 20 -year loan with the first 18 months being interest free would have a net rate of 4.08%, a quarter of a percent higher. The third option noted above would require the City to be charged interest from the day the funds are received but would have an overall interest rate of 3.83', on a 20 - year term. Under this option, even though we're paying interest from the day we receive the money, the overall effect on a 20 -year repayment schedule indicates that we would still save $350,000 in interest cost. So unless something changes, it appears that we will forego the interest-free period in order to receive a lower interest rate that will more than pay back the difference in the long term. Council could select a loan repayment term of lb years. Council could select a loan repayment of 20 years. Although we can naturally save a lot of interest cost by paying off a loan in 15 years versus 20, the Council should be aware of the increased cost that would have to be paid by the home owners and businesses today due to the fact that the project has escalated from our original estimated $8 - $10 million cost. When also considering that the design life of the plant has been put at 20 years, it may make more sense to simply extend the term to 20 Council Agenda - vla/97 years, which is the typical loan repayment period for such large projects as this. One disadvantage to the 20 -year repayment is that we have no assurance that our largest taxpayer will still be responsible for 70% of the tax liability, as the utility company's license currently is expiring in the year 2010, about 15 years away. It is assumed that the utility company will still have a large presence in Monticello even if the nuclear facility is not renewed, but there are always concerns that legislation could change how utilities are taxes, which could ultimately have a big effect on revenue sources for the City. The Council will have to weigh this possibility with the tax burden the present property owners would have to pay by shortening the term to 15 years. Summary of wastewater treatment plant debt service requirements; Examples of loan repayment schedules from the Public Facilities Authority. 12 WWTP EXPANSION PROJECT Effect of the above annual debt payments on the following valued homes if entire debt is paid by ad valorem taxes: $90,000 Home Funding examples for a $14.5 million project $120,000 Home Annual Debt Annual Debt 20 -yr 18 -yr I I Payment Current Tax Payment Current Tax 20 -yr I 15 -yr Term Capacity 20 -yr Term Capacity Interest Principal & Bate Principal It Rate Rate Interest Increase Interest Increase 3.75% $1,281,220 7.97 $1,043,420 6.49 4.0% $1,304,275 8.12 $1,067,055 6.64 4.257E $1,327,185 8.26 $1,090,690 6.79 Effect of the above annual debt payments on the following valued homes if entire debt is paid by ad valorem taxes: $90,000 Home $100,000 Home $120,000 Home $175,000 Home 15 -yr I 20 -yr 18 -yr I I 20 -yr 15 -yr I 20 -yr I 15 -yr I 20 -yr I Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond 3.75% $88.07 $70.09 $102.02 $83.07 $133.89 $109.03 $221.66 $180.42 4.0% $87.70 $71.71 $103.93 $84.99 $136.42 $111.56 $225.74 $184.69 4.25% $89.21 $73.33 $105.73 $86.91 $138.77 $114.07 $229.63 $188.76 $100,000 Business $250,000 Business $500,000 Business 115-vr Bond 120•vr Bond I 15-vr Bond 120•vr Bond I 15 -yr Bond 120 -yr Bond 3.75% $239.10 $194.70 $789.03 $642.51 $1,705.58 $1,388.86 4.0% $243.60 $199.20 $803.88 $657.36 $1,737.68 $1,420.96 4.25% $247.80 $203.70 $817.74 $672.21 $1,767.64 $1,453.08 We have been planning on using $600 of the current $1,500 per unit sewer hookup fee toward debt payments for the WWTP expansion. This annual dedication of Rinds would only generate approximately $66,700 based on the anticipated 101 housing starts noted in the Facilities Pian as follows: $600 x 76 single family homes a $45,000 $600 x 75% x 26 multiple m Al 1.70 $56,700 WWTPEKP FND: 1,297 M This amount could vary annually depending on the number of new homes or commercial buildings being built each year, but it shows that this revenue source is only a small fraction of the annual debt payment requirement. By using the 4'% - $14.5 million - 20 yr debt schedule of $1,067,055, less $56,700 in hookup revenue, ad valorem taxes would be reduced by 5.3% to $1,010,355 annually. For a $100,000 home, this would reduce the annual debt requirement to $80.49 from $84.99, saving approximately $4.50 per year. Although this reduction is fairly small, the more revenue that is obtained from hookup fees, the less the existing taxpayers will be required to pay. The new WWTP is also projected to cost more to operate than the present facility. The operation/maintenance costs are currently: $426,000 - Projected: $505.000 + $ 79,000 To cover this additional cost, user rates are estimated to increase 20% from $1.65 per hundred cubic feet to $1.98. This increase would not provide any additional funds to cover debt service on the plant, but mainly operations/maintenance. If we wanted user fees to pay for a portion of the $14.5 million construction, rates would have to go up over 20%. For example, an additional 6% increase in rates above the 20% needed for operations would generate about $25,000 the first year. 1 There are certainly pros and cons to increasing user rates rather than relying entirely on taxes. User fees better reflect those who actually use the plant and makes some users who may be tax exempt pay a share of the plant's cost. On the other hand, it would certainly be less expensive for a home owner to have the entire debt paid by real estate taxes than through rate increases since commercial/industrial properties will pay more through taxes than they might through user fees. If it's the intent of the Council to have new development pay a greater portion of the new WWTP, we may want to look at again increasing the sewer hookup fee above $1,500 and dedicating any increase to debt service. For example, St. Michael recently completed a new WWTP and raised their sewer hookup charge to $3,300 per home in an attempt to have now development pay a larger share of the treatment plant costs. As to what amount the hookup fee can be raised without stilling development remains to be seen. w1YTPEXP.FND. 14VI 9V 01/03/97 16:34 FAX 8122965287 DIED 16002 DmB 3 (20 years, bond raIN Immed. int) Monticello, Clry 05 Wan Dale: Rvmce Amount 19969 Rete: 3.824% Mutwb Law '94 M6 Accrual: immediate 6L , Date Effc tiv I Disbunemrnl Jrclj RcuaYmmn 03,2787 01/2719./ 1,500.000.00 Princwal I 067AM 87/24,V7 500.000.00 1,300,000.00 05/2987 05/2997 I 900.00000 11.717 M 06/26,97 OL/26297 900,110000 000 07/31/97 07111 Ail 900,000,00 4,700,00000 OLI-"7 01/23,97 1.300100 W 64,905.31 09125,97 119/1.3,97 1,300.00000 - I090197 /0/10197 1 7M.Ow On .-,(x 000 1 1/2&V7 I MA 7 1300.000.00 113,127.10 12.7497 I YS4171 I,ODD.000.W 50,000.001 01/29,91 I 01/2991 MOOD OOI 1 1.50.0 04.00 43.73700 0230191 12!50.000.00 161 25.6,76 01!233,96 02/2,998 S00,000,00 0.00 - U"a", O3/239a !00.000.00 247,107.07 264.81.97 04/2998 04/2991 500'000DU 11434,051,49 156,850.39 US/2799 05/2798 SOO.00000 260,741 As 11917,477.3811 06/1491 O(✓24,9/ bw.Ow uu l 270,107 55 11,38U.w11,11 oer2691 - 12,104 957 59 5117U902i 261 6221 07/aw9 226.06906 511709 02 11537,055 40 06 /36'99 I - S 17.709 m 1 21:,111 IS 03330/1000 I 511709.02 30319100 I 0633017000 1 511730 021 10!34,61104 07/20'1001 117,110161 51.70907 19157)24' owano01 9.691315 40, 51Voll ,Oil 177,17510 01/20/2007 179.175.61 133.5 )141 511.709.0:1 171,791." 0wwoo., I 8,697,66314 I 511709.021 02/20/1003 1 342!43 40 I.w1.912AY 512.709.07 340!77-11 08/20/2001 - 276,47348 !11,709,011 141,03310 02/20/2004 - 711709.01 OMN1U114 117997.54 31170002 6.11:-U3n71 02/2,95005 116,"2.10 511709031 I Ial1130 m/30R005 I I $12.70903 401119 Y7 01330/1006 : 513.704.02 4!9!,33176 OW0,2006 • 1 11 5709021 Is" 24 I 01/10/2007 - 312,7096: 436;11 79 01/2013(337 - 312,709 m I 2,16111.01116 =0/2001 ( I 711,700.021 49;4114 01,992= :I ! 11.700.02 472,021 41 02rQ'ID09 - 511.709.071 994,677 4' 01/2!1/21109 492,41161, S 12.709 02 10.75016, (1233=010 0001 317,719 W 14,000,870 m I o -on n 10I 513.109 02 W/2Wwll 5I 7,71 " 0/3304011 1 _ 511.709 011 03/5 Wiu12 1 312.709 Ol Oman,:, I 311709.0)', 02/20/2011 111.709.02 0/40/21111 :I 511709.011 1 07/!!0!014 517,700 02 08/10/1014 31170001 ovum1 3 1 1 I 023351/05nnn16 . 312.701071 OMO/2016 - 3.1704 U7 1 02nawl7 311701021 U3/2OR017 S 11100 Ol r I 14,wuAw 001 I iu.3s4,90e 341 FItc11 Semlou 01/07/97 Fund Source Rvmce Amount 19969 8L 6,309,735 75 Mutwb Law '94 M6 3,423,471.04 1995A 6L 214,76631 DP Res OP 4,050,000.00 TOp11,"I: 14 000,000.00 Interest Due Princwal I End 9CaWt I 1,300,000.00 4!02.00 0.00 2.000.007 D6 11.717 M 0.00 1,900,000.00 20.OS4.76 000 3.1100.00 013 33.771.67 n, 111 4,700,00000 47,757,51 000 O.(W,.O0nO 64,905.31 O W 7300,000,00 91,105,29 0.00 8,600,00000 1 15,156 51 Ow .-,(x 000 145,301 )8 0.001 10,900,00000 113,127.10 O,M 11,400y0000 211354.71 50,000.001 11.150,000 00 7!,73.731 0.001 1 1.50.0 04.00 43.73700 0.00 12!50.000.00 81479.71 O M 11,850.000 Ou 126!7147 0.00 13130,O0D 00 161,846.17 0 00 13.M.OW ou 247,107.07 264.81.97 13,615.11105 261,65946 27049.76 11434,051,49 156,850.39 253349.61 13,171,11186 251,967.54 260,741 As 11917,477.3811 246}412.17 26S,726.ISI1 Lis 1,750531 141.90:.47 270,107 55 11,38U.w11,11 136,7.) 63 275,943 39 12,104 957 59 231,44679 261 6221 I I "15,36 226.06906 ZMA39 ,b 11537,055 40 220,511,S0 191120.52 n 2",914.88 21:,111 IS 107,1058 7 147!1901 0.9 209! n 02 30319100 10.643,11101 7117410 513 3W,IYY 97 10!34,61104 19759136 117,110161 10,019521 1 a 19157)24' 121,135.71 9.691315 40, IIS.411.13 177,17510 9)71.10951 179.175.61 133.5 )141 9,017.116 10 171,791." I1v,01016 8,697,66314 I N, ]0617 30.410946511,)1133719 170.)65.62 342!43 40 I.w1.912AY 161 UI 1I 340!77-11 7,6S9,A3.211 110!53 >• 276,47348 7,30J 151.90 141,03310 161,72713 093040667 141 36) 117997.54 171.716 411 6.11:-U3n71 116,7" 72 116,"2.10 7,101,107 77, I Ial1130 190525'/2 5,406,777,05' 110;79.0! 401119 Y7 5,000,4070/ 101,11070 41057832 4!9!,33176 91,754.91 411,954.11 4,176,1U 61 Is" 24 417,700.71 7,U9.1U.I71 7.417.11 436;11 79 M .61!81!0 04.11072 2,16111.01116 f 8.045 841 454.201.111 1413,810 1111 49;4114 461166633, I.Y70.3NJO 19,717 41 472,021 41 1,477..1 69' )0.119.01 U13491;1 994,677 4' 10,193,40 492,41161, 1111,45116 10.75016, !07,43116 0001 6156.906 64; 14,000,870 m I e 5ONTICEL. WK4 9U 01/03/97 16.35 FAX 6122965287 DTED Monticello, City of I cum Date: Rate: Accrual: Date projected Dnfl 1 (20 yew , 4.013MA) 4.01056 Reference Amount 0120/98 8L 009,735.75 Effective n1a6umcment 'rot R.ewrment OWN 14,000,000.00 - 02120/99 Op 515,377.46 0820/99 Total Loan: 515,377.46 02/202000 Principal 515,377.46 081202000 515,377.46 02/20/2001 229,777.46 515,377.46 08/202001 - 515,377.46 02/702002 239,248.00 515,377.46 08/202002 244,128.66 515,377.46 021202003 - SIS277.46 081202003 234,190.71 SIS,377.46 02!202004 259,37620 515277.46 08/202004 264,667.47 315277.46 02/20/2005 270,066.69 515277.46 03=005 275,576.OS 515377.46 02/102006 211,197.80 515377.46 01/20/2006 286,934.24 515277.46 02/202007 292,787.70 515,377.46 08!2012007 291,760.57 51.1,377.46 02202001 304.83528 513•377.46 08202001 - $15277.46 021202009 317,42025 S I S 377.46 01/2U17009 323,895.62 515,377.46 02/102010 330,503.09 515,377.46 08/202010 337245.35 515,377.46 071202011 344,125.16 SIS,377.46 08/202011 351.14531 51S,377.46 021102012 358308.67 51$,377.46 081202012 365,618.17 S1S,377.46 02/202013 373,076.78 515277.46 08/202013 310,687.55 515277.46 IO2/202014 381,453.57 515377.46 O812A/2014 396371.03 515.!77.46 02/202015 444,464.14 •515377.46 01/202015 412,715.21 513377.46 02/102016 411,134.60 SIS,377.46 1 08/202016 429,725.74 515377.46 02202017 431.492.15 3,330,395.64 515377.46 01/202017 2,882,951.23 58,112.35 SIS,377.46 021012018 49,491.42 465,179.04 515,377.46 1 08/20/2018 475,312.97 1,485,111.13 515.377.43 415,080.78 14,IR0L000.001 J 20,613,098,37 Fiscal Smvi= 01613/97 ®003 Fund Source Reference Amount 19968 8L 009,735.75 Match La" '94 M6 3.425,478.04 199SA 6L 214,78621 Op Rea Op 4,050,000.00 Total Loan: 14,000,000.00 Im ran Duc Principal End Balance - 14,000.000.00 285.600.00 229,777.46 13,770.222.54 280,91234 234,464.92 13,535.757.62 276,129.46 239,248.00 132%.509.62 271248.80 244,128.66 13,052.380.% 266268.57 249,108.89 12,803272.07 261,186.75 234,190.71 12,549,081.36 256,001.26 259,37620 12,289,705.16 250,709.99 264,667.47 12,023,037.69 245,310.77 270,066.69 11.754,971.00 239,801.41 275,576.OS 11,479294.95 234,179.66 211,197.80 11,198,197.15 228,44322 286,934.24 10,91126191 222,589.76 292,787.70 10,618,475.21 216.616.89 291,760.57 10219,714.64 210.522.18 304.83528 10,014,859.36 204,303.13 311,074.33 9,703,715.03 197.95721 317,42025 9,396,364.78 191,481.84 323,895.62 9,061,469.16 184,874.37 330,503.09 1,731,966.07 178,132.11 337245.35 8,394,720.72 171.251.30 344,125.16 8,050,595.56 164,232.15 351.14531 7,699,450.25 157,061.79 358308.67 7,341,141.58 149.759.29 365,618.17 6,975,S23.41 142,300.68 373,076.78 6,602,446.63 134,689.91 310,687.55 6,221,759.08 126,913.89 381,453.57 5,833205.51 111,999.43 396371.03 5,436,927.48 110,913.31 444,464.14 5,032,463.34 102,662.25 412,715.21 4,619,741.13 94,242.16 411,134.60 4,198,613.53 85,651.72 429,725.74 1,768,117.79 76,185.31 431.492.15 3,330,395.64 67.940.07 447,43739 2,882,951.23 58,112.35 456,565.11 2,426,393.14 49,491.42 465,179.04 1.960,514.10 39,994.49 475,312.97 1,485,111.13 30,296.68 415,080.78 1,000,05035 20A01.03 494,976,43 505,07.3.92 1030331 505,073.92 0.00 6,615,098.2 7 1 14,000.000.00 q b MOh77CUNK4 01/03/87 16:38 FAX 6122865287 DIED Draft 2 (1S yearn, 3.83'x) Monticello. City of Loan Date; Rate: 3.830% Ref renec Ac=rusl: 08/20/98 1996E Datc Effective Disbursement ref Repaymcm projected 08120/98 14,000,000.00 02/20/99 1 - 617,816.72 08110/99 1 617,816.72 02/20/2000 617,816.72 0820/2000 617,816.72 02/20/2001 617,816.72 08/20/2001 617,816.72 02/1942002 617,816.72 08/10/1002 617,816.72 02202003 617,816.72 08202003 617,816.72 0220/1004 617,816.72 082020D4 - 617,816.72 02/202005 617,816.72 08202005 617,816.72 02202006 617,816.72 08202006 617,816.72 02/202007 617,816.7 08202007 617,916.72. 02202008 617,8! 6.72 08202008 617,816.72 02202009 617,816.72 10,600,366.43 O V202009 617,816.72 10,185,546.73 02202010 617,816.72 9,762.71323 08202010 617,816.72 01202011 617,816.72 0820/1011 617,616.72 02202012 617,816.72 08202012 617,816.72 02202013 617,816.72 1 08202013 617,816.47 7,524321.30 14.000.0110.00 18.534.501.15 Olsml Scwtees 01/03/97 ® 004 Fund Sowce Ref renec Amount 1996E 61. 6,309,735.75 Match Lea's V4 M6 3,425,478.04 1995A 6L 214,786.21 Up Pm OP 4,050,000.00 Total Loan: 14,000,000.00 Interest CAM Pn=wal Ead "..T— . 14,000.000.00 261,100.00 349,716.72 13,650,28328 261,402,92 356,413.80 13,293,669.48 254.577.60 363,239.12 12,930,630.36 247,621.57 370,195.13 12,560,43521 240,53233 377,294.39 12,183,150.82 233,307.34 39450938 11,798,641.44 223 943.99 391,872.74 11,406,768.70 218,439.62 399,377.10 11,007,391.60 210,79135 407.025.17 10,600,366.43 202,997.02 414,919.70 10,185,546.73 195,053.22 422,763.50 9,762.71323 186,95730 430,959.42 9.531,923.11 178,70634 439,110.39 0.191913.43 170,29738 447,51934 9,445,294.09 161,727.38 456,019.34 7,989304.75 IS2,99327 464,923.45 7,524321.30 144,091.90 473,724.82 7,050,656.48 135,020.07 412,796.65 6,567,159.