City Council Agenda Packet 01-27-1997AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 27, 1897 - 7 p.m.
Mayor. Bill Fair
Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Bruce Thielen, Roger Carlson
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 13, and the special
meeting held January 16, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
Atli
6. Consent agenda. /
A. Consideration of adopting a resolution calling for a public hearing to
modify Redevelopment District No. 1 and TIF District No. 1-17 (Fay -
Mar) and establish TIF District No. 1.22 (downtown redevelopment).
B. Consideration of approval of 1997 maintenance agreement with
Wright County for maintenance of selected county state aid highways
in the city of Monticello.
C. Consideration of job description for Construction Inspector and
consideration of advertisement for an additional position.
D. Consideration of authorizing the City Engineer to complete trunk
utility studies for the lUein Fauns III and Leerasen development
areas.
E. Consideration of accepting feasibility study for providing sanitary
sewer service to the Resurrection Church site.
6. Consideration of items removed Brom the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of adopting a resolution adopting proposed
assessment roll for delinquent accounts receivable and utility bills and
certification of assessment roll to county auditor.
B. Request for reconsideration of conveyance of 3 ft of property to resolve an
encroachment issue - former Johnson Warehouse building.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
January 27, 1997
Page 2
9. Consideration of requests to amend Urban Service Area boundaries.
Applicants, Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson Homes.
10. Consideration of authorizing City Engineer to prepare designs and
specifications for the State Highway 25/Chelsea Road/1-94 improvements.
11. Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment governing location and
design of telecommunication towers. Applicant, Monticello Planning
Commission.
12. Consideration of transfer of D & K recycling contract to Superior Services.
13. Consideration of participation in feasibility study for multi -city joint sludge
processing facility.
14. Consideration of adopting a policy authorizing purchases by City
Administrator and/or Department Heads.
lb. Consideration of bills for the month of January.
16. Adjournment.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 13, 1897.7 p.m.
Members Present: Bill Fair, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen, Brian Stumpf, Clint
Herbst
Members Absent: None
2. Oath of office for new Mayor and rouncilrnprnbers.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller administered the oath of office to Mayor
Bill Fair and Councilmembers Bruce Thielen and Roger Carlson.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
DECEMBER 9, THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 18, AND THE
SPECIAL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 30, 1996, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried 0
unanimously.
4. Co aid
ration of Adding items to the Agenda.
A.
Public Works Director John Simola requested that discussion of hiring
a full-time construction inspector for the wastewater treatment plant
project be discussed with item A9.
B.
Councilmember Herbst requested that discussion regarding snow
removal be added under item 416.
C.
Councilmember Stumpf requested that a discussion of the downtown
fire be added under item #16.
D.
Assistant Administrator Jeff' O Neill requested that an update on the
storm sewer fee policy be added under item #16.
6. ritireng
n m a/netitiona- req + s n, and mmnl_o+nts.
A.
Stove Johnson requested that the City Council review a decision made
in 1998 by the previous Council regarding an adjustment of property
lines for a building located downtown. It was Johnson's view that a
decision was made in error and was not based on facts presented. He
requested that the Council reconsider this item at this time or at a
future meeting.
Page 1 O
3
Council Minutes - 1/13/97
Mayor Bill Fair directed staff to place this item on the January 27
Council agenda.
B. City resident Dave Kinnard requested that Council review the
snowmobile ordinance. He noted that snowmobiles have been racing
on River Street, which has created a dangerous situation, especially
with the high snowbanks blocking motorists' vision.
Councilmember Herbst noted that 200 hours were added to the police
contract for 1997, which could be used for additional patroling on
weekends when snowmobile use increases. Councilmember Thielen
added that staff could work with the Snowmobile Association to help
solve the problem together.
Mayor Fair directed City staff to review the snowmobile ordinance and
report back to the City Council at a future meeting.
Con_nPnt ag n a.
Councilmember Herbst requested that item 6A be removed from the consent
agenda for discussion. Councilmember Thielen requested that item 6C also
be removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
A. rn aid ra ion o approve the n= mPnt ampnding the Contract for
Private Redevelopment among thA RA_ Vedrua Creek C Ram_pn.
Ins and the City of Monticello. Removed from the consent agenda for
discussion.
B. Con_aideration of authorizing ci43j staff to prepare envi_ronmentnl
naa sam nt we sheet for the high school construction priec�t
Recommendation: Authorize preparation of an EAW for the high
school construction project.
C. Consideration of nurehnan of a miern nomnfutnr for huUdingpexmit
gpplientinn . Removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO APPROVE ITEM 6B OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS
RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 2
Council Minutes - 1/13/97
�• I 1 1 I% 1.; 1
:11 I' 1111 A• 1
Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak reported that John
Komarek of Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc., requested that the HRA
amend the private redevelopment contract by amending the
commencement date for construction of Phase I of Prairie West from
December 31, 1996, to July 1, 1997, and amend the date for recording
of the final plat from December 31, 1996, to April 1, 1897. Due to the
need to contact Burlington Northern Railroad for drainage easement
rights, the redevelopment would not meet the deadline for plat
approval. Koropchak noted that the HRA's biggest concern was that
four units be completed by December 1997 in order to begin collecting
tax increment; however, since the developer saw no problem with
meeting the completion date, the HRA agreed to amend the contract.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER CARLSON AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO APPROVE AMENDING THE
COMMENCEMENT DATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE I OF PRAIRIE
WEST FROM DECEMBER 31, 1896, TO JULY 1, 1997, AND AMENDING
THE DATE FOR RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT FROM DECEMBER 31,
1996, TO APRIL 1, 1997. Motion carried unanimously.
6C. (on_aiderntion of9 Irchann p a mi= computer for hLil in8 permi
amakatluns. -
Councilmember Bruce Thielen asked what the past policy has been for
purchasing items included in the budget. Assistant Administrator
O'Neill stated that items costing $1,000 or more were typically
reviewed by Council prior to purchasing.
Thielen suggested that the purchasing process be streamlined, as it
was his view that items included in the budget should not be reviewed
a second time by Council.
Councilmember Herbst noted that perhaps the process should be
changed with the 1898 budget since the previous Council did not
review the 1997 budget on a line -by-line basis,
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A
PERSONAL COMPUTER AND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT FOR THE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOT TO EXCEED $3,000, WITH THE
Page 3 6)
Council Minutes - 1/13/97
(� UNDERSTANDING THAT CITY STAFF WILL PRESENT ALTERNATIVES
�l FOR STREAMLINING PURCHASES IN 1997 AT A FUTURE COUNCIL
MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the Metcalf and Larson
partnership was to provide the HRA with a permanent 20 -ft easement from
Locust Street as part of a tax increment financing project to allow access to
the post office facility. They failed to do so and instead requested assistance
from the post office property owner to help maintain the driveway. The post
office and landlord felt maintenance was not their responsibility since the
eaeement was to be provided by Metcalf and Larson. In response to the post
office denying maintenance assistance, Metcalf and Larson chose to close the
access off of Locust Street, which has resulted in only one access for the post
office facility off of Broadway. Wolfsteller noted that the HRA chose not to
pursue any action against the developer to reopen the easement. It was their
view that it was a private matter between the post office, landlord, and
Metcalf and Larson. HRA Chair Al Larson added that the HRA met with
Metcalf and Larson and the post office landlord; however, they were not able
to resolve the dispute.
Due to safety concerns of traffic entering and exiting onto Broadway,
Postmaster Jack Hutchinson requested that the City consider allowing the
post office to construct a gravel driveway exit from the rear of their property
to Linn Street through City -owned property. Wolfsteller noted that the City
has offered the property for sale to the post office landlord; however, no offers
or direct interest in acquiring the property for a reasonable value have been
received.
Wolfsteller also reported that the City has a 12 -ft easement along side the
Metcalf and Larson building, which stops a few feet short of the post office
property. The 12 -ft easement easement was moved in order to allow the
building to be constructed, which was supposed to be re-established in the
center to allow access to the site from Locust Street.
Mayor Bill Fair suggested that staff research whether the City still has the
12 -ft easement, which could be used to negotiate with Metcalf and Larson as
a trade for opening the access to Locust Street,
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO TABLE ACTION ON ALLOWING THE POST OFFICE TO UTILIZE
CITY PROPERTY FOR ESTABLISHING AN EXIT TO LINN STREET AND DIRECT
Page 4
Council Minutes - V13/97
CITY STAFF TO RESEARCH WkIETHEP. THE CITY HAS CLEAR TITLE TO THE
�l
12 -FT EASEMENT AND RETURN TO COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
Motion carried unanimously.
IN
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that with the recent decision to
award the contract to Adolfson & Peterson for the construction of the $14.5
million wastewater treatment plant, the City needs to decide on the length of
the construction loan. It was Wolfsteller s view that since the project has
increased from $10 million to over $14.5 million, the City may want to borrow
the money over a 20 -year period rather than 15 years to keep the cost at a
reasonable level for the taxpayers.
Wolfsteller went on to note that financing for the project has been arranged
with the Public Facilities Authority (PFA) since this would likely be the least
costly method of borrowing the money. The City received approval from the
PFA last year for the estimated $10.3 million project coat; however, during
recent discussions, the PFA agreed to increase the funding to the $14.5
million range.
Council discussed the three options for financing the project, which included
a 15 -year loan at an interest rate of 3.83% and interest free for the first 18
months; a 20 -year loan at an interest rate of 4.08% and interest free for the
first 18 months; and a 20 -year loan at an interest rate of 3.83% with interest
charged from the day the funds are received. Wolfsteller noted that even
though the City would pay interest from the beginning of the loan, the third
option would allow a 20 -year payback and would save the City approximately
$350,000 in interest cost due to the low interest rate.
Councilmember Thielen suggested that the City review the current sewer
hookup rate of $1,500 per unit and consider increasing the cost to help pay
for the new treatment plant.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO SELECT THE 20 -YEAR LOAN AT AN
INTEREST RATE OF 3.83%, WITH IMMEDIATE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST, AND
DIRECT CITY STAFF TO SURVEY SEWER HOOKUP FEES OF SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING.
Motion carried unanimously.
Pago 5 y
Council Minutes - V13/97
Public Works Director John Simola reported that the previous Council
recommended that the City consider hiring a full-time construction inspector
for the wastewater treatment plant project. The contract with HDR has
alotted funds of $160,000 for on-site construction inspection for 18 months;
however, if the City hired an inspector at a salary of between $35,000 to
$40,000, the result would be a full-time inspector for 3 years for the same
amount as budgeted by HDR. Once the treatment plant project is completed,
the inspector could move into other duties such as sanitary sewer and water
main installation. Simola requested that Council authorize City staff to
prepare a job description and salary range for review by the Council.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO PREPARE A
JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY RANGE FOR A FULL-TIME CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTOR FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT. Motion
carried unanimously.
10. (o aid ration of m n m n s to the ignawmnhilp ordinance anacif3i_ng that i�
is unlawful to onerntp anowmohiles on city naLway .