$3 123,77432 492,042.20 6,075,917.63 116331.91 501,464.21 5,574352.82 106.741.96 511,067.16 067,294.9 6 9691.91 520,954.1 4, 542,4301S1 96,987,54 330,829.18 4.011,600.97 76,922.16 340,994.56 3,4711,606.41 66,462.11 551354.61 2.919,231.90 55,903.67 561,913.03 2357338.73 45,143.04 572.673.61 1,794,665.07 34,17634 583,64038 1,201,024.691 22,999.62 594,117.10 606,207.59 11,601.88 606207.59 0.00 4,534,301_15 14,000.000.00 L31500, MJV TICEI.. W K4 Council Agenda - 1/13/97 :.M 0/ '.11 .1 It. % City Council is asked to consider making a very minor change to the snowmobile ordinance which would act to clearly specify that snowmobiles are not allowed on city pathways. The current ordinance may not necessarily need to be amended to provide the police with the authority to ticket those that operate snowmobiles on pathways; however, the ordinance also does not dearly state that operation on pathways is prohibited. Therefore, a slight change to the ordinance is being proposed which would amend Title 6, Chapter 5, Section 2(F). Currently, this section reads, "It is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile on any sidewalks in the city of Monticello provided for pedestrian travel." The code would be changed to read, "It is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile on any sidewalks or pathway 8 in the city of Monticello provided for pedestrian and/or bicycle travel," As you can see, the ordinance simply specifies that pathways are off limits to snowmobiles in addition to being off limits to sidewalks. Obviously, one could interpret a pathway as being a sidewalk and, therefore, perhaps the ordinance as it is is enforceable. However, on the other hand, it does not clearly say that pathways are off limits; therefore, to add clarity to the ordinance, it probably makes sense to update it accordingly. The idea to amend the ordinance originated from discussions at the Parks Commission level; thus, the Parks Commission is recommending approval of the ordinance amendment under alternative t11. R. A1__TERNATIVF AGTIDNG: 1. Motion to adopt the ordinance amendment specifjring that operation of �• C0 snowmobiles on pathways is prohibited. Motion to deny adoption of an ordinance amendment. Motion to table adoption of an ordinance amendment. Council Agenda - V13/97 C. STAFF F..O F.NDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendment as proposed. This is one small change that could be made within the current ordinance to further clarify the ordinance and improve our ability to keep snowmobiles off the pathway system. There may be other issues relating to snowmobile usage and operation in the city of Monticello that are worthy of discussion. Perhaps this issue associated potential code amendments can be taken up in the future. At this time, however, this single change would probably be useful in assisting the Sheriffs Department in keeping snowmobiles off the city pathways. Copy of existing code; Copy of proposed amendment. CHAPTER 5 /) glw"T� SNOWMOBILES D12bo*NGE SECTION: 6-5-1: Definitions 6-5-2: Restrictions 6.5.3: Prohibited Areas 6-5-4: Age Restriction 6-5-5: Uncontrolled Intersections 6-5-6: Equipment 6-5-7: Compliance 6-5-8: Violation 6-5-1: DEFINITIONS: (A) Snowmob los: As used in this ordinance, a snowmobile is defined to mean a self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or a natural terrain steered by wheels, skis, or runners. (B) Commiggiener: As used in this ordinance, Commissioner means the Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources, State of 01 Minnesota. (C) Person: As used in this ordinance, person includes an individual, partnership, corporation, the state and its agencies and subdivisions, and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not. (D) Owner: As used in this ordinance, owner means a person other than a lien holder having the property in or title to snowmobile, entitled to use, or possession thereof. (E) Off: As used in this ordinance, operate means to ride in or on and physically or constructively control the operation of a snowmobile. (F) OyerateT: As used in this ordinance, operator means every person who operates or is in actual physical or constructive control of a snowmobile. (G) Rondwcayt: As used in this ordinance, roadway means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the shoulder. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE /O f� TITLE VI/Cnpt 311`89e 1 (H) Street or Highway: As used in this ordinance, street or highway means the entire width between boundary lines of any way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular traffic. (I) Right -of -Way: As used in this ordinance, right-of-way means the entire strip of land traversed by a highway or street in which the public owns the fee or an easement for roadway purposes. (J) Safety or nenelman Throttle: As used in this ordinance, safety or deadman throttle is defined as a device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. (K) Lake: Meandered lakes which are under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota. 6-5-2: RESTRICTIONS: It is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile: (A) Between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) p.m. and seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. within three hundred feet (300') of a residence, except that on Friday and Saturday nights and evenings preceding Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's the hours shall be one o'clock (1:00) a.m. to seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. (B) At any place while under the influence of intoxicating (a) liquor, (b) narcotics, or (c) habit-forming drugs. (C) Snowmobile Operation qqeed .unit: At a rate of speed greater than reasonable, prudent, or proper under all the surrounding circumstances, but in no case exceeding 15 mph. (11n3/92,0233) (D) At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property or to cause injury or damage thereto. (E) It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over, or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. (F) On any sidewalks in the city of Monticello provided for pedestrian travel. 1 4» 1 IM. MR1 .»t 1 111 1 • i •,t • 1 . 11 » i 15 1 1 MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VVCnp1 P (H) Snowmobiles shall obey all city and state traffic laws when operating vehicles on city streets. 6-5-3: PROHIBITED AREAS: It shall be unlawful to operate snowmobiles in the following areas: No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway, shoulder, or inside bank or slope of any city trunk, county state -aid, or county highway in this city and, in the case of a divided trunk or county highway, on the right-of- way between the opposing lanes of traffic, except as provided in this ordinance, nor shall operation on any such highway be permitted where the roadway directly abuts a public sidewalk or walkway. Q No person shall operate a snowmobile within the right-of-way of any trunk city, county state -aid, or county highway between the hours of one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (L2) hour before sunrise, except on the right- hand side of such right-of-way and in the same direction as the highway traffic on the nearest land of the roadway adjacent thereto. No snowmobile shall be operated at any time within the right-of-way of any interstate highway or freeway within this city. The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of emergency when any street is impassible by other motor vehicles. 6.5-4: ACE RESTRICTION: Notwithstanding anything in this ordinance to the contrary, no person under fourteen (14) years of age shall operate a snowmobile on city streets or make a direct crossing of a city street, trunk county state -aid, or county highway as the operator of a snowmobile. A person fourteen (14) years of age or older but less than eighteen (18) years of age may operate a snowmobile on streets as provided by this ordinance and may make a direct crossing of a city street, trunk county state -aid, or county highway only if he has in his immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner. 6.5-5: UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle or pedestrian at the intersection or so close to the intersection so as to constitute an immediate hazard. �+ to C-0-1 MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VI/Chill Wage 3 6-5-6: EQUIPMENT: All snowmobiles shall have the following equipment: (A) Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation, and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Regulations CONS 55, which is hereby adopted by reference as it existed on September 1, 1970. No person shall use a muffler cutout, bypass, straight pipe, or similar device on a snowmobile motor, and the exhaust system shall not emit or produce a sharp popping or crackling sound. (B) Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation. (C) A safety or so-called "deadman" throttle in operating condition so that when pressure is removed from the accelerator or throttle, the motor is disengaged from the driving track. (D) At least one clear lamp attached to the front with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one hundred feet (100) ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candlepower of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The equipment to be in operating condition when the vehicle is operated between the hours of one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one- half (1/2) hour before sunrise or at time of reduced visibility. (E) Reflective material at least sixteen (16) square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect a beam of light at a ninety (90) degree angle. 6.5.7: COMPLIANCE: It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this ordinance. 6.5.8: VIOLATION: Any person violating the terms of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1/1V88. #160) Jol) MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VUChpt 5/Pago 4 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 6, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 2(F), OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO SNOWMOBILE RESTRICTIONS BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 6-5-2: RESTRICTIONS: It is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile: (F) On any sidewalks or pathways in the city of Monticello provided for pedestrian and/or bicycle travel. Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of January, 1997. Mayor City Administrator ioE Council Agenda - V13/97 t t. Consideration of annual appointments for 1997. (R.W.) Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of each year, certain appointments be made. Attached you will find a list of the required appointments that may be approved in one single motion unless the Council chooses to consider some appointments separately. Cly Depositories. During the past year, three official depositories were named, including Marquette Bank Monticello, Metropolitan Federal, and First National Bank of Monticello. In addition, under MinnPignta Statutes 23q, the Chief Financial Officer has also been designated the authority to name other official depositories for the purpose of investments. Since financial institutions not within the city are depositories for investment purposes only, the official depositories are usually just the three mentioned above, and the motion includes the authorization for the Chief Financial Officer to designate other depositories when necessary for investment purposes only. b. Official Newspaper. Monticello Times. C. Health Officer, Historically, Dr. Maus has served as the City Health Officer, and it is suggested that this appointment simply be renewed annually. d. Acting Mayor. Past Councilmember Shirley Anderson was the Acting Mayor. The Council will need to appoint a new Acting Mayor, and typically the Council has chosen to have the senior Councilmember fill in as Acting Mayor when needed. At this time, Clint is the senior member of the Council. o. Repres n a ives to Other Multi lnriadictio nl BorlieR. Three appointments aro necessary for selecting the City representative to serve on each of the following bodies: Community Education Advisory Board, Joint Fire Board, and the OAA Board. In the past, the Administrator has served as the Fire Board representative, and the Mayor has been the representative on the OAA Board. In the past, Shirley Anderson was the Council representative on the Community Education Advisory Board, and o replacement should be selected for this position. Council Agenda - 1/13197 In regard to the Joint Fire Board representation, the Council may want to add a Councilmember to this Board in addition to myself. In the past, there has not been a problem with the Administrator acting on behalf of the City for the Joint Board; but from the Township's end, Supervisors Ken Scadden and Ted Holker are both representatives from Monticello Township, while only myself has been the attendee at most of their meetings. It may be a good idea, if for no other reason than to provide a liaison from the Council in addition to myself, to appoint an additional representative to the Joint Board. Housing and RedPvP1npmt-_nf AuthQjity. Annually, one appointment is required for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The term of Tom St. Hilaire is the one that expired December 31. Tom has recently indicated that he will be stepping down from the HRA sometime this spring (April), and I believe the HRA will be conducting interviews for making a recommendation to the Council to fill his unexpired term if the Council reappoints him for the next few months. With Roger Carlson's election to the Council, the unexpired balance of his term to December 2000 will need a replacement. The HRA has conducted interviews and is recommending that Mr. Darrin Lahr be appointed to fill the remaining four years. All HRA appointments are made by the Mayor with formal ratification by the City Council and have been coordinated by utilizing a recommendation from the HRA committee. planning Cnmmiasinn. The Planning Commission is made up of five members serving one-year appointments. All current members have indicated a willingness to be reappointed for an additional one-year term. (ih, rarer Board. The Library Board by ordinance requires a Mayoral appointment with Council ratification. Currently, there aro two positions that need to be filled which expired December 31, 1998, that were filled by Jeanette Lukowski and Ed Solberg. Jeanette is the newest member to the Library Board, being appointed in 1998 to fill the remainder of a term that had been vacant. Mr. Solberg has served the maximum time on the Library Board, and Librarian Marge Bauer will be soon making a recommendation for the Council to act upon. At this time, it is recommended only that Jeanette Lukowski's term be extended and that the other position remain vacant until a recommendation is supplied. Council Agenda - V13/97 ReCycling Committee. In the past, Councilmember Shirley Anderson had served on the City Recycling Committee Task Force. If desired, a Councilmember could be appointed to this task force. Economic DevelopmPnt Authority. The Economic Development Authority is composed currently of seven members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. According to our ordinance that established the EDA, two members of the committee shall be members of the City Council, and those two positions were previously held by Mr. Clint Herbst and Mr. Tom Perrault. The terms of the Councilmembers were set up to coincide with their elective office terms. As a result, Mr. Perrault is no longer one of the Council representatives, and the Mayor and Council should appoint a representative to this Board. One other member that had his term expire in December was Ken Maus. It should be noted that Mr. Maus is a resident of Becker Township, but previously the Council has allowed non -city residents to be appointed to the EDA depending on an individual's background and the experience that could be brought to the committee. With Mr. Maus being a local business owner and former Mayor, his insight and experience has become very valuable for this committee in reviewing revolving loan applications. The EDA membership previously had recommended that the City Council consider waiving the residency requirement until such time as there were a sufficient number of individuals willing to apply for EDA commission seats. The EDA membership felt that as long as a non-resident individual has a vested interest in the community by being a business owner, the residency requirement should be waived for certain committee appointments. Police Advisory Commission (3-yp r staggered terms). The Police Advisory Commission is composed of five members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, one of which is a Council member. For the past year, Councilmember Brian Stumpf has served in that capacity. In addition to a Council representative, the term of Chairperson Liz DesMarais expired in December and is recommended for reappointment for an additional 3 -year term. Along with this appointment, there still remains one vacancy that would expire December 1998 that has not yet been filled. In the past, an advertisement was placed in the Times seeking applicants for this position, but none were received. Since the Police Commission has met only three or four times annually, it hasn't been much of a problem with the vacancy; but we will attempt again to provide some candidates for the Council to consider in the Council Agenda - V13/97 near future to fill this unexpired term. In the meantime, if any Councilmember has someone in mind for this commission appointment, you could appoint the individual at Monday night's meeting. Parks Commission. Currently, the positions held by Mr. Robbie Smith and Mr. Larry Nolan expired December 1996. It is my understanding that both individuals are willing to serve an additional 3 -year term if reappointed. The 2 -year remaining term of Councilmember Bruce Thielen will need to be replaced, and I believe the Parks Commission will be soon conducting an advertisement seeking interested persons for making a recommendation to the Council for appointment. Unless the City Council wants to appoint someone to this vacancy before the Parks Commission has had a chance to make a recommendation, the vacancy can simply continue until a future date. The following appointments are not required to be made annually by statute, but each of them performs services on an as -needed basis for the City. The consulting services and/or individuals are listed as follows and can be individually discussed by the Council if desired. City Attorney. For the past six years, Mr. Paul Weingarden has served as our City Attorney. It is recommended at this time we simply continue this arrangement utilizing Mr. Weingarden for basic legal purposes of the City. City Auditor. Historically, Gruys, Borden, Carlson & Associates has been the City's auditor. As they have become very familiar with our accounting practices, I do not have any problem with the City continuing our relationship with this firm as our official auditor. zona +l ing Fngineer. For 1996, the City had utilized the services of two consulting engineering firms, OSM and WSB. Mr. Bret Weiss of WSB was appointed as the City's primary City Engineer, and the City continued to utilizo some services from Orr-Scholen- Mayeron & Associates for finishing up projects that had been started by OSM previously. At this time, there does not appear to be any specific reason why we would need to appoint OSM as a secondary consulting engineer for the City. The City staff and Council can certainly utilize the services of any consulting engineer on an as -needed basis; and if necessary, we may still need occasional services from OSM because of their past involvement in Council Agenda - V13/97 a particular project. For general engineering services, it is recommended that we simply continue our arrangement with Mr. Bret Weiss as the City Engineer with the firm of WSB & Associates. City�Planner. For the past number of years, Northwest Associated Consultants has been the City Planner, with Mr. Steve Grittman as the main contact. It is assumed that our relationship with Mr. Grittman will continue on an as -needed basis. Mayor Elect Bill Fair has expressed interest in having Councilmembers serve as liaison members with various committees and commissions of the City. I believe it's the intent of the Mayor to seek appointments from Councilmembers to attend the meetings of the various committees on an ex -officio basis, including the HRA, EDA, Planning Commission, Parks Commission, Police Commission, Library Board, Community Ed, and Fire Board. Various Councilmembers may have had discussions already with the Mayor regarding this idea, and I believe there will be additional discussion at the meeting concerning these assignments. While any of these appointments are not required by State Statutes, they can be included in our list of annual appointments if desired. The attached sheet as supporting data lists all of the members of the various commissions and appropriate appointments, both required and discretionary, that the Council can consider for 1997. The underlined names are the ones needing appointment for 1997; and in some cases, it may have been previously noted that a recommendation has not yet been made for filling a vacancy, in which case the Council may be asked to consider this appointment at a future date. This will likely be the case for the Library Board, Police Commission, Parks Commission, and the HRA in the near future when Mr. St. Hilaire s resignation takes effect in April. (This assumes Mr. St. Hilaire is reappointed until the effective date of his resignation.) If the Council is in agreement with all of the recommendations for annual appointments, a single motion is all that is needed to cover the vacancies underlined, or individual appointments can be made separately as needed. List of appointments needed and current office holders. 1987 ANNUAL APPOEWWNTS Official Depositories: Marquette Bank Monticello First Bank First National Bank of Monticello Chief Financial Officer - authorized to designate other depositories for investment purposes only. Newspaper. Monticello 71mes Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 1. Tom St Hilgire 12/2001 (5 -year staggered terms) 2. Darrin Lghc 12/2000 v 3. Brad Barger 12/99 4. Al Larson 12/98 5. Steve Andrews 12197 Planning Commission: 1. Richard Carlson 2. Inn Bogart 3.4. Dick MwriiP 5. Rufen Health Officer. Dr. Donald Maus (1 year) Acting Mayor: 11 C L (1 year) Joint Commissions: Community Education !tire Board Rick Wolfatp 1 r P> F i qa OAA Rill Fair Library Board: 1. 12/89 (3 -year staggered) �" wj 2. Duff Davidson 12/97 Q 3. Ipnnptte LukowAki 12/99 ih} 4. Ruby Bensen 12197 6. Diane Herbst 12/98 Attorney: Paul WeinBarden Planner: Northwmt Aaso _n nd VnnsinItgntit � Auditor. rayl{, Borden- rnrlgnn & Aosoc, APPOINT.LI9: IM97 IIA- Page 'APage 1 Recycling Committee: Economic Development Authority: 1. Council 12/2001 (b-year staggered terms) 2. Clint Herbst, Council 12/98 3. Ken Mail 12/2001 4. Al Larson 12197 b. Barb Schwientek 12/98 6. Bill Demeules 12/99 7. Ron Hoglund* 12/2000 Engineer: WSB & AssoriateFi Police Advisory Commission: 1. Brian Stumpf, Council 12/98 (3-yr staggered terms) 2. Bridget Baldwin 12/97 3. David Gerads 12/97 4. vacant 12/98 5. Liz DeMaraia 12/99 Parks Commission: 1. Earl Smith 12/98 (3-yr staggered terms) 2. La= Nolan 12/99 3. Fran Fair 12/97 4. 12/98 b. Robbie Smith 12/99 eggs ions for rounril liniAnn ( x-o4ii©o) apjl•aintman a to various City committees: HRA/EDA: Roger Carlson iu ( �9 Planning Commission: Clint Herbst Parks Commission: Bruce Thielen ✓ Police Commission: Brian Stumpf Fire Board: Brian Stumpf Community Ed & . k i (.1 ,* a Library Board: nr.. vt4; -)-Possibly combine with another such as Poliee/Fire Board liaison since meetings are infrequent. APPOINT LISIM? 'I6 Page 2 Council Agenda - 1/13/97 •1 , :1 Y: � , , I r I Y 7 A I •, :,M .:. City Council is asked to discuss establishing a plan for setting project and associated work priorities for City staff. To assist you in defining the scope of this task, I have attached a list of potential projects that are currently on "the plate." Obviously, staff will not be able to complete all of them, so we need help in prioritizing. This list only includes "new" projects or work outside of day-to-day activities. They have been categorized by department and by three other identifiers as follows: A. Projects that are development driven and, therefore, difficult to ignore. B. Projects that have already been identified by various commissions as being important. Many of these projects have specific budget numbers attached. C. Project ideas that have emerged recently --proactive in nature. The list is in draft form only and has not been reviewed by all of City staff nor by the various commissions; therefore, the first step in identifying priorities should be to seek other project ideas from staff, Council, and commissions. Once the final list is compiled, then a process needs to be completed that will result in the prioritization of projects. In sum, Council is asked to discuss setting up a process. What steps should we follow in developing priorities from here? Motion to direct staff to distribute list to staff and commissions and seek additional project ideas. Under this alternative, staff will complete the final list for future review by Council. Council could then prioritize the projects and/or seek additional input from staff and commissions on prioritization. Once priorities are established, staff will set up a work plan accordingly which will identify the staff or consultant responsible for each project. 20 Council Agenda - V13/97 Motion to deny distribution of list to staff and commissions. If Council is comfortable that staff has a good handle on project priorities, then this exercise is not necessary. C. S`PAFF REVOMMENDATION: It is my view that an effort to set priorities is important given the presence of three new Councilmembers. Staff effectiveness and accountability will certainly be enhanced if we can base our wort efforts on areas of importance to the City Council. Development of a listing of high priority projects will give us the focus we need and will serve to establish common expectations and serve as a baseline for monitoring progress. Project history. 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Planning/Building/Economic Development Depts. A e Development driven or mandated by State -projects that require attention. B . Project recently identified as needed - in budget C . New project idea Please note that day -today workload is not included in this listing. Zen: I I > I I I Cateapry 'WC Protect Description i Admin Amin B Remodel and/or begin planning for relocation of city hall. Admin Finance NA C Prepare capital improvement plan (city wider Admin Finance NA C Research financial impact of transition from NSP to non -NSP tax base. Admin Finance NA A Resolve storm sewer trunk fee program. I +I I Admin Finance NA C Revisit and/or revise fee structure associated with development -ell fees. Admin Personnel NA C Consider merging EDA/HRA. I Admin Personnel C Continuing education plan- Council, commissions, R staff. Admin Personnel NA C Deflne proper level of MCP support from City staff. Admin Perenrnel NA C Evaluate performance appraisal system. I Admin Personnel 125,000 B Staffsuppnn- parkadministrationandmaintenance. Admin Personnel B Staff eupport - planning & building dept. Admin Pub Into NA C Assemble data for internet applications. I Admin Pub info C Install voice mail. Admin Pub relatlor NA C Develop customer service feedback survey sheat. Admin Pub relatlor NA C Develop priorities for service delivery. I Admin Pub relatlor NA A Develop service level measures in accordance with State of MN requirements. I +I I Building Admin /5,000 B Develop plan for computerization of building permits. Building Admin NA C Enhance tommorcialAndustrial big permit info design standards/process. Building Admin A Cain compliance with ADA guidelines. Building Admin NA B Improve zoning code enforcement - perhaps hire intern. Building Admin NA A Maintain building permit moratorium In the care area. I Building Admin NA C Standardize address system. Building HnuinnR NA C Develop and implement rental housing ends and licensing program. Building Project NA A High School building construction project. I + I Computer NA C Oruamzo internet development - process fir updating data. Computer NA C Update &year plan for computer application development. Computer Admin $7,000 B Explore CIS options - develop a 5 -your plan - budget Item in 11306 - not done Econ Dev NA C Assemble data for Internal applications. EconDov C Dov. proactive mrktg network - Marred officials, realtors, builders, indust land owners.1 Ecnn Dov C Update information brochures, HRA Econ Dov NA B Develop TIF application guidelines. HRA Ecnn Dvv A Lake Tool TIP project monitoring. l HRA Housing C Dan Read - home relocation. I HRA Housing A Prairie West 11 TIF pr'rgact momtoring. I wkl997.wk4: 01/10/97 Page 1 I� HRA Housing NA B Scattered housing site program. HRA MCP C Armory development downtown or at high school. HRA MCP C land acquisition activities to carry out downtown river front redevelopment. HRA MCP C Purch BN ROW in core city area. Refine Hiles for using 5th St ROW. HRA MCP C Relocate Ferrellgas. HRA MCP C Relocate JM Oil and Riverside Oil. HRA MCP C Store front redesign/revolving loan bold. Parks Admin NA C Assemble data for intemet applications. Parke Dev $12,000 8 Freeway Park - concession area. Parks Dev $16,000 B Implement shade tree planting program. Parks Dev $2,000 B Meadow Oak Park basketball. Parks Dev/MCP $20,000 B Bridge Park improvements. Parke Maint NA C Adjust mowing practices - introduce native grasses where appropriate. Parks Maint $10,000 B Playground equipment maintenance. Parks Maint NA B Snowmobile ordinance amendments. Parke Pathway NA B Apply for ISTEA funds for funding of pedestrian overpass at County Rd 118. Parks Pathway $80,000 B Construction along CSAH 118 connecting School Blvd to CSAR 76. Parks Pathway $60,000 B Construction along river - Mississippi Dr. to Ellison Park. , Parke Pathway $30,000 B Construction from Middle School to Meadow Oak. 1 Parks Pathway TIF B Mississippi Shores foot bridge. +� I Parke Pathway $2,600 B Montissippi Park/NSP/DNR Pathway - Park and Prairie development. Parks Plan B Location of City/Llons Club park development. Perks Plan C Playground equipment - addition of handicap accessible equipment. Parke Tree NA B Tree ordinance update and implementation. 1 Planning Admin NA C Assemble data for intemet applications. 