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the current snowmobile
ordinance does not clearly state that operation of snowmobiles on pathways
is prohibited; therefore, the Parks Commission requested that Council adopt
an amendment stating that it is unlawful to operate a snowmobile on any
sidewalks or pathways provided for pedestrian and/or bicycle travel.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SPECIFYING THAT
OPERATION OF SNOWMOBILES ON PATHWAYS IS PROHIBITED. Motion
carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 285.
Mayor Fair directed City staff to work with the Police Commission to review
the entire snowmobile ordinance and recommend ways to better direct safe
passage through the city.
Councilmember Thielen requested that the issue of winter pathway
maintenance be reopened for discussion. Mayor Fair directed staff to bring
an estimate of winter pathway maintenance to Council for review before Fall
of 1997.
11. Co aid ration oC nmlal =jn manta for 1997.
City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that Minnesota Statutes require that
at the first meeting of each year, spocific appointments must be made.
Page 6 0
Council Minutes - 1/13/97
Page 7
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING
APPOINTMENTS FOR 1997:
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 Times
Housing and
Redevelopment Authority:
1. Tom St_ Hilairp 12/2001
(5 -year staggered terms)
2. D rrin .ghr 12/2000
3. Brad Barger 12/99
4. Al Larson 12/98
b. Steve Andrews 12/97
Planning Commission:
1. Richard VArlaon
2. Jnn Bova
3. Dirk Fria
4. RichnrdM8die
b. $o Dramen
Health Officer:
Dr. Donald Maus
(1 year)
Acting Mayor:
Clint Herbst
(1 year)
1
Joint Commissions:
Community Education:
Bill Fair
Fire Board:
Rick Wo fates for & Brian St imnf
OAA:
Bill Fnir
Library Board:
1. 12/99
(3 -year staggered)
2. Duff Davidson 12/87
3, .le n t n • uknwa i 12/99
4. Ruby Bensen 12/87
B. Diane Herbst 12/98
Attorney:
Paul Weinvarylen
Page 7
Council Minutes - 1/13/97
Tr
�l
Planner.
Northwest Associated .o a ,l
ay o
Auditor:
Gruyg, Borden Carlson k Ass
,
Recycling Committee:
Bruce Thielen
Economic Development
Authority:
1. Roger Carlson, Council
12/2001
(6 -year staggered terms)
2. Clint Herbst, Council
12/98
3. Ken Mang*
12/2001
4. Al Larson
12/97
6. Barb Schwientek
12/98
6. Bill Demeules
12/99
7. Ron Hoglund'
12/2000
Engineer:
WSB & Associates
Police Advisory Commission: 1. Brian Stumpf, Council
12/98
(3 -yr staggered terms)
2. Bridget Baldwin
12/97
3. David Gerads
12/97
4.
12/98
6. U7. DeMnraia
11/99
Parks Commission:
1. Earl Smith
17/98
(3 -yr staggered terms)
2. Ln= Nolan
12/99
3. Fran Fair
12/97
4.
12/98
Lound] liaison (e:
6. Robbie Smith
City
12/99
-officio)
HRA/EDA:
apnointm n a to committees:
Roger Carlson
Planning Commission:
Clint Herbst
Parks Commission:
Bruce Thielen
Police Commission:
Brian Stumpf
Fire Board:
Brian Stumpf
Community Ed:
Bill Fair
Library Board:
Bruce Thielen
MCP:
Brian Stumpf
Motion carried unanimously.
Page 8
t�
Council Minutes - V13/97
I M. -Ir-r-1=1 rMT I , f 1 fA I' , 1 'y,1 .-
e
Mayor Fair reported that the City Administrator and Assistant
Administrator have been asked to consider scheduling a joint workshop with
all city commissions to review the priorities of each commission and set goals
for the future.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the next step would be to submit
the worksheet of projects to each commission and incorporate their input,
with a final list to be reviewed by the Council in April.
No action was required of Council at this time.
•1 1 fl:
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the Council reviewed an
ISTEA grant application in 1996 for a pedestrian walkway overpass and
granted approval; unfortunately, the project was not funded in 1996.
Because the application ranked very high as an enhancement program
application in 1996, and because development of the new high school will
result in greater pedestrian traffic at County Road 118, staff recommended
that the Council authorize resubmittal of the ISTEA grant application.
O'Neill went on to report that the application would include the pedestrian
walkway overpass at County Road 118 and 1.94, pathway segments along
County Road 118 from CSAH 75 to School Boulevard, and pathway segments
connecting the Meadow Oak/Eastwood Knoll/Oak Ridge neighborhoods to the
school campus area.
O'Neill noted that the cost to construct the pathway segmenta and bridge is
estimated at $486,280, not including engineering and inspection. if the City
pays 20% of the construction cost and all of the engineering and inspection
fees, the total cost to the City for the entire project would amount to
$184,786, which is an increase from $180,000 estimated in 1996.
Public Works Director John Simola questioned whether all other possibilities
have been researched for adding to the existing bridge, which the City could
help fund but the County would maintain. City Engineer Bret Weiss stated
that adding to the existing bridge was discussed with the County; however,
there aro no funds for this item in their budget, and it is not included in their
plans. It was Weiss's view that it would be less expensive for the City to
build the pedestrian bridge than to widen the existing bridge.
Pago 9 0
Council Minutes - V13/97
(P AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND
SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
CITY STAFF TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR ISTEA FUNDING FOR A
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OVERPASS, PATHWAY SEGMENTS ALONG COUNTY
ROAD 118 FROM CSAH 75 TO SCHOOL BOULEVARD, AND PATHWAY
SEGMENTS CONNECTING THE MEADOW OAK/EASTWOOD KNOLL/OAK
RIDGE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SCHOOL CAMPUS AREA, AND AUTHORIZE
ALLOCATION OF 20% (MINIMUM) OF THE PROJECT COST. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 97-1.
14. Co sideration of bilig for thw last half of npoemhpr.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER CARLSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO APPROVE THE BUIS FOR THE LAST HALF OF DECEMBER AS
PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously.
lb. Other matters.
A. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that staff' will be
presenting an update to the snow removal policy for Council approval
at an upcoming meeting; however, due to the large amount of snow
that has fallen this year, the City has received a number of concerns,
complaints, and requests regarding snow removal procedures. For
example, the Foodshelf, which leases a building from the City for $1
per year, requested that the City remove snow from the front of the
building. However, Wolfsteller noted that the agreement with the
Foodshelf states that the City take care of structural problems, but
routine maintenance, including lawn mowing and snow removal, is the
responsibility of the tenants. Other requests received included
removal of snow and ice from the sidewalks on the grid system,
clearing of snow from around mailboxes, and widening the runway at
the Pilots Cove Airport with the city snowblower.
Council discussed the snow removal requests and noted that with the
current manpower available, the City could not guarantee removal of
snow from residents' mailboxes. In regard to removing snow for the
Foodshelf, it was the view of the Council that the agreement regarding
ground maintenance should be upheld. It was suggested that the
Foodshelf seek help from nonprofit organizations within the
community for help in removing snow. It was also suggested that the
Pilots Cove Airport owner seek help from private parties in Sherburne
County for snow removal.
B. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the last action of
Council regarding the trunk storm storm sewer policy adopted in
August of 1998 was to research the fees charged by surrounding
communities. O'Neill and Mayor Fair recently met with industry
Pago 10 0
Council Minutes - 1/13/97
owners to discuss their concerns about design standards and
methodology for managing storm water. O'Neill noted that Jon
Bogart, an engineer with John Oliver & Associates and a Monticello
Planning Commission member, volunteered to review the current
design standards and compare them with other communities.
Mayor Fair indicated that another informal meeting is scheduled for
February 5 to review additional information with the industrial group.
Council will then review the trunk storm sewer policy at a future
meeting.
C. Mayor Fair commended the Monticello Fire Department for their
efforts and coordination with other fire departments in fighting the
downtown fire on January 11. Counalmember Stumpf also thanked
the public works employees for their help, as well as the Building
Inspector, who helped shuttle firefighters to and from the fire hall.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN
AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried
unanimously.
C
Karen Doty
Office Manager
C
Page 11 �/
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, January 18, 1897 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Bill Fair, Bruce Thielen, Roger Carlson, Brian Stumpf, Clint
Herbst
Members Absent: None
2. Workshop n Highwgy 25./Chelsea Road/1-94 improvements.
A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of reviewing
options q2 and N3 for the realignment of Chelsea Road in connection with the
Highway 25 improvement project. Mayor Fair opened the meeting and
stated that the City Engineer and City staff will present information, after
which public questions would be taken.
City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that the effort to improve traffic flow in
this area stemmed from a transportation plan completed in 1993. In 1995,
the City Council authorized City Engineer OSM to design a plan for solving
traffic problems at this location. Three options were identified for the
extension of Chelsea Road in a feasibility report completed by OSM in March
of 1996; however, option #1 was not a feasible alternative and was eliminated
from further discussion. The original Highway 25 improvements were
programmed by MN/DOT to include the area from 1.94 to Oakwood Drive but
was extended in 1995 to Kjellbergs Mobile Home Park. In addition to the
Chelsea Road extension and Highway 25 improvements, property owners
suggested that an I-94 loop ramp be constructed to help eliminate stacking
problems on Highway 25. This idea received support from MN/DOT, and
four options for interchange improvements were created for MN/DOT review.
MN/DOT recommended that the City present option 4D for review by the
Federal Highway Administration.
Option #2 - Chelsea Road Alignment
Option N2 proposes to extend Chelsea Road along the northern property line
of an 18 -acro parcel and through the Monticello RV Center property to
connect with Highway 25. A concrete median would be installed on Chelsea
Road from Highway 25 to Cedar Street.
Oakwood Drive east of Highway 25 would become a cul-de-sac and would
also include a concrete median from Highway 26 to Cedar Street, which is
necessary to improve stacking; however, a right-in/right-out access may be
possible. The Oakwood Drive improvements would be made at the time of
the interchange loop construction. It is not yet known whether the cost to
Page 1 0
Special Council Minutes - 1/15/97
fund these improvements would be strictly the City's responsibility, but the
City Engineer noted that the County is willing to work with the City in
improving the intersection. One suggestion worth considering is removing
the county road status from Oakwood Drive East and shifting the
designation to another road. Access to businesses in the cul-de-sac area w ill
be addressed in detail once an option is selected.
Highway 25 improvements would include construction of a concrete mediain
from the intersection of Chelsea Road to Kjellbergs Mobile Home Park. A left
tum access into the Total Mart station, which was discussed at the last
meeting, was acceptable to MN/DOT with restrictions that must still be
negotiated. A time frame may be a condition of allowing the access, and
closing it in the future may also be tied to the number of accidents or when a
stacking problem occurs. Access to businesses along the current frontage
road will also be designed in detail once an option is selected.
On the west side of Highway 25, Chelsea Road would be extended from
Highway 25 to Sandberg Road, including a concrete median. Oakwood Drive
would be closed from Sandberg Road to Highway 25, as well as the direct
access from Sandberg Road to Highway 25. MNIDOT also prefers that access
to Marvin Road be closed; however, Goerge Rivera, owner of 7 acres adjacent
to Marvin Road, has requested that at least right-in/right-out access be
allowed, which will be further explored.