1 I Planning Admin NA B Cost recovery - increase planning fees and commitment to recovering costs. Planning Admin C Downtownhiverfront redevelopment efforts. Planning Admin NA C Improve fellow -up on individual cases. Planning Admin NA C Parking along CR 75 across from Pinewood School. Planning Admin NA C Participate in regional planning initiatives. +I I Planning Admin NA C Prepare Annual Planning Reonrt. Planning Admin NA C Ranch style social service center corporative effort - Donna Mueller/Bohanon sludge st Planning Annex NA B Amandmente to City/Township Urbanization Agreement R map. Planning Annex NA B Amendments to MOAA guidelinewboundaries. Planning Annex NA A An Hill - 40 -acro residential devolooment +� I Planning Annex NA A John Leenion - 10acro residonnal pro+act. Planning Annox NA A Orrin Thompson - 80 -acre residential project. Planning Annex NA A Resurrection Church - site review/annexation/razoning process. Planning Annex NA B Submit comp plan to MORA for final rotiflcatinn. Planning Ord NA B AdJust business comous - change name - reduce 30% requirement. I Planning Ord NA B Development of low density housing standards? > 12,000 square feat/lot? Planning Ord NA B Outside storage - Rags. limiting outside storage as a % of principal use. i Planning Ord NA C Pole building regulations. Planning Ord NA B Screening fence standards - imornve definition of minimum standards. Planning Ord NA C Subdivixion design standards - examine for possible amendments. Planning Ord NA A Telecommunication tower ordinance amendments. Planning Ord NA B Variance procedure. wk,997.wk4: 01/10/97 /QB ?age 2 Planning Ord NA C Zoning decisions on strip retail south of freeway. Planning Ord/MCP C Act on future MCP initiatives. Planning Ord/MCP NA B Analyze multi -family - possible zoning ordinance amendments to map. i Planning Ord/MCP NA B Commercial toning districts - proper ads of uses identified? Planning Ord/MCP NA C Ordinance amendment - architectural standards. Planning Ord/MCP NA C Ordinance amendment - housing. Planning Ord/MCP NA C Ordinance amendment - signage. Planning Ord/MCP NA B PZM district/downtown designation - possible amendments along River St Planning Plat NA A Close out Briar Oakes Estate IT improvement project Planning Plat NA A Close out Mein Farms Estates. Planning Plat NA A Close out Meadow Oak 4th improvement project Planning Plat NA A Close out River 160 project. Planning Plat NA A Finalize Monticello Business Center Plat. Planning Plat NA A Hospital plat update and record. Planning Plat NA C Replat Meadow Oak lots into Eastwood Knoll development. Planning Project NA A Dave Peterson Monticello Ford expansion - Process CUP. Planning Project NA A Gould Bros. expansion - Process CUP. Planning Project NA A GrimsmolPeterson Funeral Home - Process CUP. Planning Protect NA A High School building environmental assessment and CUP process. Planning Project $100.000 C Hwy 2NChehea Rd Improvements and all associated land transactions. Planning Project NA A Itlellbom East sanitary sower connection - complete the project. Planning Project NA C 1KMellberg Wort son. sewer connection - developmont agreement Planning Project NA A Main Forts III - Plat approval and public Improvement process. Planning Project C Moll redevelopment. Planning Project C Open up access to Unn Street for post office, Planning "act NA A Ruff Auto Planned Unit Development - Complete the project. Planning Project NA A St. Henry's - determine min. for 7th St. - CUP and public imp. process. Planning Streets NA B Determine design for CSAH 78 - stew to take to manage trafllc. PW NA A Wastewater treatment plant construction project wk1997.wk4: 01/10/97 ^ Pape 3 Council Agenda - 1/13/97 City Council is asked to consider passing a resolution authorizing an ISTEA grant application for a pedestrian walkway overpass at County Road 118 and I-94. As Clint and Brian will recall, the City Council reviewed this ISTEA application and granted approval in 1996; unfortunately, the project was not funded in 1996. However, the application ranked very high as an enhancement program application; therefore, there is a good chance that on a second go -around, the grant application might be approved. Therefore, City staff is recommending that the City Council authorize resubmittal of this ISTEA grant application. The following information is a replication of the information provided last year on this topic. The two things that have really changed since 1996 are the passage of the school bond issue referendum and an increase in projected cost. Development of the high school places more pressure and more importance on the presence of the pedestrian overpass. Obviously, there is today a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic on this narrow bridge; and with development of the high school, pedestrian traffic at County Road 118 will be even greater. Therefore, there are even stronger reasons for approval of this pedestrian walkway. Costs have gone up to the City from $180,000 in 1996 to $184,786 in 1997. The application would also include a request for funding of pathway segmenta along County Road 118 from CSAH 76 (at Riverroad Plaza) to School Boulevard (Middle School) and would include pathway segments connecting the Meadow Oak/Eastwood Knoll/Oak Ridge neighborhoods to the school campus area. A portion of the cost to install both of the pathway segments mentioned above was included in the 1996 and 1997 budgets. Under the ISTEA proposal, the money budgeted would be used to pay for the City share of the project cost. Please note that under this ISTEA-funded proposal, actual construction activities would not occur until 1999. It is anticipated that entrance and exit ramps at County Road 118 will be installed at some point in the future. According to studies to date, introduction of the ramps will not create sufficient additional traffic in the short-term to justify widening of the bridge to serve the vehicular traffic. This is good news because the cost to widen the bridge to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic is very expensive and may not be necessary 22 Council Agenda - 1/13/97 until a full interchange is built. However, the additional traffic created by introduction of the ramps will make it even more difficult for pedestrian and bike traffic to negotiate the bridge, thus the need for the pedestrian bridge. In the future, if the bridge is widened, the coat to widen the bridge will be reduced because it will not need to be built to accommodate pedestrian traffic if the pedestrian bridge is built. According to Bret Weiss, the cost to construct the pathway segments and bridge section is estimated at $486,280, not including engineering and inspection. Engineering and inspection fees are estimated at $87,530. If the City pays 20'% of the construction coat and all of the engineering fees and inspection expenses, the total coat to the City for the entire project will amount to $184,786. Funds for this project would come from budget years 1996 ($30,000), 1997 ($18,000), and 1998 ($136,786). Motion to authorize City staff to submit a request for funding for the project described above and authorize allocation of 20'% (minimum) of the project cost. Under this alternative, City staff would prepare the application, which is due January 17, 1996. We understand that the County is in full support of this project based on their input last year. Motion to deny authorization for staff to submit a request for funding. C. STAFF RFF.COMMENDATION: We have gained significant experience with the ISTEA program through completion of the pathway system to date and believe this experience will serve us well in efficiently completing another project. The need for the improvements has been demonstrated, and the City has nothing to lose by applying for funding assistance; therefore, staff recommends alternative 01. The proposed pedestrian bridge and pathway improvements aro on the City's pathway plan. The ability to tap federal fhnds will assist the City in completing important sections of the plan on a timely and affordable basis. Resolution for adoption; Draft application. RESOLUTION 97 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR ISfEA ENHANCEMENT FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE III OF CITY PATHWAY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a long-term plan for pathway development in the city, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has completed construction of phase I and phase II of the plan, which consists of a sidewalk grid system and pathways located in the core area and outlying areas within the city, and WHEREAS, construction of phase III improvements, consisting of pathway segmenta and bridge improvements connecting the north and south sides of the city, is consistent with the long-term plan and is now a high priority for immediate construction, and WHEREAS, off-road pathway and pedestrian/bilie development along the County Road 118 corridor is necessary to provide a safe route for pedestrians and bikers traveling to many various points of destination along the city pathway system, and WHEREAS, phase III improvements can be constructed primarily on county and city right-of-way, and preliminary permission for use of county road right-of-way for off-road paths built by the City has been granted, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has conducted a citizen survey which has indicated that walking and biking is a leisure activity enjoyed by a cross-section of the population, and whereas the survey indicated popular support for further development of pathway systems, and WHEREAS, development of phase 111 pathway improvements along with landscaping enhancements will enhance the experience of travelers following the historic and scenic Great River Road. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED: 1. The City authorizes submittal of an ISTEA Enhancements Fund application for funds necessary to complete phase IIf pathway improvements and associated landscaping. 2. The City authorizes fbnding of engineering -related expenses estimated at a cost of $87,530, which, when combined with 20^% of project cost ($97,256), results in n cost to the City of $184,786. /3A- Resolution 97 - Page 2 3. The City authorizes funding of 20% of the total construction cost outlined in the grant. Total construction cost is estimated at $486,280. City share at 20% equals $97,256. 4. The City shall maintain all improvemen:a constructed for the life of the improvements, which include sealcoating, crack filling, mowing, tree trimming, etc. Annual maintenance and sinking fund expenses are estimated at $15,000/year. 5. The City of Monticello supports the efforts of Wright County to obtain ISTEA funding, which would enable construction of a paved trail system within Montissippi Park. 6. The City shall develop policies and ordinances that will promote the safe and effective use of the facilities by all citizens. Adopted this 13th day of January, 1997. Mayor City Administrator mop City of Monticell Enhancement Fundi gl;gdq`ues GREAT RI COUNT, PEDEST, Dji"18 ERPASS ��ID PATHVIFi��(PROJECT ) 3 CJ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located on the southeast side of Monticello in Wright County as noted in Exhibit 1. The project consists of construction of 5,700 ft of off-road pathway, a 10 -ft wide pedestriantbike .rossing over Interstate 1-94 adjacent to Wright County Road 118, and landscaping improvements. The existing bridge at Wright County Road 118 is 36 ft wide and is not designed to carry the growing pedestrian/bike traffic. This project, representing phase III pathway plan implementation, is a key component of the City's pathway plan because it will link growing areas of the community to older established neighborhoods. Phase I consisted of development of a system of sidewalks serving the older, established core area of the city whip" located entirely on the north side of Interstate I-94. Phase II is complete and includel`dev li7pment of pathway segments on both the north and south side of the freeway/In areae n=df the freeway, since 1993, 4.5 miles of off-road pathway has been installed along -Busy CSAH 76%q allow safe access to and from important points of destination located east and west of sidewalk grid system. Phase II also included development of 2.5 miles of pathways witbin`the d7elopufg.ar6s south of the freeway. Pathways developed south of the freeway link'neighborhood�togetber and provide safe access to a school campus featuring two elementary schools and a-higli school, new parks, and commercial areas. The only acceptable pedestrian ateess from north Monticello to south Monticello is the Trunk Highway 25 overpass. D$vOopment of the proposed pedestrian overpass would provide a north/south link on the easi end of town, which is in the area of rapid urbanization. In sum, the time is now ripe for phaso 111bridge pathway, and landscaping that will tie pathway subsystems together by overcoming the fiteeeway barrier. In addition, landscaping and prairie grass plantings are proposed. that will enhance the appearance of the area and improve the environment. 'he pathway segments proposed are divided into two parts. One segment, which is identified as dA on the City -Wide Pathway PlanAxhibit 21, is located'entirely within the Wright County Road 118 road right-of-way and extends from Sthool Boulevard to CSAH 75. Included in this segment is the pedestrian/bike crossing of Interstater94 and introduction of trees to enhance the now barren boulevard. This,segment links a pathway located along CSAR 75 to a pathway located along School Boulevard which serves a large school campus and adjacent growing residential, industrial, and.comre merrial areas. This segment is approximately 2,700 ft in length with an estimated most of $358,265; including the bridge over I.94 and landscaping. The area within the city on the sopth side of the,6eeway served by the new crossing would consist of approximately"!.5 square Miles otresidential, school, and commercial land uses. When fully developed, the area south of the freeway will contain 3 square miles of developed land. The other segment identified as 5A (Exhibit 2) on the City -Wide Pathway Plan extends easterly from the intersection of Sdiool Boulevard and County Road 118 to an existing pathway network serving the Meadow OA -residential planned unit development area. Currently, this area does not have safe access'outside of the development area. The overpass and corresponding pathway will provido a safer bike and pedestrian access to the city-wide transportation network. The alignment, will follow County Road 118, alongside the Resurrection Church property, and through a city outlot designated specifically for pathway purposes. Tree plantings are proposed for sections located on County Road 118. The portion owned by the City and under the power line will be restored as a natural prairie planting, thus minimizing maintenance and improving iological diversity in the area. The total length of this segment is 3,000 ft with a total estimated cost of $51,000. IaTEAD7 NAR MWD7 13 D Page l 1. Qualifying Criteria The proposed project is consistent with the qualifying criteria as follows: A. The project provides facilities for pedestrian and bike use and links a large developing area to an existing pathway system (Exhibits 3 & 4). B. The project is located and integrated with the Great River Road Scenic and Historic Highway Program. Pathway segments and bridge improyements link developing areas to scenic corridors (Exhibits 3 & 4). _ 7 C. The project includes landscaping, restoration of nati, scenic beautification efforts within or near the Great (Exhibit 2). /( D. The project links new developing areas to' ate exirfj historic places of interest within the community (Ex] The qualifying activities above constitute 100%,,4th prep It is requested that this application be scored under the PE FACILITIES category and is eligible to receive funding for above. 2. The total estimated cost of the project eligi . for federal fi ii%'grasses, and other Raid Corridor�/ i way,iip tem�with links to 3 & 4)`----'' Ls. �UAN AND BICYCLE ns described under A - D ( is $409,265. J. Local Match The City of Monticello has passed a/resolution which authorizes payment of 20% of the total project cost of d pays eniLof eajjin'eering expenses and other project costs not eligible for federal funding. 4. Project _ ain \ n p. The City of Monticello has passed a resolution (Exhibit 7) which guarantees gtaintenance of.the proposed project for the life of the project. 6. EWipet S Nor Rte City,of Monticello (1990 pop. 6045) is the project sponsor. 6. Dem.l t*ated Re ntipnr;tiip r T—nanortntion. The proposed project is an enhancement of ansting transportation system. It enables pedestrian and bike traffic to be integrated with, an existing righ of --way now used primarily for vehicles. The project provides safe de`strian access 4tween a growing area of the community and an existing pathway ystem.and reprerr is a major and critical segment of the City's long-term pathway plan. Jho project enhances the Great River Road Transportation Corridor. 