Option •3 - Chelsea Road Alignment
Option q3 proposes to extend Chelsea Road through the northern one-third of
an 18 -acro parcel to Cedar Street and through a portion of Champion Auto to
Highway 25, which would then connect directly to Sandberg Road. This
option would likely require relocation of Monticello Auto Body. Under this
option, the Total Mart station would have direct access from Chelsea Road.
Oakwood Drive East would remain as a cul-de-sac as noted under option p2,
and Oakwood Drive West would be closed from Sandberg Road to
Highway 25. Concerns related to this option include higher business
relocation expenses as compared to option #2, short stacking distance that
can only be resolved by relocation of Monticello Auto Body, closing of the
driveway access to The Plumbery, and rear access to Goodyear. In addition,
there were concerns regarding the large volume of traffic that would be
forced onto Sandberg Road when Oakwood Drive West is closed. Also,
moving the intersection farther south would increase the impact on business
in the area.
Page 2 9)
Special Council Minutes - 1/15/97
1.94 Loop Ramp
City Engineer Bret Weiss reviewed plans for construction of I-94 interchange
improvements. Proposed plans show elimination of the signals at the current
off -ramp from St. Cloud and relocation of the off -ramp to connect instead to
the intersection of Oakwood Drive and Highway 25. Installation of a
concrete median would allow northbound traffic on Highway 25 to access the
I.94 East on-ramp as a right turn only, and access to I-94 East for
southbound traffic on Highway 25 would be allowed as a right turn only via
the loop ramp. Advantages to this arrangement include easier freeway
access from Highway 25 for truck traffic and elimination of signals and
stacking due to the loop ramp.
Project Cost
The construction cost for the Highway 25 improvement was estimated at
$1,750,000, with an additional $500,000 estimated for interchange
improvements. These costs will be paid entirely by MN/DOT. Property
acquisition cost for right-of-way was estimated at $214,200 for option q2 and
$345,150 for option N3 utilizing existing market values from 1996 taxes. The
City's share for each option is likely to be higher and was estimated at
$350,000 to $525,000 for option q2 and $450,000 to $625,000 for option q3.
Weiss also discussed other potential right-of-way costs such as storm water
ponding, Dundas Road extension, Cedar Street extension, and acquisition for
closing 6 accesses. Engineering costs for the project will be paid upfront by
the City but will be reimbursed by MN/DOT at the time of bid award through
a cooperative agreement.
Funding for the project is estimated at $1,200,000 from Federal ISTEA
funds, $300,000 from state highway funds, and possibly $250,000 from
Minnesota State Aid and County State Aid. Assistant Administrator O'Neill
noted that MN/DOT has agreed to pay for improvements to segments directly
extending off of Highway 25, with the City paying for land acquisition costs.
Discussion/Questions
Public Works Director John Simola questioned if the costs for construction
through the Sandberg pond were included under option 02. City Engineer
Bret Weiss responded that because it's a small pond that does not meet qty
design standards due to steep slopes, it wouldn't negatively impact the storm
sewer system if a portion of it had to be filled. Construction cost estimates
would be available when the preliminary design phase is completed, and
costs will depend on whether MN/DOT is allowed to utilize the pond.
Page 3 0
Special Council Minutes - 1/15/97
Public Works Director Simola also noted his concern with losing the
commuter parking lot due to loop ramp construction. Assistant
Administrator O'Neill responded that MN/DOT has indicated they would pay
for reconstruction of the commuter lot, and negotiations are open for paying
for the actual purchase of the property as well.
Milton Olson stated his concern with closing Oakwood Drive. It was his view
that the off -ramp should connect with Sandberg Road using signals in order
to leave Oakwood Drive open. The City Engineer explained that the Federal
Highway Administration would not allow a ramp to connect to a low-volume
road. He agreed that there are some major concerns regarding the impact on
the Oakwood Drive businesses that need to be considered.
Larry Martin, representing SuperAmerica and McDonalds, noted his concern
regarding the concrete median on Oakwood Drive, which would prevent easy
access to those businesses. He also noted that since Oakwood Drive would be
a cul-de-sac at some point in the future, the median would have far less
importance because future traffic would likely be less than the cvrrent 4,500
cars per day. Weiss explained that the reason for the median is to prevent
traffic backup on to Highway 26.
Dean Rasmussen, Class Hut property owner, requested that a right-inhight-
out access be allowed from Highway 25 to avoid customers havirig to enter
the property from the rear. Weiss stated that there have been discussions
regarding whether Marvin Road should be kept as a city street or used as a
private road. Design concepts will be detailed after an option is selected.
Bob Abel of RCA Real Estate, requested that Council select option 02 to avoid
splitting the 18 -acre parcel south of the proposed Chelsea Road extension,
Development of the parcel has been delayed since 1995 because of the
Highway 25 project, and splitting the property under option 03 would make
the property less viable for development.
Russ Adamski, owner of the Monticello Roller Rink, noted his concern
regarding Oakwood Drive becoming a cul-de-sac. Since many customers of
the roller rink are pedestrians, it was his view that a pathway system should
be included in the area. Weiss noted that MN/DOT's funding program would
pay for up to 60% of a sidewalk. In addition, since Highway 26 is proposed to
be an urban design, ditches would be removed, which would provide an
opportunity to install a bike path to connect with the School Boulevard path.
C Steve Johnson, representing Monticello Ford, noted his concern regarding
the closing of Oakwood Drive, which would remove immediate access to
Highway 26. Access through Sandberg Road would result in customers
trying to find the dealership's back door. After discussing expansion plane
Page 4
Special Council Minutes - 1/16!97
with the Ford Motor Company, they have expressed grave concerns over
expanding in an area where access will be made difficult. Johnson expressed
a desire to work with the City to make expansion of Monticello Ford a viable
project.
City Engineer Weiss noted that signing will be an important issue for those
businesses on Oakwood Drive, and it has been suggested that Sandberg Road
be renamed to Oakwood Drive to make it easier for customers to find those
businesses.
Mayor Fair noted that there will be additional opportunity to discuss the
details relating to individual business access as plans are developed beyond
the conceptual level. He thanked the public for their comments and noted
that the Council will likely select an option at the January 27, 1997, Council
meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
The City Council is requested to adopt a resolution calling for a public
hearing to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1 and TIF District No. 1-17 and
establish TIF District No. 1-22. As you recall, Project No. 1 (the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Plan) is modified each time a new district is
established. TIF District No. 1-17 is being modified to assist Fay -Mar Tube
& Metal Fabricators, Inc., with site improvement costs associated with a
proposed 18,000 sq ft expansion. TIF District No. 1-22 is being established
as a redevelopment district. The establishment of this redevelopment district
allows the HRA to capture the tax increment from a proposed funeral chapel
project. The developers of the proposed funeral chapel have Uou requested
TIF assistance. Therefore, the captured tax increment will be used for
eligible TIF expenditures which support the downtown/riverfront
revitalization plan under study by the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. It is O
my understanding the geographic boundary of the redevelopment district will
be identified in an immediate surrounding area north of West 7th Street to
the Mississippi River and two blocks to the east and two blocks to the west of
Walnut Street.
Remember, at this time, the City Council is only asked to adopt a resolution
calling for the public hearing on March 10, 1997, to modify Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and TIF District No. 1-17 and establish TIF District No. 1-22.
Enclosed is the schedule of events leading up to the public hearing of
March 10. The Council will receive full information relating to the proposed
modifications and establishment of TIF District No. 1.22 with the March 10
Council agenda.
Motion to adopt the resolution calling for a public hearing to modify
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and TIF District No. 1.17 and establish
TIF District No. 1.22. Said public hearing date to be March 10, 1897.
Motion to deny adoption of the resolution calling for a public hearing
to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1 and TIF District No. 1.17 and
to establish TIF District No. 1-22.
A motion to table action until
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
i'
`Y � ulul . � : • .
Recommendation is alternative #1. The recommendation supports calling for
the public hearing.
TIF schedule of events; Fesolution for adoption.
reBdM and A330date0m
LENDERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
A
wumecor""ffXU+rvt MKHMWFICES IN MINNEAPOUa. UN AND SROOKi1EL0. W1
2950 Nonveat Canter . DD Doth 8&heat . 2.339polia MN 55102•41 00
TetepnOrro 612-3394291 . FAx 61 2-3394854
MODIFICATION OF
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I
AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-22
(a redevelopment db&k-t)
Schedule of Everts as of Jonaary 10. 1997
January 27,1997
Letter and map received by local county commissioner giving notice of a
potential redevelopment district (30 days prior to public heating notice
published). (Sent by January24, 1997)
January 27, 1997
City Council calls for a public hearing to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1
Rnd establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22.
February 5, 1997
Plans fowarded to School District. County Board and Hospital District (at least
30 days prior to public hearing). (Sent by February 3, 1997)
February 27,1997
Dote of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not mote than
30 days prior to hearing). (Notice to Monticello TLnes by February 24, 1997)
Mach 4,1997
Planning Commission finds Plats to be in compliance with the comprehensive
plan.
Match 5, 1997
HRA approves the Plan.
Marsh 10, 1997
City Council holds public hearing on the modification of Redewlopment Project
No. 1 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.22 and
passes resolutions approving the Plans.
Marsh 11. 1997
Ehlerw?ubllcorp certifies Plans to county and state.
A
wumecor""ffXU+rvt MKHMWFICES IN MINNEAPOUa. UN AND SROOKi1EL0. W1
2950 Nonveat Canter . DD Doth 8&heat . 2.339polia MN 55102•41 00
TetepnOrro 612-3394291 . FAx 61 2-3394854
JAN 23 147 01:33PM EHLERS S FSSOCIQTES P.22
t, CITY OF MONTICELLO. MDWESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY ON
THE MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1. THE
MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT N0.1.17
AND THE ESTABLMNEENT OF TAX INCREM$NT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1.=
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the -Council") for the City of Mande" Minnesota (the "City"),
as follows:
Seed an 1. fthI c Hearn v, This Council shall mea an Monday. March 10. 19917, at app oxi autly
7:00 pm, to bold a public hearing on the proposed modification of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. 1 and Tae Inctamew Financing District No. 1-17 and the proposed establishment of rax Imerunen
Financing District No. 1-22, (a redevelopment tax increment financing district), all pursuant to and accordance
with Minnesota Stmwes. Sations 469.001 through Sections 469.047. inclusive, as arcaded and Minnesota
Statutes. Sections 469.174 through 469.179. inclusive. as amended, in an affort to encourage dna deveiopmemt
and redevelopment of outdo designated areas within the City; and
Sedan 2. Haioe of Public Heade„w, Fya of Pb= Staff is vjdw imd and dhected to prepare the
Modified Rodevelopment Plain and the Tax Inasmew Financing Plans (collectively, the 'Plans') and to
forward domanenn to dna appropriate taxing imisdiulau including Wright County and hdependr nt Sd=l
District No, 882. The City Administrator is authwimd and directed a cause notice of the lening, together
with an appropriate reap as mpimd by law. to be published at Inst once in the official newspaper of tie City
nes Ion than 10. nor mese than 30. days prier to Much 10.1997. and to place a copy of the Plan on file in
the City AdminWmdoe's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public.