7. Mitigntion of Trnmpgrintion Project. The project is an enhancement and not mitigation. ISTM7 NAF 111ao7 1,36' Page 2 PRIORITY CRITERIA State if your project is identified in, or is consistent with, statewide, regional, or local plans which have been adopted by federal, state, regional, or local agencies. The project will enhance the enjoyment of the historic and scenic Great River Road by improving bike/pedestrian safety and by beautifying areas in and near this historic corridor. The project is integrated with county pathway and highway d�o nt plans (Exhibit 6). Wright County is planning on development of scenic eways and walkways within a 177 -acre park that is adjacent to the exis pathway sys . This project will link large developing areas of the community to th"xisting.way s tem, thin providing a link to the county park. Similarly, this proleceprovide a liA County Road 39, which is a county -designated bike route. `This�pute conn�b3onti Ilo to pathway systems in the nearby City of Otsego chat are being developed with the help of enhancement funds. The project has strong support of Wayne Finga�� Wn'ght C ty Engineer. He agrees that this project will improve pedestrian safdb on County Road *- The project is consistent with bike planning goals andrecommendations set forth in the State of Minnesota Comprehensive State Bicyele`Plan as follows: State goals and objectives for .loo linclud�he goal of 'enhancing bicycling so that the bicycle becomes the easy choiM j'n contrfbtcting to )he health, safety, and welfare of Minnesotans.' Bicycle of pedbstrian,/Vu of County Road -118 is currently a difficult choice for pedestrian/ bike user�due to high au"ek.speeds and volume and very poor separation area between bride rail -and tral c lanes. In addition, the road surface is narrow and lacks paved shoulders. lnstallation.of ao off-road path as proposed will make the route attractive "ke id and tlius'achieve the state goal by making the bicycle the easy \ choice; :'.-i > The project also contributes toward achieving statewide program recommendations relating to recreation and tourism. Stnte program recommendations that this project gddr6ses include, following: �Pieyel,e tour i+putescontinue to be established, improved, mapped, and signed in areas of the_stak tharhave significant tourism potential.' and 'Local bicycle trails be developed that provide recreation and optimum transportation opportunities.' ISTEA97 NAR 111697 ' 3 F Page 3 Describe how the project completes a larger project, concept, or plan. The enhancement funds will be used to help finance phase III (Exhibits 2 & 5) of the City's pathway development plan adopted in 1993. Phase I consisted of construction of 4.6 miles of sidewalks within the core area of the city which occurred prior to 1993. Phase II consisted of construction of 3.75 miles of pathway improvements installed in conjunction with enhancement funds and 2.5 miles of pathway installed by the city and developers in conjunction with land and road development activity since 1993. The pedestrian/bike bridge and pathway segments proposed will link large developing areas south of the freeway to an existing pathway spine" and sidewalk systemtlat runs�be full length (5 miles) of the established portion of the community. Conversely, the ' ject will link the older established area of the community to a burgeoning rest area and school campus that features an existing grade school, a middle school, and 4, roposed W94 school that will be constructed in 1997. Construction of thejdge and athway ents under this project is important because it defeats he free ay iams`r and'safelfrlinks two areas of the community, both of which contain now sepai$(e pathway-lky , 'There are approximately 8.35 miles of sidewalk and pathway improvements on the -north side of the freeway that will be linked to 2.5 miles of pathway impm�lements already installed, as development has occurred on the south side of the�away. The bridge and pathway improvements proposed are truly a missing and'key efert umt oi`the City's pathway plan and would provide a synergist benefit which goe`sbeyond the umnediate benefit provided by the project itself. / \ A separate bike/pedestrian crossing is neededio iqrprove a'diminishing margin of safety. Additional development in the are`t�contin4s to re'p Win'an increase in bike/pedestrian and vehicular use of abridge thi t was de3igned primarily for vehicular use. Residential and school development south 9f the frdeaay is girAng at a rate of apporoximately 80 residences/year, resulting int increasing use_oftbe bridge for pedestriantbike use. At the same time, vehicular tr6f6c is increasing rapidly. A traffic study completed by the City Engineer in 1993 projected amincreasei&vehicular traffic on County Road 118 from 3,312 in 1993 to 13,416 y theye 2b15. Explain the degree'to which a project addresses Issues/needs in one, two, or three of Obpings established for Minnesota's process. Hist�tic Caro�p n / The project enhnncei the value of existing historic sites within the community by linking Orem south of tho,fieeway barrier to historic places of interest located on the city pathway syete�a, Hietoricrptaces of interest include the Rand Mansion, which is on the National )I;tegiater of his places, and Little Mountain Settlement, which is a local center for W"ric preservation. Exhibit 4 illustrates the location of these historic places. There are no trees in the boulevard or on nearby private property in areas adjacent to the proposed pathway segments along County Road 118. A portion of the pathway proposed is under power lines with little opportunity for tree planting. The project will enhance the area by introducing trees to the boulevard and will enhance connecting pathway segments 19TEA97 NAR WOW 1'3& Pogo 4 9 4. b. located under power lines by introducing prairie grass plantings. The prairie plantings will serve to minimize maintenance and improve habitat by providing biological diversification in a city experiencing continuing urbanization. Pedestrian and Bicycle Fa 'litiec -ro unin The pedestrian/bike crossing and connecting pathways will link two separate sections of the community, both of which contain major points of trip origin and destination. The project would encourage pedestrian and bike movements to and from no separate sections of the community. Explain if your project demonstrates more %a I t or benefit. The bike/pedestrian freeway crossing proposed i e only a`ve destri crossing in the region, thus it will provide a ben to bi is areas south of the city that seek access to the Great orridor. use 4.of the Great River Road Corrider will benefit from the added of safety that pathway segments and bridge provide. Please describe adjacent land use andthe Natio hip the proposed project. The proposed project will complement tht�tjjacent land use d has no potential for harming the environment. The path aiay willI man and bike traffic from vehicular traffic and will encouragrO e e between important points of origin and destination. It will link establis{ed resi,dontidl areas to new schools, parks, and neighborhoods, and will lift' i?feew neigghborh to established commercial areae, historic places, and river pa*)6cated/op an e ; pathway system. It is impsrdgve that thi a crossing be atgpaproved to accommodate bikelpedestrian traffic pfiginating onUe north side of-the•fFeeway using school and park facilities on the south side In &,neair-Nture,with development of the high school, the school population on the 110 eaftus vn aatoutht.to 2,472. It is obvious that improved pedestrian access to the school a from the a Borth is needed. Exhibit'#- ill u tras�tes the locbtionn of existing and proposed land uses. iarewr NAR V„0e7 13 Fi— Page 5 f PROJECT BUDGET Please identify what costs will be incurred to carry out the proposed project, using the following budget categories as guideline. Where appropriate, break down your costs by units purchase, i.e. number of acresthectars, cubic yardstmeters of fill, etc. Land acquisition necessary for preserving abandoned railroad corridor is eligible for reimbursement if the property is being acquired for the provision of pedestrian or bicycle trails. Other acquisition activities may be permissible on a case-by-case basis. Applicants should review Qualifying Criterion No. 1 and consult with their regional contact person for clarification of this policy. ITEMS ELIGIBLE FOR REMBURSEMENT: Construction Item --grading, paving, etc. V-0imatrdmntity Unit rntt Tntni rnst Bridge 1 r 240,000 240,000 Earthwork - Bridge 28,500 CY 4 114,000 Pavement - Bridge 820 LF 24 19.660 Pathway 5.700 LF 18 102.600 Landscaoina t 10,000 10,000 ITEMS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REMMURSFMFNT: Ineligible Land Acquisition — appraisal fees, legal fees, etc. LINE A: TOTAL 486,280 LINE B: TOTAL Administrative Costs — preliminary and construction engineering _ nnnign Anrvicea 001J_ 1 48,628 48,628 Construction Enginoorinq (81) > 38.902 38.902 LINE C: TOTAL •87.530 occc00000000e 000000cc I. Total cost of proposed project: LINES A, B, AND C TOTALED $573,810 2. Items not eligible for enhancement Ponding: LUTE B AND C TOTALS S 87,530 3. Total of eligible costs (minimum of $100,000) LINE A TOTAL S 48,628 4. Applicant's contribution towards the eligible enhancement projects costs (see Qualifying Criteria No. 2) S 97,256 5. Total amount requested in enhancement Hands (No. 3 minus No. 4) 5389,024 -4- 13= WE 11 County Road 118 Pedestrian Overpass & Pathway Project Schedule Task 1998 1999 JAN Fig MAW AN HAV, M JUL AUG SPP Wn NOY DEC JAN Fib MA APR MAY JUN JUL AUG STP OCT NO\ Select a Project Manager # Project Memorandum Plans A Specjflcatlons Advertise for Bids open B16 Construction W 1 - rn wr..WI Me Ulb WSB MWqftwwu all MI Ip •�v.wr / MI110 ":tea Project Location Map County Road 118 Pedestrian Overpass & Pathway Monticello, Minnesota Project IA C.Ilion McnPgmle WMW mn *" is loon Exhlblt 1 V-A + `:'!„CCC . ✓ / - _ ' 1 . f I �'I'' rj W G M� R— m ray CanneN '•' (7139- /u �cb her Road Sj� r � - aaaaaaaa� Eab* NanoM�� rraposd\atnl �. \N - 9Alow llSScbool a Remsat6m Ad 9” / \ l.7uuai. R n ; r`11 • Mrad�w Oe►� \\ t rw tilbul 11Wli ,idL�y r rap ��„•,.-.'..v I,I � SA I /►de�,0i ]. , �'� . t ! I� 11 I ��] .�•. j F ` h � II, (f11�'I eIII ��i \1L ��, ��1� '��• 1]111�I� � 1. �llllllrl/rf �' l �� Za � • '�}, �� -- — — _ Proposcd Pathway IWZPX*dV4 Pomm - ]�o nn.a.oae l b ur1 WSB """n°101 "°"' Counly Road 118 Pedestrian Overpass [Pathway !tea Monlicello, Minnesota Exhibit 2 r f Narrow Overpass W idr No Comicction to Residential Arco l Legend Future Path - Phase IVT' i '» Proposed Path •Phase III �e.,- 1 - Proposed On -Road Pathway r- / yrtl - xisting 8' Pathway - Phase 11 y , 1 Existing On -Road Pathway - Phase 1124' Nide County Road Sidewalk • Ph= l - - I. 9 I Existing and Future Pathway System County Road 118 Pedestrian Overpass 8t Pathway 11) MI.b ....,,I,v Monticello, Minnesota x o6P - o CR I IN Overpass No Pedestrian Acccss 24' W ide CR 118 rranyarn room � Exhibit 3 Propel 4 Location Zrt. '� '.L � '.-;., ��N#: '• �. rte- .`.: ,s.IARrrs co.- — Wright County Proposed Vr Bikeway Plan TS. "7� �jjjj�y .I 1w1 ��. •t.. \ •:i1. i •�- w in-•�� , .• .. \I 1' .i �y_.� ��. ��i�. i „`-�• ,i a�,•`r-••� j �M C7, ti 4- fi - •irA'n 1y�'_ tl • 1 r �� +�f � ' ��, -_ }{1�'��--(,,:iu <{ _ •_r'•.p .. ,mi�n—i I �' 3 Irs._r' sr .: �5 �' • .. ... _ ..... i _ .1 �� i� • :�� -r/I � • �.nj 1 �, }� . �) t. i ' j, tQt•Ia Y , �•. Existing }} Priority #t i, Priority #2 fs 'ice. JI _� f' Priority 03 MONOMm 1993 CITI' DE PATIIWAV PIAN - SEGMENTS CORIPLETED- PROI F139M ISTEA - EXHIBITS OD c 6.14- 1i UN KtY•KNIFIt ItU YA1HWAYSLUMtN I S PNASIO. 1363 ISTEA PROJECT-COSIPIXM 1•SIOlMAI.Ra6T10111 •Pp"03-CO3VL/(ED PHASED- CITYWEVELOPER-COM.CM -- -_ S W C a P S a L� IC,I�`M12.V .101, II' II. II .JI.I.,'•,° 1 %L'AIp1ED P� '�YaT>i-L: Y' % P 1 L 1 A E M CSIWATED SOMKT E D A WSTALLATIOM O A A O COST W KOSIENT SEGMENT DESCTIIPTIOM TIIIIMO LNOTX E a a RIOUWm a M a. W IN] 'MUMOER D 3 I A. 0. C. O. I. I. O. X. I. S. R. 4 0 0 _ DNr�!�Ad lNer.MRl /•W !I�n_1 ' in _12!60 _NMNA 1_ NOME N AJOpCR3pehona"db08.4170 CaMWd AA PtL~ I,a00 tl 1. :MONS ) N N CNI, um7iAi a+laowi vLsl�rlw:3i�wix;.11-'.' ':i7,shoo`"'a "s�slaoms —4-s.r^.,•, J�)T'"i�]' 21A/Rq •.>' - ;•: •.i �' ..-'!,IOD : 3D • 32 0�:r SXM •• . 'ti . 2 r N ICT' tMI (I 3:A Ii3MFr11dpIMbRAArBer / 1 : ]FmR WEA..9.4rArd....% 1 +, •, Z,a00 I 1`. CFPRQAOPATFWAY', ".1. .. Y INA SUM 51 1+A IEsisoQmr oM9Ab .. -3 PUD 101�10a1 ••' Ir' tl •,. . .a./0D . I'..:.' atyM)EnST04 t.� 1.. Y INA _ w,000 e ey1-^_LudommmUo9.r+ewvre�x<N:�¢lYr+o]va afil�eESN.d..N�•s:... _r, ., 'Y•i4aao� LmaaPRdIDaATNwA ,. fru w. � 1..•sn.ami 1 e'A OY RIdP•W_! _]C..PIMW AsOW-d _600 IN _ 1 OFFRWDPANM'AY �1. —�19 OD0 a )IIA aA R.W 0—a _ ]Co.~b PlPuud !DD NA I OFF ROADPATIMAY . !'FA 117DW V IA Ec..D 3cwnpw As PW A00 IN 1 lWrWONWADAN.1 IIN "M) IU 1 A _ CR lla-O9�PPI aN01P•CaMl le'�•�;� ._] a11Gf0A - I,e00 'q 1- IOFPIIW_DPArFWA Y SNA Sn am ?r'P!;'d_"'i Ma1V nu+�: Ct..�Ss:• i;,•..:r. 10 CR IIS.OdmlaMaMCdW 70-• _11 1Ea1 .I}••,':'b• {.� :. n_I,e00 .•q 1. r ^' IaTRPElBOl�'9 �I I' V_1�.r_ _} N'. M•CNTV� 4A 1] IDA cam ?b WoftYOM AVA b IW + 1• --- I�[�..»IeAJ --_ - � s2 _w ". I_ -OFF RUACPArNNAY Y NA V1119ma I) IIA _MNFdMw QtAwbWluJa.;...1:':•.•'-..:IL .V.1 [!M�IMIIa IIMI�Oa).Y`l„ 1•: ;.r1,f00 •MA._ I'Lr Y:'CFP ROW PAPW-A t=!' .1.1 /U'•'IUMI _ •t' {10!001 1(� 17 A8<NmI ONa•FIan EMn bEMm ACMd IOC:onpMAd rPIFIIAAd 600 F5 I /1FFRbAOPAINWAY 11� WiOF 1 11WO' IS 17 I al' -i OIM -FIom PM .M. 91. 3':a1pMF .OW j 800 AS I OFF ROWPAf~V N 1'RIIP W(W lei 12 C 8r0Aol OIw• RFrIMYOO I—b IIS ]'Cerl:pMbdMprMAd 7,100 .] I OFF ROAD PAINWAY N CC:AYJI 1]1000 1) I] D BCNF01 ow- FAM_ b OAU FAAN 21 !' alplMld r PIFAFAO 5200 .5 I CFF ROW PAI AWAY 11 ACOP :m M' 13 uE CANNCF09C•M qp gblxr 3,:.,Vwm bFlr�d p 070 NA I OFF ROW PAI/M'AY v " IS IB I} A MaM-L Abo._fl9 c• v 1!':onp .PY 1.700 ]D 10 O CONS ) r N nlr 1107 20 1) as ,0.. IAM b CcI DW C'..v I Ca11p'MMMpMmtl 1.70D 10 M O SnNS _ ]Y N I'll 7:D] !7 I] A pe WAPm91n DIAFdNrICS41 I6)b TP Ia 1 Cd111f1FIFdr ow. lo30 19 fl:"kA/,iD119 I I N I•IIIN• V"M 13 A alaoaa%!1aa3o'.' � �1 a1:(MRe,c3a'dr►.eai;ai - ".F'_t^..'� _./oD 'ao ' ° f;;"; dH,paoPlrid�'�r :•'"r.'� �' N' arr $1350071 17 C Fpr AN ILIA b QIMIAe / alAl N Mdm(bNWNla FroP AMmMNe• 38M `40 ' 1 117PRWDPATHMAY " �. N_ ppct __ _651woI 1 ]F II AI 'Ch iM-CR INb6bfi F-v2D 1 e IaW � ' •� 6.4m .43 r- 1 GOO I. ' I N M CIrV si./1i II A7 Ct"-CR11abQW2! .1 '11Mre CNW ffwo MO"aw 5,4W _.5 i-1 OFF"ADPAI)MAY Y NA a1700DO! +,f II A ,'AFM IMryh•t00bM 3 WMllwrbpldAlllO.1T1o1aaFd 1000 q 1 OFFROADP�T:IIVAY 11 Y_ ;.W _a:O wo -1 13 A TDQ •OaICP bRWdb DMQ 3 MINI WOA b dMldpW 7,500 b a8, 6DWLRIOIRPE/LGN7 t N 'N PROP 53/637• 7hl 11 0 7MQ •EFeQ bWFIFICJ `a Oaftw.r 73167?..dM d I.AOD p 1!'' GDALKWINPUBON.S 1 N N PROP 110N0 b N C 701 Q . MVrIFFOM Q b b Qab NIF'1' 25 . 10 IOW 1,700 36 S -0I 033 ' � N. � •� t' I N M PROP 7m 0 473 VI M O i I.Ms IAAY 71 WAFMOIon 1 0 C.,..~ M PIFAIIAd 7 am b S G CKW9 ) N N A70P M4 III N 07 7d1 Q .GLM W'T A b MdF!IYOmI '1 -- ' ! IVI,An n■FI ., M 1�t�W W _• - •n - • �) 000 7a W— WO LI(WRIPECOk ` I N N PROP _ _$471001 1] 11 A 7O0 •WANrIpA Ib CR 111 _ S V*-Plmarlj aFMOp 0000 n LO (IIY�WQTRPEX]UM7 1 l M M PROP 670WO 71I 11 A Rm Q.LLs1Y1PMFL]CF d - - �- 1 ColllPl &A 'LIMA~ - - - 1,100 m O Won ) I N Of, %SID M / is D _ NIw Q CrFhw b ObI Cly 1 WIIAn Omr CIAr Ra Y I�FaFd _I,. . 1) O� JC GIO _ 3 Y N C]I•/ 1101 9 Id A_ C-C.QNM0 •OF Ot.M.bW a WF!