Dated:
Maya
ATTBST:
City Adndniarawr
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
Each year Wright County contracts with the City of Monticello for snow
plowing and ice removal on CSAH 75 from Willow Street near Pinewood
Elementary School to East County Road 39, and one-fourth of the snow and
ice removal on West County Road 39 from the Public Works Building north to
County Road 75 West. In addition, Wright County contracts with us for a
single spring sweeping of the curb and gutter sections of the previously -
mentioned highways.
The payment to the City is based upon actual County coats on similar
maintenance for the previous year. For example, the 1997 agreement
proposes an estimated payment to the City based upon 1995 costs of
$7,752.84. The County does not reimburse us for any snow hauling or any
tasks beyond the pavement limits.
r The City has continued to maintain these highways for Wright County, as we
are often out plowing prior to the County and believe it results in a higher
level of service to our citizens by having CR 75 open quickly and accessible to
the citizens.
A copy of the proposed 1997 maintenance agreement is enclosed for your
review.
1. The first alternative is to approve the 1997 maintenance agreement
with Wright County as proposed.
2. The second alternative is not to approve the maintenance agreement
as proposed.
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works
Director that the City Council approve the 1997 maintenance agreement as
enclosed and outlined in alternative N1.
D_ S1IPPDRTING DATA:
Copy of 1997 maintenance agreement,
3
L36
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 1997
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Monticello Imereinafter referred to as
he 'City' and the County of Wright hereinafter referred to as the 'County".
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate certain roads and streets within
the City as County State Aid Highways, and
WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State Aid Highway within its limits as
identified in County Board's resolutions of August 28, October 8. November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and
January 7, 1958, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to the best interest of all parties that the duties and responsibilities of both the City and
the County as to maintenance on said County State Aid highways to be clearly defined,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the following highways.
MAINT.
PLAN ROAD SEGMENT MILES COST/MI.• TOTALCOST*
C. CSAH 75 Willow St. to E. Jct. CSAH 39 3.74 1,447.13 $5.412.27
(Includes four lane portion.)
D. CSAH 39 From City Public Works Bldg, to 0.32 361.78 115.77
W. Jct. of CSA II 75
B. CSAH 75 Four lane ponion 3.10 635.60 1,970.36
B. CSAH 39 From CSAII 75 to Kampa Cir. 0.40 635.60 254 4
ESTIMATED TOTAL o $7,752.64
That routine maintenance shall consist of the following: (Mains. Plan)
C. (CSAH 75) - Snow and ice removal.
D. (CSAH 39) - 25% of the snow and ice removal.
B. One -tine spring sweeping only.
•Based on 1995 average annual costs.
That when the City darns it desirable to remove snow by hauling, it shall do so as its own expense. The City
shall also be responsible for all snow and ice removal on sidewalks and other boulevard related naintemance outside the
curb or street area.
That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance.
Thai the City shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the County and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of whatever nature or character arising mut of or by
reason of the execution or performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by the City. It is fouler agreed
that any and all NII -time employers of rhe City and all other employees of the City engaged in the performance of any
work or services required or provided for herein to be perfurnted by the City shall he considered employees of the City
only and not of the County: and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Workmen's Cumpcnsmion Act of
the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims rade by any third parties
as a consequence of any act or omnission on the pan of said City employees while so engaged on any of the work or
^rvien provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the City.
(Sheet I of 2) 68A-
C
That the County shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of actions of whatever nature or character, whether at law or
equity, arising out of or by reason of the execution, omission or performance of the work provided for herein to be
performed by the County including, but not limited to, claims made arising out of maintenance obligations of County,
engineering, design, taking or inverse condenmation proceedings. It is further agreed that any and all full -rime employees
of the County and all other employees of the County engaged in the performance of any work or services required or
provided for herein to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of the County only and not of dte City;
and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any
act or omission on the pan of said County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be
tendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the County.
That in December of 1997 , the City shall receive payment from the County for their work. This amount shall
be based on the 19%_ average annual cost per mile for routine maintenance on Municipal County State Aid Highways.
The average annual cost per mile will reflect only those costs associated with the areas of routine maintenance for which
the City is responsible.
R014Ni I
19
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
CERTIFICATION
hereby certify that the above is awe and correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by
the City Council of said City on , 19_
City Clerk
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
COUNTY OF WRIGIIT Name of City
Chairman of the Board Date
ATTEST:
County Coordinator Date
(Shat 2 of 2)t Q p
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
At the January 13 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a job
description for the Construction Inspector for the wastewater treatment plant
project, with the possibility that the individual hired would work in street
and utility inspection after completion of the wastewater treatment plant
project. This is based upon the assumption that the growth in the city of
Monticello continues at the current and projected levels and the need for a
second Construction Inspector continues.
The basic 'Description of Work" and the majority of the "Typical Duties
Performed" and 'Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities" were already contained
within the job description for Tom Bose. By clarifying a few of the typical
duties that Tom already performs and adding additional duties and
knowledge, skills, or abilities in the area of building construction, process
piping, and equipment installation, we were able to have a single job
description for Construction Inspector. This is similar to the current dual
role of the union position of Operator Mechanic. We have employees that are
able to do some mechanic work but are more highly skilled in the equipment
operator end, and then we have one or two individuals who are highly skilled
mechanics but yet are also able to fill the duties of an operator. This
Construction Inspector job description allows one individual to be a little
more specialized in either the street and utility construction or the building
construction, process piping, and equipment installation end of inspection. A
copy of the job description is included for your review.
The City Administrator has reviewed the job description as revised for
compliance with the comparable worth program. Since a majority of the
typical duties and description of work was originally included in the
Construction Inspectors previous job description, the changes proposed do
not appear to alter the comparable worth point value originally established
for this position. The current point value would result in this position having
a grado 8 and a 1997 salary range of $27,886 to $34,608.
B. AL.TF.RNATNF ACTION4;
1. The first alternative is to approve the now job description as enclosed
and to authorize advertisement for an additional Construction
Inspector position for the wastewater treatment plant project and
beyond if conditions allow.
,e
{ �(t` , ` ��➢ L
C
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the job description or
advertise but to have HDR do the inspection as proposed.
r_ STAFF F. .O F.NDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works
Director that City Council approve the job description and allow
advertisement for an additional position as outlined in alternative ill. We
believe it is in the best interest of the City of Monticello to have their own
inspector on the job at the wastewater treatment plant and that the cost
savings, even with HDR providing some inspection services during peak
times, will pay for a full-time Construction Inspector for up to 3 years, in
contrast to HDWs $160,000 cost for one inspector full-time for 10 months and
half-time for 8 months.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed job description which would apply to Tom Bose in his
existing position and the new inspector for the wastewater treatment plant.
5
Construction Inspector Observer
City of Monticello
Title Class: Construction Inspector Observer DRAFT 4
Effective Date: November 15, 1991
Date Modified: January 24, 1997
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
General Statement of D w ies: Performs skilled on-site construction observation of various
projects in accordance;,,.,,,,,.'... ,,;. ,,., :, with defined
specifications; maintains construction records; and performs related duties as required.
c, W,ervicinn Removed: Works under the general and technical direction of the Public Works
Director, receives some technical guidance from the City Engineer.
Cturrrvision Exerciser!: None.
TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED
The listed examples may not include all duties performed by all positions in this class. Duties may
vary somewhat from position to position within a class.
Observes construction of new sanitary sewers, storm sewers, watetmain and streets systems in
accordance ,Ir with defined plans, specifications, and proper
construction practices.
Records field changes, elevations and des for retard drawing Wl ..n" purposes; maintains
project quantities log; verifies pay requests; maintains related records and files.
Locates sewer and water services for Gopher State One Call; checks base maps, record
drawings "as buil+", and service inspection reports to verify location of utility services.
contacts Gopher State One Call with specific location or "No Locate Required", as
needed.
Conducts service h000kup inspections.
Prepares designs for potential development under proper direction to determine feasibility.
Studies plans, specifications, and cut sheets; uses various measurement devices including
automatic esti handheld levels for checking grading aetivllies such an site, road.
Also uses vadous test gqulp nsnt for pressure
and eonductlve testing 01 watertmins. Md air and at testing RLsanintry systema.
Compiles quantities of materials used; re -measures to verify quantities after project completion.
Processes or reviews pay estimates :..,..,.... –J.— -_.._ _ 'y J.£ . r , I_.......J ., _ i".._J.
Sends elevations, ties and field changes to City Engineer for .,. .'!:..a" record drawings: drafts
or reviews record drawings.
Installs meter valvcs and charge lines; hooks up service test pump: closes curb stop and performs
water line test.
(continued on next page) sC#
Orders work stoppages until violations of City contract specifications are corrected.
Coordinates construction projects acting as liaison between surveyor, engineer, contractor, !A$
nlant onerntore.
Reviews preliminary plan specifications; recommends changes as needed.
Installs test balls and perforans service line tests; completes digging and hookup permits as
required.
Prepares dimension and elevation notes as needed for sketches; prepares rough sketches,
preliminary drafts, aril revisions as necessary.
Assists other departments as needed.
Provides construction observation on building projects such as expansion of public work[
facilities and the wastewater plant, etc.
When required, casts concrete test cylinders, measure slump, air content, and temperature in
accordance with ASTM specifications and record related data iA, „ .-, ..':,.,.'f..:..,
May monitor proper storage and coordinate work of the testing laboratory.
Interfaces with the City, consulting engineers, and contractor in regard to, among other
things, the services of eatechnical personnel, surveyors, closed circuit TV pipeline
inspection, etc.
Operates a PC to record, relieve and transmit data between the various key project personnel,
using such softwansuch asMicrosoftOffice f,
Lotus.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIFS
Considerable knowledge of safe and acceptable construction practices, OSHA standards, and
MnDOT specifications.
Considerable knowledge of building materials and workmanship.
Working skill in basic drafting of record drawings -- bailts" and designs. (Hand/CADD)7
Considerable ability to inspect, advise, and monitor the work of construction crews.
Considerable ability to interpret blueprints. plans and aonroved short drnriaae
involving architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, engineering designs, and to
-00$tar cenatruetion comnlianca.
Working ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing with contractors, city
employees, and general public.
Working ability to work in unfinished strtictures and in unsafe or uncomfortable surroundings.
Working ability to perform calculations, prepare reports, and interpret surveys.
Knowledge of basic computer skiUs and working ability to use same in a timely and accurate
fashion.
General knowledge of concrete arid deel construction techniques required for building and
process equipment installation; i.e., soil and materials, electrical, controls, paint
coatings, piping indaUalion, etc.
Considerable knowledge of constrwtion specUllealions such as (CSI format) Including general
conditions and the ability to accurately read, interpret and follow same.