_pM CNMRaM�i rFtd �`__ 12DD 30 .4 CDMtIWiRO[po1/] ^I N M_ PROP 1']51]1 11 I 20 A q»a Q .._W b COATI IS _ 3 WIIMION DGAM Rd M WQp 3 DDO 10 a_ _ 16oNJ 3 Y M 0" {`�( Il)I A R»a�11_fJM1 /Db N7'/�tIF 1 CPnglM9 ppb11Md IaOD ID IGFr I1W!Q PA1r11Y11r I T v NA IM•ra V1 .22 ♦ M(IMMYaY PAM N<IIA Tra��4AMIn 7 DrpwdoMr l7G _ 1,730 W I _ OFPTiOADPATNWAY :J ]1 A� (.041 >D R»FI❑Mf4jIaMFWM1 1 C. pw r PNNMO GOOD S5 1 411110 - ••i N' 11" I IY• 171,11 o! 7. A fC4U5 A_r' bAary IAAaU 1 f�� ,�.,� 1FFb 9 FMD O I C4 WIN) WAY v IN $13-M 1 dli 7)14 f:141 l5 .:vrrlrMlfb bf NnBN 1 MOrprAMd S10a 1! ! _ TNI MIAUPAII'MAY _ r !rN 1N11 •il", a) NIA !M10 W1.II ]7bC -"'I Th ...- ••••• ICOadrrlrFaMa�• .• •. ••.• •• •1700 H I �IYf NOAD PAIIM'Ar rN 1 11 AI01' l7 Al Oa3 Ca(r R/•Ii11F k]w Q'�_q, h.1r7 131163 C7 �'''.-•__�>,000�q �V'_T OgNa �. .�,..,.YI •.7NN CM1Y -- 3YM1 7/ AZ�Ia ORnr RO • I.S1 D Ean a' •' %• ! W1, i ni.1 :.F30�, .le 1 ��l D00 q day' 1 1 RDAO WTNWAY. N Tot—w G10 h1A FAIp-4>1�!!A9Ipb111pM 7 FWn O/G nFyNdAR Y(.�^_T 100 N1 ' I CFPRWUPATWWY. V �W UCODI lA' lnr 10 an:y F TpF CM AM dWaACW cwt w:wMY 00 rJ' acldF Mpldb 14 ppwayn btl]F cr�FFp MasF n ¢w OsnIW w°wLp ka Ylv usvy d 100 M c JI Rotl 513 V a(44+ - Montissippi Park Legend r-Tr.R Future Single Family Development lQl1l1 Maj a Commercial l)cvclrgw nt F.77 7 Pmpoad 1996 Single Family Itcvckgm nt 1995 Single: Ranily Nvehipmem 1995 Single R Multi Family Ilevehipment Parts S \ Pinewood Flementry Ii , braxy .h C; 4e Little Mountain t�1' Settlement • `I,� otr1 �� 11 igh School It Mansion •� I` 1 ( pi, I 'I t II I •�� l� I� BBB Existing & Proposed Land Ilse — — County Road 118 Pedestrian Overpass l@ Pathway Monticello, Minnesota ;,Oj I — vm rvopa re uno m T ris &" is, tm Exhibit 4 City of Monticello CR 118 Pedestrian Overaass & Pathwav Segment SA County Road 118 Looking East Along PfopomdAlignment ! flan School Boulevard . % V «.i f i � S `! Segment SA Porn Line Alignment Loo6m8 Ear Towards Meador Oat Pantfham f y Cmuny Road 118 I WSB & Amociate& Inc. Mhwgpolis. Minnesota 13q ON of Monticello CR 118 Pedestrian Overpass & Pathwav Segment 9A County Rood 118 r Looting South fibro Chdao Road A!lddle d&e Sc School %VOW #9 f '.w I wstl & Asaoc'lata Inc. Infiw%wilA Aftwota 13 I� Segment 9A i' County Road 118 Looting South f— : lntaslate 94 Ovnpasr F� �.y �'� •a +d.. "`."'• _ .. ��*..may =•y Segment 9A County Rood 118 r Looting South fibro Chdao Road A!lddle d&e Sc School %VOW #9 f '.w I wstl & Asaoc'lata Inc. Infiw%wilA Aftwota 13 I� Citi, of Monticello CR 118 Pedestrian Overpass & Pathwam• fir_ a Segment 9:1 Counn• Rood 11.5 Looking Sourh from C.GN iS Segment 9A CGmnn• Ad l l Looking 9noh frnm Intervate 94 ON,erpa%3 R:CB & A,.urmtre, Inr ,tlntneapdu, .tbnnesnto I ON ofMondcello CR 118 Pedestrian Overpass & Palkwav Segment 9A i CountyRoadI18 Looking North frau Inurstam 94 Overpa" A Segment 9A County Road 118 Looldxg AforM f— Ckelsea Road WSO & Aswetates. Inc Aftwepolix Mmusoto 13 or BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM K( 12/10/96 08:30:08 AARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41557 12/10/96 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO 41561 12/10/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 41562 12/10/96 BEN FRANKLIN 41563 12/10/96 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INC 41564 12/10/96 CITY BUSINESS 41565 12/10/96 CLARK FOOD SERVICE, 41566 12/10/96 CRYSTEEL DIST. INC. 41567 12/10/96 CULLIGAN 41568 12/10/96 DENN/FRANKLIN 41569 12/10/96 FILL CIRCLE IMAGE 41570 12/10/96 FRIE/DICK 41571 12/10/96 FVLE, BRAD 41572 12/10/96 GOOLER/GLORIA 41572 12/10/96 GOOLER/GLORIA 41573 12/10/96 HENRY & ASSOCIATES 41574 12/10/96 HOGLUND BUS COMPANY 41575 12/10/96 J M OIL COMPANY 41575 12/10/06 J M OIL COMPANY 41576 12/10/96 J P COOKE COMPANY 41577 12/10/86 LUKACH/JOHN 41577 12/10/06 LUKACH/JOHN 41577 12/10/96 LUKACH/JOHN 41577 12/10/06 LUKACH/JOHN 41570 12/10/06 MONTICELLO PRINTING /j 41570 12/10/00 MOON MOTOR SALEJ, IN Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 670 CHECK VOIDED 1,001.45CR 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,629.00 20 SUPPLIES/NEW WWTP 7.86 30 SUPPLIES/SHOP 265.85 1115 SUBSCRIPTION/ECON DEVE 64.00 897 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 278.12 429 PARTS/SNOW 8 ICE 267.12 753 WATER SOFTNER CHG/RENT 23.86 295 OAA MEETING SALARY 30.00 1118 COMPUTER SUPPLIES/C HA 51.93 1016 MILEAGE REIMB/SEMINAR 18.20 62 OAA MEETING SALARY 45.00 294 OAA MEETING SALARY 70.00 294 MILEAGE REIMB/OAA MEET 12.32 82.32 545 UTILITY MTC SUP/MATER 655.33 02 VEHICLE MTC PARTS/STRE 10.02 95 GAS/STREET OF.PT 11053.00 95 GAS/LIRE DEPT 33.98 11080.98 479 DOG TAGS/ANIMAL CONTRO 45.91 327 MILEAGE REIMD 29.36 377 MILEAGE RE1MB 9.79 327 MILEAGE REIMFI 9.78 327 MILEAGE REIMEI 9.78 50.71 137 ULD 1NGPECTION FORM, 122.20 142 FILL:RG/STREET OF.PT 19.05 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM J2/10/96 08:30:08 t WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41580 12/10/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41581 12/10/96 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 41581 12/10/96 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 41581 12/10/96 ORR-SCHELEN-MAVERON 41581 12/10/96 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 41581 12/10/86 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 41581 12/10/96 ORR-SCHELEN- MAY ERON 41581 12/10/96 ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON ,1502 12/10/96 OUTSIDE MAGAZINE 41583 12/10/96 PAUL A WALDRON & ASS 41584 12/10/96 PHOTO I 41584 12/10/96 PHOTO I 41585 12/10/96 PIRAM/TERRIE 41506 12/10/86 RED'S MOBIL 41586 12/10/96 RED'S MOBIL 41507 12/10/90 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 41507 12/10/96 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 41500 12/10/96 OALKOWSKI/THOMAS 41580 12/10/96 SALKOWSKI/THOMAS 41500 17/10/06 SAWATZKE/PATRICK 41090 12/10/30 GCADOEN/KEN 41591 12/10/00 GUPERIOR LERVICEG-CE 41501 13/10/00 OUPERIOR SLQVICEO-CE Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 148 UTILITIES 3,013.56 148 UTILITIES 38.40 148 UTILITIES 4,957.02 148 UTILITIES 65.96 148 UTILITIES 322.25 148 UTILITIES 11.13 148 UTILITIES 579.97 148 UTILITIES 253.23 148 UTILITIES 469.68 148 UTILITIES 643.59 005 OAA MEETING SALARY 10,354.81 162 MISC ENG FEES 95.00 162 ENG FEES/P WORKS EX 1,810.50 162 ENG FEES/KLEIN FARM 1,235.00 162 ENG FEES/PATHWAY 2,314.00 162 CONST COSTS/EASTWD 1,199.11 162 ENG FEES/C HILLS 4T 1,490.27 162 ENG FEES/SCHOOL BLV 1,169.92 9,313.80 1117 SUBSCRIPTION/P WORKS 14.95 830 BLD INSPECTION FEES 2,685.00 743 MISC EXPENSE/PLAN 8 ZO 23.32 743 MISC EXPENSE/NEM WWTP 8.73 32.05 445 OAA MEETING SALARY 35.00 324 GAO/PARKS 22.20 324 VEHICLE MTC/WATER DEPT 16.00 38.20 227 VEHICLE MTC/STREETS 18.00 227 VEHICLE PARTS/STREETS 14.11 32.11 297 OAA MEETING SALARY 100.00 297 OAA MILEAGE REIMB 9.52 109.5? 002 OAA MEETING SALARV 30.00 005 OAA MEETING SALARY 15.00 1007 GARBAGE CONTRACT P 11,417.25 1007 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 053.53 12,O65.?0 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 2/10/96 08:30:08 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41592 12/10/96 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CO 41593 12/10/96 WRIGHT COUNTY AUOITO GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 670 WATER METERS/MATER 2,342.23 219 AOD'LL LANDFILL CHG 5.945.60 TOTAL 46,782.74 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM -12/13/96 13:10:32 ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41594 12/13/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 41595 12/13/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 41595 12/13/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 41596 12/13/96 DJB CONSTRUCTION SER 41597 12/13/96 ANDERSON/DONNA 41598 12/13/96 AUTOMATION SUPPLY 41599 12/13/96 BARCO PRODUCTS, INC. 41599 12/13/96 BARCO PRODUCTS, INC. 41600 12/13/86 CEDAR ST. GARDEN CEN 41601 12/13/96 0 & K REFUSE RECYCLI 41602 12/13/96 DOUBLE D ELECTRIC 41603 12/13/96 DOWNTOWN STANDARD 41604 12/13/96 DYNA SYSTEMS 41605 12/13/96 FLEXIBLE TOOL COMPAN 41606 12/13/96 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP 41607 12/13/96 FYLES EXCAVATING & H 41608 12/13/96 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/96 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/86 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/96 G & K SERVICES 41606 12/13/86 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/96 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/06 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/96 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/96 G & K SERVICES 41608 12/13/96 G & K SERVICES 41609 12/13/96 GRIOOR CONSTRUCTION, 41610 12/19/96 H & L MESABI Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 116 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 2.325.00 221 INVESTMENTS/C D 480,738.77 221 WIRING CHARGE 15.00 480,753.77 1120 EARNEST MONEY/LOT PUR 100.00 1118 REIMB/REPAIRS/ RENTAL 82.05 16 COMPUTER PAPER/C HALL 172.50 236 RUBBER BLADES/SNOW IC 801.68 236 REFLECTIVE TAPE/STREE 259.56 1,061.24 948 XMAS TREE/CITY HALL 31.94 611 NOV RECYCLING CONT 3,617.94 805 REPAIRS/47H ST PARK 50.00 378 GAS/FIRE DEPT 45.64 50 NUTS/BOLTS/SHOP & GAR 370.78 59 HOSE/WATER DEPT 617.02 60 SHOP & GARAGE SUPPLIES 30.08 280 FIRE HYDRANT REPAIRS 373.78 0 851 UNIFORM RENTAL 40.86 851 UNIFORM RENTAL 79.76 851 UNIFORM RENTAL 26.80 851 UNIFORM RENTAL 26.80 851 UNIFORM RENTAL 163.72 051 UNIFORM RENTAL 91.86 851 SHOP RAGS 25.07 851 RUGS/DEP REG SLO/MTC B 32.57 851 MISC ENVIRONMENTAL CHG 31.73 051 RUGS/MTC OF BLD/P WORK 94.19 633.36 785 CONST COST/WWTP DI 53,035.00 059 EQUIP PARTS/SNOW PLOW 679.61 an BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/13/96 13:10:32 ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41611 12/13/96 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 41612 12/13/96 HELLMAN/MARLENE Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 78 SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 2.80 78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREE 48.47 78 TOOLS/SHOP & GAR 5.85 78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STREET 1.05 78 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS/MATE 8.76 78 UTILITY MTC SUP/MATER 23.58 78 VEH REPAIR PARTS/MATER 25.28 78 VEH MTC/BLD DEPART 8.51 124.30 80 REIMB/MILEAGE & SEMIN 101.51 41613 12/13/96 H03SINGTON KOEGLER G 1083 FEES/DOWNTOWN REDE 13,914.83 41614 12/13/96 INDUSTRIAL MAINT, SU 514 NUTS/BOLTS/SHOP & GAR 99.69 41615 12/13/96 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 41615 12/13/96 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 41615 12/13/96 KENNEDY & GRAVEN 41615 12/13/96 KENNEDY & GRAVEN d e 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HAROWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HAROWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'$ ACE HARDWAR 41616 17/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HAROWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 41616 12/13/96 LARSON'S ACE HARDWAR 939 LEGAL FEES/HRA 51.60 939 LEGAL FEES/TAPPER PROJ 85.16 939 LEGAL FEES/LAKE TOOL 120.00 939 PROF SERV/CUSTOM CANO 318.92 575.68 874 SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 47.31 874 SUPPLIES/P W INSPECT 3.17 874 SUPPLIES/PARKS DEPT 23.71 874 SUPPLIES/MATER DEPT 27.05 874 MTC OF EQUIPMENT/FIRE 11.69 874 SUPPLIES/LEAF PICKUP 35.81 874 MTC SUPPLIES/CITY HALL 2.86 874 MTC SUPPLIES/DEP REG 32.15 674 BLD MTC/FIRE DEPT 7.98 974 SUPPLIES/SEWER COLL 2.32 874 SUPPLIES/WWTP 30.60 224.65 41617 12/13/96 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE 709 MACHINERY PARTS/SNOW 185.89 41617 12/13/96 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE 709 SUPPLIES/SNOW ICE 632.49 818.38 41618 12/13/96 LOCH JEWELERS 565 PLAQUES/COUNCIL MEMBE 175.98 41610 12/13/96 LOCH JEWELERS 565 PLAQUE/PARK MEMBER 72.08 240.06 41619 12/13/96 MARCO BUSINESS PROOU 106 DEVELOPER/COPY MCN MTC 92.66 41620 12/13/96 MINNEGASCO 772 UTILITIES 234.06 41620 12/13/86 MINNEGASCO 772 UTILITIES 56.15 41620 12/13/96 MINNEGASCO 772 UTILITIES 02.58 41620 12/13/96 MINNEGAGCO 172 UTILITIES 04.69 41620 12/13/86 MINNEGASCO 772 UTILITIES 21.08 L BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/13/96 13:10:32 ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41620 12/13/96 MINNEGASCO 41620 12/13/96 MINNEGASCO 41620 12/13/96 MINNEGASCO 41621 12/13/96 MN PLANNING ASSOCIAT 41622 12/13/96 MONTICELLO AGENCY, I 41623 12/13/96 MONTICELLO CHAMPION 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/88 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES 41624 12/13/96 MONTICELLO TIMES '1 41625 12/13/96 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 41625 12/13/96 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 41625 12/13/96 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 41625 12/13/96 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 41625 12/13/96 NATIONAL BUSHING PAR 41628 12/13/96 NORTHERN 41627 12/13/96 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 41627 12/13/98 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONS 41626 12/13/96 NORTHWEST MINNESOTA 41629 17/13/96 O'NEILL/JEFF 41630 12/13/96 OLSON & SONS ELECTRI 41630 17/13/96 OLSON m SONS ELECTRI 41631 12/13/08 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, I 41632 12/13/96 PFTFRSEN'S MONT FORD 7 `.L 41630 12/13/06 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 772 UTILITIES 277.57 772 UTILITIES 1,874.67 772 UTILITIES 165.81 2,796.61 360 MEMBERSHIP DUES/JEFF 0 35.00 132 SURETY BOND/RICK W 50.00 825 VAN REPAIRS/P WORKS INS 6.38 140 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 922.43 140 SNOWPLOWING INFO 43.50 140 AO/PARK ATTENDANTS 83.25 140 SNOWMOBILE INFO 43.50 140 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES 90.55 140 PUB HEARING/BONDHUS T 146.27 140 REFUSE/WASTE DISPOSAL 76.62 140 HEARTLAND BUS AD 85.00 140 AO/HRA VACANCY 115.90 1,607.02 144 SUPPLIES/STREETS 11.76 144 VEN REP PARTS/STREETS 31.60 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/STRE 149.21 144 VEH REPAIR PARTS/WATE 240.96 144 OIL/STREETS 12.65 446.20 333 TARP/STREET DEPT 62.82 550 PLANNING COMM MEETING 300.00 550 MISC PLAN 8 20N PRO 2,285.10 7,585.10 156 CODE UPDATE FEE/BLD OP 5.00 161 REIMB/AUG/SEPT/OCT/NO 740.57 160 MTC OF BLD/SENIOR CIT 724.02 160 SUPPLIES/SHOP a GAR 19.72 743.74 036 GOPHER ONE STATE CALLS 74.00 165 VEHICLE REP PARTS/STR 100.22 251 CITY HALL IRRIGATION S 60.14 1 0 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/13/96 13:10:32 `WARRANT DATE VENDOR Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 41635 12/13/96 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 41636 12/13/96 SCHARBER & SONS, INC 41636 12/19/96 SCHARBER & SONS, INC 41637 12/13/96 SENSIBLE LAND USE CO 41638 12/13/96 SHARE CORPORATION 41639 12/13/96 SIMPSON/CYNTHIA 1 ,1640 12/13/96 SUPERIOR FCR LANDFIL 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/98 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/06 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TOS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TOS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TOS TELECOM 41642 12/13/96 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 41643 12/13/86 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT 0 41643 12/13/96 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT 0 41643 12/13/96 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT O GENERAL CHECKING 184 MTC AGRMT/SHOP & GAR 79.88 229 VEH REP PARTS/PARKS 164.46 229 GENERAL CHECKING 615.58 863 MEMBERSHIP DUES/PLAN 125.00 41634 12/13/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF 1044 OFF SUP/P WORKS 41.09 41634 12/13/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF 1044 OFF SUP/CITY HALL 198.55 41634 12/13/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF 1044 COPY MCH PAPER/C HALL 321.31 41634 12/13/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF 1044 COPY MCH PAPER/P WORKS 76.20 41634 12/13/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF 1044 OFF SUP/LIBRARY 10.80 41634 12/13/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF 1044 OFF SUP/DEP REG 15.43 41634 12/13/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF 1044 SUPPLIES/ELECTIONS 12.27 675.65 41635 12/13/96 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 41636 12/13/96 SCHARBER & SONS, INC 41636 12/19/96 SCHARBER & SONS, INC 41637 12/13/96 SENSIBLE LAND USE CO 41638 12/13/96 SHARE CORPORATION 41639 12/13/96 SIMPSON/CYNTHIA 1 ,1640 12/13/96 SUPERIOR FCR LANDFIL 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/98 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/06 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TOS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TOS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TDS TELECOM 41641 12/13/96 TOS TELECOM 41642 12/13/96 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 41643 12/13/86 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT 0 41643 12/13/96 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT 0 41643 12/13/96 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT O GENERAL CHECKING 184 MTC AGRMT/SHOP & GAR 79.88 229 VEH REP PARTS/PARKS 164.46 229 SUPPLIES/PARKS 451.12 615.58 863 MEMBERSHIP DUES/PLAN 125.00 281 PUMP & WASHER/STREETS 474.18 999 FIRE HALL CLEANING 50.00 563 LANDFILL CHARGES/STREE 45.00 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 327.41 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 76.76 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 151.44 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 131.11 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES $0.00 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 59.74 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 56.02 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 100.50 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 50.72 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 59.74 053 TELEPHONE CHARGES 892.92 953 TELEPHONE CHARGES 117.01 7,073.37 219 81 TRUTH TAXATION NOT 269.04 275 PERMIT/BRIAR OAKES ?ND 25.00 275 SAND/SALT/SNOW & IC 2,280.34 275 SUPPLIES/SIGNS/STREETS 66.00 2,390.24 TOTAL 516,298.18 u BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/20/96 08:01:15 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GENERAL CHECKING 40335 12/19/96 U.S. POSTMASTER 210 CORRECT CODING 165.59 40335 12/19/96 U.S. POSTMASTER 210 CORRECT CODING 165.59 40335 17/19/96 U.S. POSTMASTER 210 CORRECT CODING 165.59CR 40335 12/19/96 U.S. POSTMASTER 210 CORRECT COOING 165.59CR 0.00 41638 12/19/96 SHARE CORPORATION 281 CHECK VOIDED 474.18CR 41644 12/19/96 ENGINEERING REPRO SY 1038 SUPPLIES/PWORKS INSPE 173.38 41645 12/19/96 MARTIE/RUSSELL&MARTI 969 TIF 1-11/REIMB/MART 2,500.00 41646 12/19/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 866.00 41647 12/19/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 221 INVESTMENTS 100,000.00 41647 17/19/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 271 WIRE CHARGES 15.00 100,015.00 41648 12/20/96 AMERICAN TEST CENTER 856 MTC OF VEHICLES/FIRE 545.00 Q 41648 12/20/96 AMERICAN TEST CENTER 856 MTC OF EQUIP/FIRE DEP 360.00 905.00 41649 12/20/96 ANOKA HENNEPIN TECH .90173 TRAINING SCHOOL/FIRE 285.00 41650 12/20/96 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 17 RADIO REPAIR/LOADER 111.50 41650 12/20/96 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 17 RADIO REPAIR/FIRE DEPT 89.46 41650 12/20/96 AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS 17 RADIO REPAIR/CIVIL DE 632.56 833.52 41651 17/20/96 AUTOMATION SUPPLY 18 SALES TAX/COMPUTER PAP 21.21 41652 12/20/96 BARBAROSSA & SONS, 1 942 CONST COSTS/SCHOOL 62,969.98 41653 12/70/96 BIG LAKE MACHINE 495 STEEL & BOLTS/STREET D 17.04 41654 12/20/96 CEDAR sr. GARDEN CEN 948 SUPPLIES/DEP REG 6.39 41655 17/70/96 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I 56 MISC PROF SERV/MATER 100.00 41056 12/20/96 GRANITE ELECTRONICS 973 PAGER REPAIR/MATER OP 40.30 41657 17/70/96 JIM HATCH SALES CO 903 SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 702.53 41GSO 12/20/96 KOROPCHAK/OLIVE 97 MILEAGE REIMB 37.05 4165D 1?/70/06 LITTLE MOUNTAIN FLOW 566 PLANT/CITY HALL 31.00 41660 12/20/90 METROPOLITAN FIN MOR 112 FURNACE REPAIR/FIRE 0 125.00 RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/20/96 08:01:15 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41661 12/20/96 MN NAHRO 41662 12/20/96 TRI-STATE PUMP & CON 41663 12/20/96 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 41664 12/20/96 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 581 DUES/OLLIE K 90.00 832 PUMP REPAIRS/SEWER 1,874.70 219 HRA EXPENSES/PARCEL VA 36.00 512 UTILITIES/BOHANON FARM 8.79 TOTAL 171,165.21 A BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 2/24/96 08:52:38 "ARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41606 12/24/96 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP 41606 12/24/96 FLICKER'S T.V. & APP 41660 12/24/96 METROPOLITAN FIN MOR 41665 12/24/96 BOSE/TOM 41666 12/24/96 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPO 41666 12/24/96 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPO 41667 12/24/96 BONDHUS/ERIC 41668 12/24/96 FISHER HEATING & COO 41669 12/24/96 FILL CIRCLE IMAGE 41670 12/24/96 J M OIL COMPANY 1671 12/24/96 O.E.I. BUSINESS FORM �b1672 12/24/96 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 41672 12/24/96 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. 41673 12/24/96 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO 41674 12/24/96 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT 41675 12/24/96 U.S. POSTMASTER 41G75 12/24/06 U.S. POSTMASTER 41076 12/24/96 OTEO OFFICE OF REG I GENERAL CHECKING 1014 Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT C 60 CORRECT CODING 24.77 60 CORRECT CODING 24.77CR 0.00 *C 112 WRONG VENDOR 125.000R 336 REIMS/SHOES 76.99 638 ENG FEES/BRIAR OAKES 152.50 638 ENG FEES/WWTP 1,250.25 1,402.75 *C 1122 REIMB/VARIANCE REQUEST 50.00 1121 FURNACE REPAIR/FIRE H 125.00 1116 COMPUTER SUPPLIES/C HA 15.15 95 OIL/STREETS 246.28 158 COPY MCH PAPER/C HALL 191.18 498 SUPPLIES/SHOP & GARAGE 47.01 498 SLIPPLIES/SNOW & ICE 328.82 376.63 •C 219 SCERG GRANT PAYMENT 7,760.51 822 CMIF GRANT PAYMENT 1,100.21 210 POSTAGE/SEWER & WAT 8 206.02 210 POSTAGE/SEWER & WAT 6 208.G1 413.23 rC 1124 REG FEE/OLLIE K 100.00 TOTAL 6,732.03 un _.._ _ — _--..._�..__�.�—___��_�.,�..✓-. —.-=—ate-.. �_.`s r.�._. �.�.�.�.-�. �. `.. ia_? r.. RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM r(-12/26/96 12:55:52 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41677 12/26/96 A T & T INFO SYSTEMS 41678 12/26/96 ASAP SOFTWARE EXPRES 41679 12/26/96 CLARK FOOD SERVICE, 41680 12/26/96 COMM{JNICATION AUDITO 41681 12/26/96 GROTECH 41682 12/26/96 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFIC 41683 12/26/96 J.C. BODY SHOP 41684 12/26/96 L "N" R SERVICES - L 41685 12/26/96 MCNEILUS STEEL, INC. 41680 12/26/96 NET SOURCE 41607 12/26/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE ,41807 12/26/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41687 12/26/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41667 12/26/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41687 12/26/06 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41687 12/26/98 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41607 12/26/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41687 12/26/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41607 12/26/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 41000 12/26/96 RELIABLE CORPORATION 41600 12/20/96 RELIABLE CORPORATION 41609 12/26/96 RIVrki IOE OIL 41690 12/26/96 TRUEMAN-WELTERS. INC GENERAL CHECKING Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 15 BLD INSPEC PHONE CHCS 51.04 667 COMPUTER SOFTWARE/C H 300.00 697 FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES 244.29 38 2 RADIOS/FIRE DEPT 1,770.03 1045 SUPPLIES/SNOW & ICE 349.00 65 GAS/FIRE DEPT 38.30 93 PROF SERV/TIF LAKE TOO $2.50 103 REPAIR DOOR LOCK/C HAL 40.00 492 STEEL/STREET DEPT 2,504.17 1123 COPY MCH PAPER/CITY HA 95.85 146 UTILITIES 1,256,10 148 UTILITIES 321.48 148 UTILITIES 682.13 148 UTILITIES 87.84 148 UTILITIES 746.03 149 UTILITIES 3.14 146 UTILITIES 665.65 148 UTILITIES 355.35 148 UTILITIES 614.04 4.711.68 170 COMPUTER SUP/CITY HAL (01.82 179 OFFICE SUPPLIES/C HALL 16.40 110.22 498 GAS/STREETS 1,076.00 207 PARTS/SNOW 8 ICE 167.84 TOTAL 11,520.40 r BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/31/96 15:25:50 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41683 12/30/96 J.C. BODY SHOP 41691 12/30/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 41692 12/30/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 41692 12/30/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 41693 12/30/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 41693 12/30/96 MARQUETTE BANK MONTI 41694 12/30/96 MN DEPART OF NATURAL 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41695 12/31/96 AMERICAN PAGING OF M 41696 12/31/96 BARNES/KIM 41697 12/31/99 BIRKELANO JR/STEPHEN 41698 12/31/96 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 41696 12/31/96 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 41698 12/31/96 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 41698 12/31/96 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 41699 12/31/96 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 41699 12/31/96 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 41699 12/31/96 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST 41699 12/31/96 CELLULAR 7000 OF ST 41700 17/91/96 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMEN 41701 12/31/96 OYNA SYSTEMS 41702 17/31/96 EHLERS @ ASSOC,INC P 41703 12/31/96 G E SUPPLY 41703 17/31/96 G E SUPPLY Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 93 CHECK VOIDED 52.50CR 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 1,358.00 221 WIRE C.D 115,500.00 221 WIRE CHARGES 15.00 115,515.00 221 WIRE FUNDS TO 4M 500,000.00 221 WIRE CHARGES 15.00 500,015.00 118 MATER/SNOW/ATV REG 2,364.00 951 PAGER CHARGES 18.38 951 PAGER CHARGES 9.19 951 PAGER CHARGES 55.65 951 PAGER CHARGES 9.19 951 PAGER CHARGES 9.19 951 PAGER CHARGES 9.19 951 PAGER CHARGES 9.19 951 PAGER CHARGES 9.19 129.17 864 REIMB/TRAVEL EXPENSE 23.38 732 TIF PYMT/CUSTOM CAN 7,426.59 27 ELECTION FORMS 1,245.45 27 SEWER/MATER BILLING C $75.89 27 SEWER/MATER BILLING C 575.89 27 PAYROLL CKS/RECEIPT 1,058.34 3,455.57 794 CAR PHONE CHARGES 20.64 784 CAR PHONE CHARGES 0.51 794 CAR PHONE CHARGES 8.84 794 CAR PHONE CHARGES 26.02 56.01 290 WATER UTILITY MTC SUP 423.34 50 NUTS/BOLTS/SHOP 8 GAR 287.80 933 PROF SERV/TIF 21/LAKE 52.50 475 BATTERIES/FIRE DEPT 22.07 475 BATTERIES/STREET DEPT 23.10 45.97 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/31/96 15:25:50 WARRANT DATE VENDOR GENERAL CHECKING 41704 12/31/96 GENERAL RENTAL CENTE 41705 12/31/96 HELLMAN/VICTOR G 41706 12/31/96 IANO/JAN 41707 12/31/96 JACOBSON/DIANE 41708 12/31/96 LOCATOR & MONITOR SA 41708 12/31/96 LOCATOR & MONITOR SA 41709 12/31/96 MAMMENGA/MARGE 41710 12/31/96 PLUMBERY-PURCELL'S P 41711 12/31/96 RED'S MOBIL 41712 12/31/96 ROYAL TIRE OF MONTIC 41713 12/31/96 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 41714 12/31/96 U S LINK 41714 12/31/96 U S LINK 41714 12/31/86 U S LINK 41714 12/31/96 U S LINK 41714 12/31/96 U S LINK 41715 12/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 17/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 17/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 17/31/86 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41115 12/31/96 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41715 12/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN 41115 12/31/96 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 64 TANK RENTAL/SHOP & GAR $5.14 906 REIMB/ESCROW 200.00 992 REIMB/TRAVEL EXPENSE 36.52 92 REIMB/TRAVEL EXPENSE 85.04 434 REPAIR EQUIP/WATER DEP 42.00 434 REPAIR EQUIP/MATER DEP 42.00 84.00 885 REIMB/TRAVEL EXPENSE 21.68 251 HUMIDIFIER/SHOP & GAR 198.08 324 GAS/STREETS 125.50 227 TIRE REPAIRS/STREETS 32.09 289 TOWELS/SOAP/LIBRARY 45.47 950 TELEPHONE CHARGES 20.54 950 TELEPHONE CHARGES 52.68 950 TELEPHONE CHARGES 0.82 950 TELEPHONE CHARGES 3.98 950 TELEPHONE CHARGES 26.70 104.72 993 ENG FEES/ST HENRYS CH 177.50 993 ENG FEES/METHODIST CH 42.50 883 CITY MAPS 79.50 993 COUNCIL MTGS/SITE R 1,137.50 993 ENG FEES/77H ST ALGNM 846.00 993 ENG FEES/STORM SEWER 902.25 993 MYLARS/PLAN & 20N 75.58 993 ENG FEES/BONOHUS CO 1,380.50 993 SITE REVIEWS 85.00 993 ENG FEES/B OAKES II 7.347.50 893 ENG FEES/DUNDAS RD 467.50 993 ENG FEES/SCH BLVD 680.00 993 ENG FEES/NEM WWTP 42.50 993 ENG FEES/RES CHURC 1,382.50 993 ENG FEES/KJELLSERG 3.172.50 993 ENG FEES/PR WEST IST A 42.50 17.761.33 GENERAL CHECKING TOTAL 649,849.49 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/17/96 07:44:48 Oisbursemert Journal '*-WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LIQUOR CHECKING 19185 12/17/96 BELLBOY CORPORATION 800098 SUPPLIES 57.86 19185 12/17/96 BELLBOY CORPORATION 800098 FREIGHT CHARGES 6.66 19185 12/17/96 BELLBOY CORPORATION 800098 LIMES/FOR RESALE 9.90 19185 12/17/96 BELLBOY CORPORATION 800098 MISC FOR RESALE 43.20 117.62 19186 12/17/96 DAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT 800009 BEEER PURCHASE 7,465.60 19186 12/17/96 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 800009 MISC ITEMS FOR RESALE 123.50 7,589.10 19187 12/17/96 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 BEER PURCHASE 282.80 19188 12/17/96 DICK WHOLESALE CO.. 800011 BEER PURCHASE 1.095.80 19186 12/17/96 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 16.20 19188 12/17/96 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 21.30 19188 12/17/96 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 BAGS/SUPPLIES 30.89 1.164.19 19189 12/17/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 2,009.53 19189 12/17/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MIX FOR RESALE 35.39 19189 12/17/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 FREIGHT CHARGES 68.97 2,113.89 19190 12/17/96 G & K SERVICE 800129 NEW RUGS/MTC OF BLD 58.29 19191 12/17/96 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 FREIGHT CHARGES 145.95 19191 17/17/96 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 WINE PURCHASE 58.08 19191 12/17/96 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 000018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 10.122.21 19191 17/17/96 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800018 MIX FOR RESALE. 