Worting ability to handle routine disagreements and make field decisions following set
standards.
(continued on next page) Sv B
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
VMust possess a valid Minnesota Class C driver's license or equivalent out-of-state license and
have three years of municipal construction inspection experience including streets, water, and
sewer and/or water, wastewater treatment plant or related facility construction inspection.
Must be able to obtain roadbase, bituminous, concrete, and inspection certifications within two
years of employment. Completion of vocational -technical training in constriction inspection or
surveying, or completion of one year of civil engineering courses at a college can substitute for
one year of above experience.
C
5C,
Council Agenda - V27/97
1 1: 1 •� ! 1 1 1 111 � A I 1 1 '� 1 :. ,1 KI 11 �� 1
rZ 4 -7-1:4 rl 1 47r. 11 (: 1 1
A RFFRRFNPF ANn SA •K .RO TND:
City Council is asked to authorize the City Engineer to complete studies
necessary to guide the development of the lGein Farms III and Leerssen
developments. Although much of the general area has been studied, a
portion of the Klein property and all of the Leerse^n property fall outside of
previous study limits. The purpose of the work of the City Engineer with
regard to storm water is to identify the best method for providing a controlled
outlet for storm water that currently flows south into the township. It is
expected that the study will identify a method for collecting and conveying
the water into the city system. The cost to complete this project will be
funded by storm water trunk fees that have already been collected.
The sanitary sewer study will define the best method and design of the
system serving the Leerssen property, thus providing base data from which
the Leerssen utility plan can be formed.
The cost of both of these studies can be appropriately funded through the
trunk fee revenue. As you know, both the lGein Farms III and Leerssen
properties will be paying sanitary sewer and storm sewer trunk fees. Please
see the attached letter from Bret Weiss for more information on the storm
sewer study.
B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to authorize the City Engineer to complete trunk utility studies
for the lGein Farms III and Leerssen development areas.
Under this alternative, the City Engineer will obtain information
necessary for development of the lUein Farms III and Leersson
properties. The data will be incorporated in the platting and utility
construction process.
Motion to deny authorization to complete trunk utility studies for the
10cin Farms 111 and Ikerssen development areas.
Staff recommends alternative #I.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Bret Weiss of WSB.
WSS
&Anociales, Inc.
December 11, 1996
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Re: Klein Farms South
Drainage Analysis
WSB Project No. 1010.07
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
612-541-4800
FAX 541-1700
IIA. hfi-MrA. P.r.
B- A. W� ,,, P.1.
P— H. V1"illriaxury;. P.1_
l,rnlld �'. �a I I -.I_
uan,Id It. 14".. PA.
7 -his letter is a follow-up to our meeting held on Friday, December 6, 1996, with Tony
Emmerich. As we discussed, the south 80 acres of the 160 acre Klein Farts development
is proposed to be developed in 1997. Consequently, a drainage system needs to to addressed
for the proposed south development so that a plan is in place for future implementation. The
Flan Boulevard Drainage Study did not include the entire south 80 acres ofthe Klein Farts
development and without utilizing a fill station, will not he able to incorporate the southeast
corner of this development. With the pending development of property west of County
Road 117 and cast of Fallon Avenuc, and due to the I'act that the arca hctween the south
property line ol'Klcin Famis and 851h Street has not been previously addressed, a plan should
be developed to accommodate storm water runoll'prior to this arca becoming trapped. We
have estimated the cost for evaluating the areas south of Klcin Faris to 851h Street at $7,800.
This analysis will include determining required storm water storage volumes and allowable:
discharge rates from the area and compute how this drainage may allTect the 'Trunk
Ilighway 25 Drainage Analysis as well as the Industrial and Flan Boulevard Drainage
Analyses. A technical memorandum will be prepared outlining the results of this study and
4 hours of meeting time has been incorporated into this cost estimate. We would like to
undertake this work prior to the development of these areas and feel that the planning for this
arca would allow for accommodation of the increased ntnofTto one of the previously planned
systems.
If -
Infrastructure Englnerm Plnnnrrs D4
114 -AI 1119'1 Ip"?NI I V 1 MPT I I%I W
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
December 26, l 996
Page 2
If you would prefer to discuss the development of a Citywide storm water plan as we have
previously discussed, we can put together a proposal for those services in lieu of this
proposal. As is the case with the Klein Farms South development, the lack of an overall
storm water plan does have impact to future development.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. 1 f you arc
in agreement please sign both copies and send one back to us for our files. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely,
WSB di Associates, Inc.
Bret A. Weiss, P.F.
Vice President JelTO'Nelll, City of Monticello
sa
C
bbB
H
A
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
City Council is asked to review the attached feasibility study and consider
acceptance. The information will enable the Resurrection Church to plan for
development of its 20 -acre site at the northeast corner of the intersection of
County Road 118 and School Boulevard. The cost of this study was funded
by the Church.
Motion to accept feasibility study for providing sanitary sewer service
to the Resurrection Church site as prepared.
Under this alternative, the Church can finalize plans for site layout
and financing. It is expected that the planning and zoning approval
and annexation process will follow soon.
Motion to deny or table acceptance of the feasibility study for providing
sanitary sewer service to the Resurrection Church site as prepared.
This alternative should be selected if there is an issue of concern in the
feasibility study.
C STAFF FVO MFNDATION:
The City Administrator recommends acceptance of the study and adoption of
the recommendations set forth by the City Engineer for serving and
financing the improvements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of feasibility study.
Council Agenda - V27/97
7, Publie he ring on adoption of Mnased aasesgment rail for
d linquent utility billa andrtiA .ation of 1 cement ro n QMnty
Auditor. (R.W., C.S.) --
A- REEERENCF AND BA .K .RO 1ND:
The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll for utility billing
accounts which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the
assessment roll to the County Auditor for collection on next year's real estate
taxes if not paid by November 30, 1997.
The delinquent utility accounts that are included with the agenda are
accounts that are at least 60 days past due and include all new delinquents
from the last time we certified them. In addition to the delinquent amount,
the Council also previously approved the establishment of an administrative
fee of $25 per account that is added to each delinquent assessment. The
amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list include the
additional $25 administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll.
r Please note that acct 2.0123-00-00 exceeds the $500 threshhold established
! by Council. Attempts are being made at this time to collect the delinquent
amount or the water could be shut off.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll
for certification in 1998 at an interest rate of 8% as allowed by state statute.
As in the past, if any accounts are paid within 30 days after the adoption of
the assessment roll, they can be paid without the additional interest. After
30 days, payments will be charged interest and can be accepted up to
November 30, 1997.
B_ ALTFRNATIVR ACTIONS;
1. Adopt the assessment roll for the delinquent charges as presented.
L
2. Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required.
C. STAFF RECO MF.NDATION:
It is staff recommendation that the Council adopt the assessment roll as
presented. All of the accounts are at least 60 days past due and have been
C given proper notice of this assessment hearing and amplo opportunity to pay
the accounts in full. All utility accounts were notified that there would be an
additional $25 administrative fee attached to each outstanding balance if the
account was not paid by 4:30 p.m. on January 17, 1997.
3
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Complete listing of delinquent
accounts to be certified.
RESOLUTION 97.
(� RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND
UTIIdTY BII.I.S
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
delinquent accounts receivable charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments
against the parcels named herein, and each tractof land therein included is
hereby found to be benefited by the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable on
or before the first Monday in January 1999 and shall bear interest at the rate
of 8 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment
resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire
assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1988.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification
of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on
such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City
Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4.. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax list of
the county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of January, 1997.
Mayor
C City Administrator
7 0
01172/17 07.55.06
OR 1, 1996 DILO UTILITY 6111116 CEPIIFICAnCNS WITH LATI OVJ9
PA2 1
- AFCOunt 1 oto 1
pmmrtV Acit"s
APT Custoeer MW
Cwt Mm 2
OVr10 Dal
OMO Day
Oer90 Oal OwI20 Day
Late
Total
1
Pari Ole
Past Due
Part Ow
Post Due
Clog
./Late
CK"
00100250000 ISWODID20
225 RIVER Sl l
NICNAEL FILARSKI
5131 CEAU UIOC RD
67.1)
.00
.01
.00
25.00
11.11
DO1W)7000D 15501005560
107 RIVER $1 Y
PATTY 1MRS
307 RIVER ST Y
190.57
.00
.00
.00
25.00
155.51
00100190000 IS5010055051
1 LOCUST ST
IED MUIOER
1 LCCWT SI
11.01
.1
.00
.00
MOD
16,M
00100/70000 155010051070
211 1WIT ST
NICW911
LEL O'C0
Po 101151
90.06K
.00
.00
15.00
1.'09
00100150000 155010061010
101 FRONT ST
O1CI RICE
101 FROG ST Y
131.21
.00
.00
.00
25.00
162.71
0010013001 1S$00011100
971 R1KR S1 Y
Aowl. MTN
671 AMR $I Y
97.27
.00
.00
.00
25.00
117.71
00101110000 IS5010061110
701 PMR ST E
C11W1ELLE NITOSII
201 AMR S1 E
12.11
.00
.00
.00
75.00
11.11
00101760000 15501515150
701 R"1 ST I
"ALD Q9IN
121 IMI $T E
119.57
.00
.00 ,
.00
75.00
144,57
0010115101 ISSO 15001150
S2% EVER 611
am "a
10 wl 101
16.11
.00
.00
.00
75.00
11.11
002/190000 1SS015016010
110 W91Ilam 51
LEE 1 JEYIINE .1.1
110 YASNIASTU1 Sl
16.12
.00
.01
.00
75.00
111.17
00700/10000 155010011100
ISS 69010YAV 1
PAULA 111111
PO 601 171
10.61
.00
.00
.00
75.00
11.59
00200/900/ 155010057070
111 BRMOYAI E
NCCW Ea1EP1RISES ITS
PO.1. 121
12.65
.00
.W
.1
75. DO
61.95
007/55001 155010050111
101 LOCUST Si
JUL It NDLIEN)ECI
107 IOCWT 61
1.10
0070071001 155010019010
ill 61MDIfA1 Y
JEREMY/tEUCCA a0YRSO
PO 601 1111
75.51
.00
.00
.1
75.00
1..51
00011000000011000015$0100702D
110 YDR Si
REED OR AIRI DEW"IS
PO 50 611
111.71
.00
.00
.00
25.00
111.21
00mo511 1550Imulo
IU 6C01OY11 Y
AICIIA. 6[x11[
IU 6RpepW1 V
116.11
.1
,00
.W
75.00
111111
omc3ll 1 155020005111
1011 Malloy Y
60100 Orrt912n
1011 Ef01W1Y Y
11.17
.00
.00
.00
MOO
175.12
00701111 155010012060
201 ELN ST
J1/OS F0.111
Fo 90T 1071
76.72
.00
.0
.00
M.1
51.27
.
002017111 155010MA140
751 DAOI10aA1 V
DOMffCW 6111/10
Art: OOI filllE
655.11
.00
.W
.00
MCI
660.11
060016100 IS• )010
711 RRY 11
111 DIT",
10 BW 711
$1.60
.00
.W
.00
75.00
11.10
00300370000 155010Wp50
JII LIINI Sl
DIY. 1 DEad KL75YN
111 1IW Tt
11,11
.W
.W
.W
M.00
111.11
11005111 165010061010
125 061 Y
IME11 6ARTIRI
125 ID 61 V
16.50
.W
.1
.00
25.00
In.50
00316011 15501007100
IW law[ 0011 Sl
I" Km
IW NDXMIA 6T
Ih.10
.CO
.p
.00
75.00
119.10
0601\100 15501179090
111 ID Sl Y
CIIDTIf 1 DIAI[lfl M1%
11001 ri1
61.11
.1
.6
.W
75.00
16.70
"31: 1011 15501000000
111 1.61 V
tGURI 1 rAm Cm
PO 001 VII
11.15
.W
.C)
.00
M m
11,15
00)007100 1S50100ntp
M IRO Sl Y
UP AIIEON 990001
W 601 1111
12.11
.00
.W
.W
MCI
11.11
1)C060' 155010011060
721 10 51 l
DOW MCIUM
(1790 MUM)
13.11
.CO
.C3
.1
75.00
11.07
001009010 15501001010
Ip nD ST I
OERALO MaTE61
mew Ion
17.11
.1
.0
.1
25.00
11.11
0010100000 159016005070
IU 1M $l l
[Mm1 rAilAlE[1
NCO] 1161
106.1!
.q
.11
.1*
75.0
111.15
OMC161p 155010001012
IV IM SI Y
170 DaA N YICQtl
111 1M 11 Y
56.50
.W
.p
.p
M.W
11.59
00500/9001 1!5 =mw
WI 6TN 11 Y
A" IlC61lL
601 IM 61 Y
65.62
.p
.q
M
M.00
11.57
00Sp51C01 15501001010
101 AM ST V
G1 0216
FO Cm Ilee
111.11
6.11
M
.1
Mm
117,G
0011011 16501=5010
117 6M Sl Y
J" F%Wa
17170 A7111A61 WE w
19.61
.W
M
.to
M.C)
11.67
=C07C:7 ISSO IO...Oq
Ip 6M 5 7 V
DAIRY ol7Ea
alio OEWIS aKIQ
19.11
.CD
M
.00
75.C3
11.9]
0.^A[== ISSC5101270
ICD 7M SI Y
(MIT 1116/)
ATT:1 Y109 PAIIQYI CCPI
70.70
.C7
.0
,p
MCD
15..
_
0,'I."_OGSS",JD '"WoC01CA0
116 YIN Sl l
TACO Cl11 ISl11
co W /60:0
150.11
M
.0
.p
75.0
111.1
0:.01111 15507Dm
101 TTN SI I
1LJ1VYp11Fis
arta 111611m son
5L./2
.p
.0
,C)
76.0
70.17
G Cm:3&CCp tSEDIM2010
1711 We U
CUCCEIO RE5MDT
1779 If LA
70.6
M
.93
.1
75.0
101.0
C=51= 1551AMICID
1171 = U
J" AL CI AS
11}1 RYOY LA
51.11
M
.to
.00
IS.p
10.11
005012200 15`_.5111171
IID IMR P Y
1 C CO10YILII
1271 RIVE: OF Y 11
81,25
.p
.0
.p
nm
122.25
`j CCED12S6000 1555C7Ch71
IIn ST. .1 61 Y
10 '.TFWY VOGIA
Un 61K1 LT Y 110
1.)1
.00
.0
.p
M C3
1.11
omo kr= 1ss 1110
II IMR RnAC1 PAD
JMEE 1101.110
15 UIT1 TEDACE FAO
10.11
.p
,p
,Co
75.0
15.11
1601[5[01 15<_5C1117p
I2 UVII OtlKI Pad
DAYS 111101 GTIft
17 FIVE: TIMAU GAD
71,70
.CD
.0
,CO
M O
56.n
00011/0000 1555011110
II IMI TIVAC1 PID
EHIDI IXVTON
Il 1M1 FLUKE PAD
10.10
.p
.C)
.to
25.0
15.10
00601Is= 15�1)p
67 UVEA TIOACI tab
FV!u LL LIP9I1
61 UVEI "It i/0
10,10
.CD
.0
.0
M.CI
15.10
005270110 ISSOnC:lmo
IW NATIIO fit
CERg0 PIA12
W ECI 705
91.11
,p
.C2
.CD
2S.0
110.17
We a vomall0
T,.
r_ -
f) f)
•
C:
01/77/91 01.55.06
OTR 3, 1996 DELL UTILITY ell LING CERTIFICAuaS 57TH UTE CHUG[
FM2 2
Amo,I,it 1 RID 1
Pra0ertr Adarelt
ART Cwtaoer Nc
CVst Nm 2
0,110 ar
Lrr6D ar
ar90 a7 Orr 170 ar
Ute
Tote)
1
tart Dm
Past DIA
Port O.N
PAZ D:
:Wit
r/Late
�9e
A
00201600020 155015001010
11103 BM"AY V
MARY C BLAISDELL
160] SMADWAY r
45.26
.00
.m
.00
75.00
10.3
OOIpu0007 IS5p6001130
111 KIYIN laG II DO
JEREMY KAISERI It
111 CEYIN LOMGEY DP
3.04
.m
.00
.00
25.m
St.p
Omm K00" ISSO OD11m
III KEYIM LOCI' OA
JOM 415EDLIK
1147 139D AVE A
99.01
.m
.00
.m
25.20
114.06
00700710000 ISID 1020m
106 KI Y'11 IOGLIV OO
JOSEPH DAHUE EMIR
PO 601 1291
145.15
.m
.00
.m
15.00
110.15
0010103MOD 155030mID
121 MARVIN ILW03D q
MINES JORESIN
126 MARVIN RWDM to
177.76
.00
.00
.00
15.00
152.3
oso11o6Doo ssonDolaso
12 ¢p1w a
LARRY METCALF
111 MOMrN u
00.71
m
W
m
15.20
n.»
a m1160D00 ISSolto011m
14 Wow U
JEFF JOHNSON
,4 KC)W U
57.03
.00
.00
.00
25.00
11.03
00701110000 155071001050
177 eLLBOA CIO
LINDA IMJOY
PO em 156
0.93
.m
.00
.m
25.00
11].9)
00101170000 155031007040
13 ULM CIR
KDKEL CIWDLEP
126 BALM CID
111.96
.00
.00
.00
25.00
159.91
OOm354m00 155035004010
105 CROCUS IA
JIM I KAKI HALVORSCN
105 CO0N5 U
a.tl
.m
.00
.m
75.00
11.11
o0 slo m 155015004010
101 CROCIO CIP
TDK MINIp
107 CKCUS CI
111.0)
.m
.00
.m
75.00
111.11
om0156o0m 155015004050
109 CROCUS CIO
6. GORDON 1 C. M16Q1
109 cmm CI R
90.11
.00
.00
.m
75.00
115.11
007"/10001 ISSOlso0)Om
73 CROCUS U
ROPY WEEK
PO as 111
17.11
.m
.00
.00
25.00
67.K
Ox0)pCCm 15m150YRD
111 CROCIb U
61104 ELOM
Il6 CROCUS U
110.06
.0
.00
.m
75.00
IlS.p
Om�O5om0 IS►O15001,m
110 MARVIN ELVOW �
DONALD WOOD
230 MARVIN ILWOD M
17.11
.00
.00
.00
25.00
107.74
Omp0lmm IIm]5001110
73 MARVIN ELWOOD to
9ATIE LAWRENCE
776 "AMM ELS ED
6)•90
.m
.00
.00
75.00
2, .20
002 06 09 0000 IS50)5001111
227 MAW IN RWOOD M
SCOTT 1 "ANNE MISS
177 MARVIN ELM RD
11.06
.m
.00
.m
15.m
12.04
007067'40000 ISmlloolo)o
14) It lA
JAMES CEII[TIE
141 KID" LA
117.51
.m
./0
.00
15.00
207.06
OO 06300G1 ,5501100410
,n ICOR U
WDKTH ROSSBEK
115 MEDIAN U
96.54
.00
.00
.00
75.10
1}1.55
0"06710000 15507,001020
I)1 IRMIN U
DIAMO M"
131 KOIW LA
74.10
.00
.Do
.00
15.04
49.50
00701160000 ISW?5001050
101 MWD) ELSOOD RD
MIKE 1 MRV WHITE
109 MMMIN flV1C0 RD
11.11
.00
.m
.00
15.00
109.5]
0"01100000 1550710011)0
13 SAIDTW CII
ERM KI
17 SAIDTRAP CIA
1.1
.00
.00
.00
15.00
16.11
am In=/55013021120
1 SMOTRAP CIS
BEI) 1 BEY GIIGSBY
S SAMDTRAP CII
17.11
,m
,OD
.m
25.00
117, tt
0101610000 ,55"1001010
6 SMDTRAP CIO
LEI SCOTT
S SAIDTRAP 049
171.11
.00
.00
.m
75.00
u0.i1
0"01110m ISm11oolm
10 FAIRWAY OR
)MINKS HITCHCOCK
10 EAIRWV Do
11.01
.m
.00
.00
75.00
104.01
op0112W00 155"700)0,0
le [LGL[ CIR
JACK W1
t. EAGLE C1P
'6.11
,m
.00
.00
25.00
11.11
00791040004 15So1100mm
,4 EAGLE CIR
TED DANIELS
,/ Eta ClR
49.00
.m
.m
•m
25.20
",Do
O1D"710000 ISSmi0011 r0
41] ilxI qll CO
SAMOILR
641 11x) qll DP
'1.05
.m
.00
.OD
71.00
60.b
0)020600204 ISmr101040
IID IIxWIW SM
Rick 1 LOSE SLOfi6G
670 RIVEMIW DI
55.4
.06
.00
•00
75 m
QO.p
01006000700 PoSOCS00$7m
6167 POLL CIN ED
J.". CKES
1151 MDI) 104 RD
E6.16
.0
.m
.m
2.00
1).m
011O?Ck= tS5051C0104
7141 REO OAR U
JASON $A MG
2251 69 010 U
79.11
7•"
.m
.m
25.00
1x.20
Ott "01]0 1!2010001020
311 OD Du U
CpK COWL PUCTIa INC
6000 pMM Ix N
11.11
.m
.OD
.m
71.20
49.11
011200.020 t15517pi010
mat RED Du CID
MICHAEL %MITER
204, RED OU CI t
16.10
.m
.00
.00
11.m
100,4
ImIWDDD
1151 DAKVIIV LA
IIA 1 it'IFFID EAL01
1111 OIWIIr L1
17.1!