129.30 10.455.54 10197 12/17/96 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1 800019 BEER PURCHASE 7,836.80 19192 12/17/96 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 275.55 9, 117.35 19193 12/11/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 000022 FREIGHT CHARGES 24.15 19193 17/17/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800027 LIQUOR PO RCHAC4 1,540.56 19193 12/17/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 000 022 WINE PURCHASE 410.01 1.983.37 19194 12/17/96 LIEFF.RT TRUCKING 800025 FREIGHT CHARGES 50.63 19105 12/17/9G MCDOWAIL COMPANY 000065 NEW FURNACE 8,369.00 19196 12/17/96 MONTICELLO VACUUM CE 000050 VACUUM UAGS 6 SUPPLIE;; 60.25 19197 17/17/06 PHILLIPS WINE 9 SPIR 800100 FREIGHT CHARGES 03.OG 1 19197 12/17/96 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 000180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 7.254.39 19197 12/17/96 PHILLIPS WINE t, £PIR 000100 WINE PURCHASE 750.40 0.106.01) BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/17/96 07:44:48 Disbursement -Journal ARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LIQUOR CHECKING 19196 12/17/96 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTIN 800217 CIGARS FOR RESALE 26.75 19199 12/17/96 PIONEER TRANSPORTATI 800185 DONATION/SOBER CAB PRG 25.00 19200 12/17/96 QUALITY VINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 217.20 19201 12/17/96 TOS TELECOM 600196 TELEPHONE CHARGES 184.44 19201 12/17/96 TDS TELECOM 800196 ADVERTISING 61.20 245.64 19202 12/17/96 THE VINE COMPANY 800206 VINE PURCHASE 144.00 19203 12/17/96 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 317.65 19203 12/17/96 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE 10,983.65 11,301.30 19204 12/17/96 U S VEST DIRECT 800218 ADVERTISING 17.23 LIQUOR CHECKING TOTAL 60,440.95 11 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/31/96 15:27:37 WARRANT DATE VENDOR LIQUOR CHECKING 19205 12/26/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 19205 12/26/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 19205 12/26/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Disbursement Journal DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 800012 FREIGHT CHARGES 800012 WINE PURCHASE 800012 MIX FOR RESALE 19206 12/26/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 FREIGHT CHARGES 19206 12/26/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 72.65 1,953.03 238.33 2,264.01 58.50 2,134.55 2,193.05 19207 12/31/96 BELLBOY CORPORATION 800098 LIQUOR PURCHASE 364.30 19208 12/31/96 BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA 800001 POP PURCHASE 345.15 19209 12/31/96 BUSINESS RECORDS COR 800064 PAYROLL CHECKS PRINTE 141.76 19210 12/31/96 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 900009 BEER PURCHASE 11,711.80 19210 12/31/96 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT 900009 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 220.10 11,931.90 19211 12/31/96 DAY DISTRIBUTING COM 800010 BEER PURCHASE 398.30 19212 12/31/96 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 BEER PURCHASE 1,028.20 19212 12/31/98 DICK WHOLESALE CO., 800011 SUPPLIES/BAGS 231.12 1,259.32 19213 12/31/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 FREIGHT CHARGES 64.05 19213 12/31/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 WINE PURCHASE 1,87?.13 19213 12/31/96 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 800012 MIX FOR RESALE 153.96 2,091.14 19214 12/31/96 G & K SERVICE 800129 MTC OF BLD/RUGS 58.29 19215 12/31/96 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800019 FREIGHT CHARGES 101.85 19215 12/31/96 GRIGGS, COOPER 8 COM 900018 WINE PURCHASE 38.72 19215 12/31/86 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 900018 LIQUOR PURCHASE 7,587.59 19215 12/31/96 GRIGGS, COOPER & COM 800019 MIX FOR RESALE 115.80 7,843.96 19216 12/31/96 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE I 800019 BEER PURCHASE 10,155.70 19216 17/31/98 GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE 1 800019 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 28.40 10,184.10 19217 12/31/96 HOME JUICE 800136 JUICE FOR RESALE 35.10 19218 12/31/96 JOHNSON 13ROS WHOLESA 800022 FREIGHT CHARGES 14.25 19710 17/31/96 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESA 000022 LIQUOR PURCHASE 421.85 19218 12/31/96 JOHNSON BR0S WHOLESA 800022 WINE PURCHASE 2,011.72 9,253.87 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 12/31/96 15:27:37 Disbursement Journal WARRANT DATE VENDOR DESCRIPTIO14 AMOUNT LIQUOR CHECKING 19219 12/31/96 L "N" R SERVICES 800026 MTC OF BLD/REPAIR LATC 35.00 19220 12/31/96 LEHMANN FARMS 800190 FOOD ITEMS/FOR RESALE 236.44 19221 12/31/96 MCDOWALL COMPANY 900065 REPAIR FURNACE & COOL 435.50 19222 12/31/96 NORTHERN STATES POWE 800035 UTILITIES 850.17 19223 12/31/96 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 FREIGHT CHARGEDS 125.16 19223 12/31/96 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3,385.90 19223 12/31/96 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIR 800180 WINE PURCHASE 3,746.74 7,257.80 19224 12/31/96 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTIN 800217 CIGARS FOR RESALE 138.00 19225 12/31/96 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 LIQUOR PURCHASE 3,302.70 19225 12/31/96 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 800040 WINE PURCHASE 529.65 3,832.35 19226 12/31/96 RON'S ICE COMPANY 800041 ICE PURCHASE 252.50 19227 12/31/96 SERVICE SALES CORPOR 800042 SUPPLIES 47.67 19228 12/31/96 SHERBURNE COUNTY CIT 800183 ADVERTISING 30.00 19229 12/31/96 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 600045 MIX FOR RESALE 59.32 19229 12/31/96 ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT 800045 JUICE FOR RESALE 30.60 89.92 19230 17/31/96 THE WATSON CO., INC. 800202 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 66.42 19230 12/31/96 THE WATSON CO., INC. 800202 CIGS/CIGARS/FOR RESAL 299.01 365.43 19231 12/31/96 THE WINE COMPANY 800206 WINE PURCHASE 144.00 19232 12/31/96 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 BEER PURCHASE 20,290.65 19232 12/31/96 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 800048 NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 143.10 20,433.75 19233 12/31/96 U S LINK 800195 TELEPHONE CHARGES 7.43 19734 12/31/98 U S WEST DIRECT 600218 ADVERTISING 30.40 19235 12/31/96 VIKING COCA-COLA BOT 600051 POP PURCHASE 384.25 LIQUOR CHECKING TOTAL 76,946.91 a INFORMATIONAL ITEM January 10, 1997 (R.W.) With the large amount of snow that has fallen this year, concerns, complaints, and requests regarding snow removal procedures have been received by the City staff. Recently, John Simola and Roger Mack attended a snow removal policy development seminar that was recently held in Sauk Centre and will likely result in the staff updating our current snow removal policy for Council approval. It is hopeful that this policy update will be on the Council agenda January 27, but I did want to make the Council aware of a number of issues relating to snow removal from streets, sidewalks, city facilities, and other properties that we may want to discuss at the same time unless the Council feels immediate action is necessary. As you may be aware, the City technically leases the old fire hall and city hall facility to the Foodshelf and Christian Social Services for $1 per year with the understanding that the City would take care of any structural problems with the building, but routine maintenance, including lawn mowing and snow removal, were the responsibility of the tenants. This was primarily because the lease arrangement was set at $1 per year, and it was felt the organization should be able to do general ground maintenance and upkeep as necessary because the rent was low. A request has come from the Foodshelf seeking City assistance in removing the snow from the front of the building, as they do not feel they have the manpower to do it themselves. Another concern was raised by an elderly resident along Sixth Street concerned over the requirement that they remove snow and ice from the sidewalk in front of their home because the City considers it part of the grid system. The individual is elderly and has questioned whether the City shouldn't establish a policy to provide for an exemption from a property owner being required to remove the snow and ice if they aro elderly. Another request was recently received from the Pilots Cove Airport (Monticello -Big Lake Airport) across the river seeking help from the City to widen the runway because of the large amount of snow this year. Typically, the airport has provided their own plowing but would like assistance by the City using its snowblower to widen the runway since they aro no longer able to simply push the snow with their plows. Of course, this property is not even in the city nor Wright County and would require specific direction from the City Council to authorize the public works staff to spend their time at the airport rather than within the city of Monticello. At this time, no specific action is necessarily required on each of these requests, as it may be more appropriate to discuss all of these issues during discussion of our snow removal policy in general. In addition to the above specific requests, we receive many concerns on property owners being unable to access their mailboxes because of the City plowing efforts. All of these issues can be discussed at the next mooting when the snow policy is being reviewed. PILOTS COVE INC. PO Box 467, Big Lake, DAinnesota 55309 Telephone 1612) 263-2322 Dec. 28,1996 City Administrator City Hall 254 E Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Administrator, I am writing this letter to find out if the city of Monticello is interested in keeping the airport open to the public during the winter months. In the past you helped pay for the snow plowing of the runway and that was very much needed especially during a winter like this one. Without that support we would not have been able to keep it open. I am not asking for any financial support from you or city of Big Lake, we (Pilots Cove) have been doing our own plowing at our own expense and we have no problem with that; however, the snow has now reached an accumulation level and we can no longer push it with our old plow truck because we are up against the banks on both sides of the runway. Would you consider having your city crew come out to the airport with that front end snow blower and move those banks to widen the runway about one or two passes on both sides. 1 believe 1f you do this we will be able to continue plowing until the end of the season and remain open. No removal of the snow by truck. is required it can be blown into the fields on either side of the runway. We are at about the minimum width for safe operation now and if you would do this I would GREATLY APPRECIATE it. I want to keep Monticello Airport open to the public during the winter months but I'm finding out I can't do it without some support like yours. If you will do this you can talk to Leo Stokes, 263-8181 at the airport or myself 263-6721. 1 am fully insured and will not hold the city of Monticello responsible for any damages that would possibly occur. Thank, you for your consideration on this matter. Jim Hollila, President/Owner Pilots Cove Inc. r //t�0 •�,��,c4� .tn.. /tr,(�G,t[Q. � ,D�t•t►7,) /Lvircc�z<c•�. ,kte.112,'Mally tc,24 cz we /NL2Cag4 laA#i trj. ad V.ut ",— CUt� ltot -C .,LL c,, eittlwt a&.) m, ov-t ? ?tv x7 Cte'ttrcL' ,Qpp/ltdJ �,'O�L csy /QQKy, /Lc hu,-. Xit) YlctaG/�A11`tl. �in►a, Gbt�'�P ��.�fc.dlp_-,Lo C&-tJ,t,a� c� ? lleRe,ta,,�E 0nc. o/.t4.o ��a t�aQPJ Gt6�z .l� �tns�,c ALIL Atm. Coulf ".t•.) u! 44nJ. toe CrAit u t OGiC/Vzrr-% . aQ'�{,Q,L�..Mp Ccl�.�fK.�i2ou�u.�CN. tytivLG �(,�tn,� YI2sYiun� Cet f 14 ect,.,,t c#c+tQ C, An .-61,.tt AO' 12/16/96 To The City of Monticello, On Monday 12/16/96, I had a phone conversation with John S. about the 20 foot pile of snow that was pushed up to the side door of the clothing building at your Cedar at. building. Every year we have had a problem with this. We are not able to get In and out of that area. I asked him If that snow could be removed and he said that he would get It out of there as soon as possible. This was fine. During our conversation, I asked him If It would be possible for the city to clean the sidewalk and driveway off on the Cedar side of the building when there is large amounts of snow on the ground. The cleaner goes all the -way down the 3rd. at. side to Cedar. I realize It would take maybe another 30 minutes to clean both of these areas for the city worker but for us It takes days. I and my volunteers are not physically able to remove large amounts of snow and we are not able to afford a snow blower nor can we afford to pay someone to remove the snow for us. We are able to handle small amounts of snow like 1 to 1 1/2 Inches ourselves. We are asking for your help with the large amounts. In the past, there has been someone who came In with large equipment and cleaned It off but when they found out that the city would only clean off the 3rd. at. side and not In front of the food shelf side of the building they quit doing It for us. We help over 600 families In Monticello each year. That breaks down to over 3,200 citizens. You will be doing these citizens a great service If you consent to help us. Many times we have to turn down helping people because we cannot get things In and out of the building. Please give this very serious thought. We will certainly appreciate It If you can help us out. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours. Pat Oftedal Help Center Director ,race,, -12% nz/��Cv 4t ee( .;I� &y�EJ �wevujocc,=� t d� �,wiz^4. _ 4.4c-v �2k1 3a -SNOW...SNOW... SNOW... B, Cecina Rae Staff Writer This year the maintenance workers in Sherburne County, the City of Big Lake and the City of Becker have had Weir work cut out for them. "Nut only have we plowed nearly every day since the season started," said Mike Goebel, Big lake mainte. nancc supervisor, "but we have worked steadily to help the homeowners dig out their mailboxes, in between the hauling of snow." Ilis crew is called in at midnight to work an eight hour shift, clearing toads so that others can make it to work early in the morning. The City of Big Lake has three plows and one loader. On a week where there is oro new snow, crews start then engines and use the wing style plows to push the snow back even further off the roadways. "This creates mounting snow. Goebel said. "We remove snow from the exucrncly tall piles and haul it to a city tut behind do Cargill plant." The mixture of salt ad sand ural to clear the roads is purchased at Phaist- o d's in Elk River. The City of Big Wee can bring in a new supply whenever they need it. This prevents us from having an unused supply Inter on in the season," Goebel said. "There's no reason to atom extra throughout the summer months. We have found this system to be very efficient." Just up the highway, Becker mainte- nance workers have been busy die past month clearing roads, sidewalks and driveways of the senior citizens in town. The six am crew is on-call said Joe Uaniclsnn, foreman for the mainte- nance department. Jim Boettcher calls the guys the night before to let them kruw they are excited to start plowing snow at 4 am. the next morning. Maintenance personnel for the City of Becker work rowel the clock, in 12 - hour shifts, until the job of clearing the roads is complete. They also have one full time em- ployce that is responsible for flooding and clewing the three ice skating rinks at Kofbinger Park. "There have been several broken water pipes during this cold weather: Danielson said. "We contract with a backhtic operaute to dig through the as- phalt. then we repair the damage." «."....................................................................................................... FOR YOUR INFORMATION: City staff called the cities of Big Lake and Becker to verify the information from the above newspaper article. Following is the information received from each city's public works department: Rif, Lair The clearing of homeowners mailboxes was done on a one-time basis in conjunction with an effort to widen the streets in preparation for the next snowfall, not on a regular basis as could be assumed from the article. Becker- Becker has had a program for the past 10 years whereby senior citizens can apply at city hall to have their driveways and sidowalks cleared by the city. If requested, they will Yelp move snow from around the mailbox of a senior citizen. The maintenance crew does not work around the clock until roads are cleared as indicated in the article. They are allowed to work a maximum of 16 hours. Becker's maintenance crew consists of 7 (bbl -time employees for a ' population of 1,284. Monticello's maintenance crow consists of 7 full- time employees for a population of 6,885.