.00
.p
.m
7s.m
11.1)
0;IN90000
11IM$I= ISSUS=aco
2001 01KVIIV LA
JACI 1 SAGA NAMM
201 OLLVIW U
17.)0
.co
.GO
.m
25.20
67.20
Ot IC%1= 15'51501360
In mm om DI
Jai[ KE41 15
925 MIADW DAY OR
2$.17
.q
.0
.m
3.20
Ip0.17
01Im7tc:.1` 15'504771)20
325 Ou RIOGt OR
)ICH 1 1IM OOKMD
:0471 0111 RIDGE M
15.41
.m
.p
.m
25.20
100.11
011m IBCYY.7 t550tlII0mtl
7161 Ou IDG) SM
JEtr 1 OSHA Maus
7711 Du qWi OR
119.01
.tl
,p
.0
75.a)
W.p
0t1C3 1550L"7Dmm
7040 06A RIDGE a
STEW LAAO
2640 W RIM DO
11.66
.m
,0
.co
71.0
IDT.Es
01)071020 IS`SgODIIt0
21CO CAME CI
MIN mADr
2560 OAWIIr CI
71.'1
.p
.0
.to
3.20
06.11
o110;tCw7 155..^"'075101
meo OMIEV a
cmu EOVARCS
ICAO OIIYIW CT
04.01
,p
.00
.CIN
7).tl
.4.01
017m7147P0 15 Otwa
tU U[IIUK-6 )AD
R,'OHr SMITH
7M 6,RLlaC'6 PAPP
Il,m
.p
.co
.CO
25.20
56.20
OI=lr-m 1!55015"01
202 AJCILCECJ'6 FAO)
OAU OEway
107 IJELItla'I PARI
31.20
,m
.0
.ED
25.O
55.70
017♦. = ,snmlb"a
20R UILLatG'6 RAD'
MAFS(MI tfur
7b ME S:$ PARD
20.00
.m
.p
,W
75.0
4.04
O4C:�'7:7tl 1I= 5"C3
711 UEILCIRG'I PAD
PM OANICIr
211 lAltCt&'1 PAR!
11.70
.C3
,C2
.W
25.00
16.20
"=To= Is55p Iw03
110 AJIIIaRG'S FAD
LNC IV Norm
110 UIIlCECS'I PAP!
20.00
,p
.p
.W
25.0
15.04
O1IWMCS7 15SSC71wC)
2 A URLCERv'6 PID
A9TIOO p"
214 KJELLCEC's PARI
U.m
.C3
.OD
.m
25.04
$6.70
CITY Or MCWTIQl10
01/77/97 07,55.05
91R 3, 1996010 UTILITY BILL INC, CEPTIFICATIMS 41N UTI DhRQ
PAGE 3
AM01.t 1 RID 1 Pr rt) )4&us ART
Custm, am
cost ll e I
Orr)D Day Cs140 Dar
Or90 D7) 0rr170 Cry
Late
TOUT
1
Part D. Pan Dur
Art Due
Post Due
Chrge
./Late
CMrge
01700110000 ISSSOOISU01
711 KJELLURG'S PARK
UDG ROAM
71) KJELLBIA6'5 PARK
11.10
.00
.00
.00
75.00
56.70
01700770000 15550015410)
777 KJU RERG'S PARK
JAMES AVERY A
JO3Q t0TEA5
70.10
.00
.00
.00
75.00
41.80
017007)0007 is=WU
12) KJELLURG'S PARK
KJELISERG'S OARI M
(DICK NICDWI)
70.10
.00
.00
.x
75.00
15.80
01700510001 15550015410)
110 KJ(LLeEPG'5 PARK
UILLSERG'S PARK INC
IA SC)LIPIPTI LER)
70.10
.00
.00
.00
15.00
15.80
017005)0000 1SSS0015L107
108 KJElLBERG'S PARK
WARREN JONES
109 UELLBEBG'S PARK
11.10
.00
.00
.00
71.00
4 n
01700560000 ISSSOOISU93
105 K.Ift RG'S PARR
CAIN" BIRIMT7
toy IJILLURG'S PARI
11,70
.00
.00
.h-
75.00
51.96
01700610000 1MIND I5u93
6 KJELLBERG'S PARK
rlCrl MICR
6 KJELLSL6'S PARI
)1.70
.00
.00
.00
15.00
Sf.10
01100160000 1515 Is"o)
Ib MILBERG'S PARS
JIM A EDW SWEETER
IA KJILLBfM S PARK
10.10
.x
.00
.%
75.00
75.96
01100/90000 IS= 1su07
17 LLIRLBERG'SPARK
THEM 6ENO
I1 UEIIBERG'S PARC
70.10
.00
.x'
.x
MCI
45.80
017008)0000 ISSMISU07
71 UFLIKIG'SPARK
FOOD PEL701
71 KJFUSM'S RADE
70.90
.00
,00
.x
MOD
15.90
01100/IOD00 1!550015110)
Joe KJRIBERG'S PARI
NICK 04RISTENSEM
101 IJELIURG'S PARK
11.70
.00
.00
.x
75.00
Sf.70
01700990000 155500751103
116 KJ[IIBEK'S PARK
LLAM n[PMI[1
]if KJIIIRG'S /1R/
70.80
.OD
.00
.x
75.00
15.00
01}OtOxOx ISSSOO15u07
!11 UEIIBfRG'S DARK
GIMiP if Do
7111JFlL0ERE,'f OARR
10.10
.00
.00
.x
75.00
15.10
011011)0000 ISSSOOISu93
696 RJ[ILBERG'S PARK
ROC[ PETER
LOS KJELMIS S PARK
11.70
.00
.00
.00
2$. Do
$6.70
01701%MOD IS55001SUD)
40) U[ILBEIG'S PARK
KJEll6E6'f INC
(DEBRA LACROI I)
11.10
.x
.00
.00
n.x
$6.70
OOODO5CJ00 155069001050
50M SIARLIN6 DO
OEIM5 1 S16 JENn
5090 STAPLING DE
11.1)
.00
.00
.00
n.x
103.93
011oo1)000o 15507)001110
MU PEROM Cl
I. Do EDEN
9090 HERON CT
51.56
.00
.00
.x
93.00
10.56
OOCDT= 15507 )00)130
SM NLLARD LA
MICIRLIf WEROW
5700 M%LA)0 LA
17,10
.00
.00
.00
MIND
101.00
011001SC= ISSO)1 MID
5750 MLIURD U
01110MIE SPO*QT7
S250 MALLARD U
06.51
.00
.00
.x
93.00
111.51
01)00010x0 2050
5110 MAIIARD LA
JEFF MR
531D INUM LA
11.35
.00
.00
.00
MCI)
If.15
20"
0110703x00 155007oono
5511 STARLING 01
DEFICITS ROr-7tR6
$571 STARLING OR
M. A,
.00
.00
.00
n.x
15.11
01107109x0 1550070WOto
$491 S1APtING DR
R01A10 Kkub;
DO COI n)
So.11
.00
.00
.x
MCI)
M.11
OIl01CSODOD 155070x1100
5)70 lAlC01 AVE
JILL 0096015
5110 TLLC01 AN
111.60
.00
.00
.x
n.x
704.61
01103010x0 155079096160
b511 lA1CW AN
11101 hiQ
SS7t FLLCO AN
P.3D
,00
.00
.x
71.00
109.39
0110303=1 ISM10001110
5151 FALCON AN
JCOJEIDIt UVALLE
SA51 TLLCO AN
11.01
.00
.00
.00
75.G1
57.11
01301340x0 %5069077050
5111 SIARLIPG 09
L. AM V. COMMIE[
6171 "MING of
60.63
.00
.00
.00
MEN)
ISM
00071000x 1550[9007010
SMO NIRIp OP
DM OOID
5010 MARiP DR
41.87
,00
.00
.x
93.00
11.11
0%07540000 1S50LOMIM
E051 MARTIN 0R
Lam A 81IM 1101 I1
5011 W31IN DI
IS.00
.Do
,00
.x
Moo
171.03
0110351= 1$5069x1070
5005 11117 BA OR
TRCr WXMKE
Son IMRI IN DR
$6.70.00
.00
.00
75.00
11.10
1140111x90 1sSoMx1110
ion S10AERM CEI
!To.Co05
AM1510MUMNa CII
110,30
.00
.Do
.x
IS.
155.11
x
n ao
IIIo115xx IS'WM:M
93» LID - FA
DEQI 1 MRIEII[ LAURA 9727 RED 90CK lA
4151
.00
.00
.x
n.0.
41.9
11401110700 155090x10L0
9340 RED ROCI U
DAVID OnUA
OLIN QD F0C1 U
60.70
.00
,Do
.x
75.00
11.70
'- 1'
E
]11P0
9750/p07x 1SSM 1001050
ID501 /)OIx ISSN 100x10
50) FARM 67
$21 RUGA 51
PALL.111.
PAM DAVIS
SDI 71, ST
E54
11.20
10.40
.x
,Go
.09
.00
.00
75.00
Moo
56.70
11.60
,aa 7 ma. ,aSfo�,svVOJ
,nv�>,u��, oar
ti/.J°.,rk.
�COs
la„�i,
.00
e.w
��
93YO
MALI
C'�i
ICFA$
Nw.7f
41.f1
,90
w.4•
_.-_
')r91i,H-
cDICn 117
R83.3•�
b
9. J°`
.�rr'��
idOS/9!G
A I 1 A I 1 M D 0 1 R I P 0 1 1
I K I t A
CITY IF NMFIUUD
A
T
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
, - -'N , • r: , , , �,, , ,.q: , , •, , : ••
,n
At the direction of the Council, this item is being placed on the agenda for
reconsideration of a previous Council action concerning the execution of a
quit claim deed to clear up a title problem at the former Johnson Warehouse
building.
To briefly summarize, Mr. Steve Johnson had sold the former Johnson
Department Store Warehouse building to Biff Springborg and encountered a
problem where the building was encroaching onto adjacent property owned
by the City used as the municipal parking lot. Mr. Johnson had requested
that the City provide a quit claim deed turning over the 3 ft of encroachment
to him to enable his title to be transferred. The previous Council action was
to provide the quit claim deed for the 3 ft but to require that the square
footage being transferred be compensated at $2 per square foot, or
approximately $500.
As a reference, enclosed is a copy of the previous agenda item and Council
minutes from the November 12 meeting concerning this issue. Hopefully this
will provide sufficient background for your consideration of Mr. Johnson's
request.
I recently met with Dennis Taylor of Taylor Land Surveyors to go over a
recent survey of the Riverside Cemetery property and inquired as to whether
he was aware of any surveying changes that had taken place or monument
changes that were requested by the City that would have resulted in this
typo of encroachment problem Mr. Johnson was experiencing. Mr. Taylor
noted that all surveys done in the city appear to be based on survey
information that was established in 1952 that located all of the block corners
in the downtown area. He was not aware of any action taken by the City
that would have resulted in some of the problems noted, but he did indicate
that this type of situation does come up occasionally where a building is not
located exactly on a piece of property as originally thought, resulting in
revised descriptions, otc. At this time, the City staff is not aware of any other
encroachments or legal descriptions that need to be adjusted in this block,
and we believe that if the quit claim deed is provided to Mr. Johnson to clear
up his encroachment problem for the 3 ft, the warehouse property will have
an additional 3 ft, and the city parking lot will be actually 3 ft smaller.
10
11
C
Council Agenda - 1/27/87
While the actual use of the property will not change, we are not aware of any
readjustments to other lot lines that would result in the City obtaining the
3 ft from a neighboring property or that Mr. Johnson will be giving 3 R on
the east side of his property to the adjacent property owner. I believe the
attempt at asking for a reasonable fee was to avoid setting a precedent of
transferring property without any compensation, and it was simply based on
an attempt to set the value comparable to other properties that have recently
transferred in the area.
Q B_ AI.TERNATNE ACTIONC:
1. Council could reconsider the previous action and authorize the
rZ� execution of a quit claim deed to Mr. Steve Johnson acknowledging the
.. ��� encroachment of the former warehouse building into the parking lot by
�\ 3.3 ft as requested without any compensation being required.
C2i Council could reconfirm the previous action, which was to provide the
quit claim deed as requested but require a payment of $2 per square
foot for the 260 sq ft strip of land.
C. STAFF F. COMMENDATION:
Tho staff is not aware of any additional information on which to provide a
recommendation regarding this request for reconsideration.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of November 12 Council agenda and minutes.
M
N
Q®pr
Council Agenda - 1V12/96
1 •1 1 1 til 1 , ;,1 , ��' ��„ ,I
j�Ci��C : ►1� C • 1. �
Mr. Steve Johnson is in the process of finalizing a sale of the former Johnson
Department Store warehouse building to Biff Springborg, Springborg
Electric. The warehouse building is a separate parcel containing the garage
structure that is adjacent to the city parking lot behind the former
department store building. The parcel accesses River Street and the alley.
During a survey of the parcel for the sale transaction, a discrepancy was
noted by Taylor Land Surveyors that showed the building to be encroaching
approximately 3.33 ft into the city property (public parking lot). Apparently,
when the initial description far the property was established years ago, an
error was made on the legal description and did not properly locate the
building in relation to the legal description. Since it's obvious the block
structure has been there for a number of years, it would seem unreasonable O
to expect the building to be moved 3 ft, and Mr. Johnson is requesting that
the City simply provide a quit claim deed granting him ownership of the
property under the building in accordance with the new legal description
described by Taylor Surveyors. It is my understanding the We has already
occurred, and the title company is simply holding money in escrow until this
legal description can be clarified.
In discussing this situation with our City Attomey, Mr. Weingarden noted
that if the City would refuse to agree to the encroachment, Mr. Johnson could
pursue a quiet title action, and the Courts would likely indicate that the
property has been in its present situation for a number of year's, and the
boundary line would likely be adjusted to match the survey. That is not to
say that the City wouldn't be entitled to compensation for this land area of
approximately 250 sq ft.
Although the physical appearance of the properties would not change
bemuse of this encroachment, the not result is the City is still losing 250 sq ft
and the warehouse property is gaining 250 sq ft of land area. I am not aware
that Mr. Johnson is giving away 3 ft of land area on the east side of his
building to the adjoining property owner, and if the City simply provides a
quit claim deed acknowledging this encroachment, the Johnson parcel will be
gaining land area at our expense.
N
Council Agenda - IV12196
A reasonable approach would seem to be to provide the quit claim deed as
requested in turn for a fair compensation for the land value they would be
enriched by. In 1986 when the City purchased a 26 x 33 ft strip of land for
access to the Brion's property from the Johnson family as part of the
Highway 25 improvement project, the City paid $2.50 per sq ft for the land
area adjacent to the alley. A few months ago, the HRA purchased the former
Barry Fluth (Ben Franklin) parcel at a cost of approximately $5.30 per aq ft.
It would seem appropriate to likewise request compensation for the 250 aq ft
encroachment at somewhere between $625 and $1,250 based on these values.
To simply turn over the property without any form of remuneration may be
setting a precedent if this problem ever arises again. The issuance of a quit
claim deed by the City will likely simplify and expedite the transfer process
for Mr. Johnson's sale, which has money set aside in escrow until this title
issue can be resolved. If we cannot come to an agreement, it is certainly
likely that the City will be named in a quiet title action; but the City would
have the right to object to the title action, and this would continue to delay
and cost both parties more money to defend.
Authorize the execution of a quit claim deed to Steve Johnson
acknowledging the encroachment of the former warehouse building
into the parking lot by 3.33 ft and request compensation for the
estimated 250 aq ft.
Authorize the execution of the quit claim deed without compensation
for the encroachment.
Do not execute a quit claim deed at this time.
As I noted earlier, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that a quiet title
action by the property owner could result in the property owner obtaining the
rights to the property under the building. It would be extremely remote that
the building would need to be relocated since it's been in this location for a
number of years and would not appear to materially affect the use of our
parking lot parcel. This is not to say that Mr. Johnson would not be required
to compensate the City for acquiring the approximately 250 sq ft strip of
C land.
r
f
C
Council Agenda - 11/12/96
As part of the 1987 Highway 25 widening and improvement project, access to
the Brion building located adjacent to this warehouse was closed by
MN/DOT, and the Brions needed access from the alley to their parking lot.
This required the crossing of property owned by the Johnsons (Maxwell
Realty building), and Steve was cooperative in selling a small strip of land
adjacent to the alley so that the Brions would have direct access to their
property. The City acquired this parcel and then in turn gave it to the
Brion. While Mr. Johnson was cooperative in providing the strip of land, it
was purchased by the City at a cost of $2,146, which amounted to $2.50/sq R.
The recent sale of adjacent parcel by Barry Fluth was for over $5/sq R. I
would recommend that the Council request compensation for the parcel using
these comps for determining value.
Copy of survey with encroachment area outlined.
IE
•
,p Council Minutes - 11/12/96
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that during a survey of the
parcel for sale transaction, a discrepancy was noted by Taylor Land
Surveyors that showed the building to be encroaching approximately 3.3 ft
onto City property (parking lot). Apparently when the initial description for
the property was established years ago, an error was made on the legal
description and did not properly locate the building in relation to the legal
description. Steve Johnson is requesting that the City simply provide a quit
claim deed granting him ownership of the property under the building in
accordance with the new legal description by Taylor Land Surveyors.
Wolfsteller noted that the area encumbered by the building that the City
owns is approximately 250 sq ft. Steve Johnson noted that the legal
description simply reflects a reality. Nobody has gained any property or lost
property with the proposed execution of the quit claim deed. Jim Fleming
noted that the City would be named in a quiet title procedure and that the
City would be required to spend legal fees defending its interest in the
property, or it could choose to release it to Johnson through the quit claim
deed execution.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND
SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO REQUEST PAYMENT OF $2 PER SQUARE
FOOT FOR THE 250 SQ FT STRIP OF LAND. Voting in favor. Clint Herbst,
Tom Perrault, Brad Fyle, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Shirley Anderson.
Motion passed.
8-D
. f
OVAL �'
JAN. -2" 9; O10XI 15.1 OLSOWUSSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 002
(( OLSON, USSET & WEINGARDEN P.L.L.P.
ATTGANM AT U4
S= 110
"M PAP[ MAW 8060
PAUL A WEDIGA928P PAYCO- 1MAB. bei 00"16 LVAL ASMAWS
THOMAS B, OLBOM" TEl.®01M (612) VL}dW 9W10111M
-06
DEMM R DALEN FAX (612) 021" filly O N"
%03A Ce80.1 tel ftWM Md" BOX= TROKM
"AmA Cna6r W rad ft k" TELE71aoLT�ol n� 6a"=
IMM
ouk mE mo. 7975 January 27, 1997
Via Facsimile
The Honorable Mayor and A1TORNZY / CLIENT
Members of City Council ..w��...d..�.-i Z / PRIVMEGMM
City of Monticello C& aiZCATION
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Johnson Department Store Warehouse Matter
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I am in receipt of the staff report in this matter and feel
it necessary to expand somewhat on the summarization of the legal
opinion issued by this office.
In brief, Mr. Johnson is claiming that he is entitled *:o the
throe feet without compensation based on the legal doctrine of
adverse possession. Under Minnesota law, if one party tres�nesoe
on another party's land for a period of 15 years, without t`1e
permission of the other party, and uses the land as his own in an
open notorious and hostile ("hostile" is a legal term which
simply means maintaining the property as ones own and excluding
all others), a court action can be brought to assert that the
previous owners right to possession and title has been lost by
virtue of the legal doctrine.
In cooence, Mr. Johnson will assert that the building which
encroachoo on our property has been there for more than 15 years.
If you wish to defend this claim, we will deny that the propertyy
has been encroaching for the necessary time period. Moreover, it
is a settled principle of law that you cannot adversely possess
property againot a municipality.
A counter -argument to our position is that the building was
oncroaching for 15 yearoy�yp� to the date of acquisition Ey the
City and that when the City purchased the roperty the right to
adverse possession had already ripened in favor of the Johnson
property and his predecessors. T is is a factual question.
I have not yet conducted extensive legal research on the
ioaue of whether or not the City's acquisition of the property
terminates any claim to adverse possession by Mr. Johnson, even
if he can establish the requisite time period If the City
wishes to explore thin issue, I can do me, but the limited amount
in question may make any ouch intensive research unfeasible.
JAN. -27' 9 7 0ION) 15:18 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P.005
` January 27, 1997
Page 2
The other counter -argument to our approach is that the City
may be yyestopped from claiming a right to ppoortions of City
,encroachment did didwhere hnotiactis aware within a reaeo�nabdle� been aware of the
period of time in
order to prevent the same, and an unreasonable hardship would
exist if the relief were not granted. Under such circumstances,
a court could determine that although the encroachment did not
constitute adverse possession, the building would have a legal
right to stay on our property without compensation to the City.
As a practical matter, the issues involved may not justify
litigation by Johnson or the cost of defense by the City. Thus,
it has always been my position that the easy way out of this
matter ie to simpl obtain a nominal payment from Johnson and
issue the Quit claim deed.
Ultimately, this is a policy decision for the Council to
determine. On the one hand, you are the keepers of the public
trust and should not give away property without adequate
compensation, , unless thehrreoii:oma pub is benefit to be derived
the release. On hand, if the Johnsons are
entitled to relief, requiring a payment from a City resident
solely because it would be cheaper to pay the City than to force
them to litigate the matter may result in an adverse public
relations issue. As I do not advise you on policy, you muF:
ultimately determine this issue.
It you decide to issue the quit claim deed, you may dr. so by
resolution. If you decide to require payment in return for
issuance of the Quit claim deed, I would simply request that you
do not discuss the merits of the ease with Mr. Johnson, but defer
all Questions to this office. I will apeak with Rick prior to
the meeting and will either be present if you wish to discuss the
matter privately, or you may continua the matter to a subsequent
date and I will arrange to meet with the Council in closed
session.
PAWilld
A
Council Agenda -1127/97
•
A RPFERENCF AND BACKGROUND:
In August of 1996, the City Council reviewed the following agenda item and
tabled its decision until the wastewater treatment plant construction had
been authorized. Now that construction will soon be underway, it is time
again to look at the issues associated with development and annexation in
general area east and south of the Meadow Oak/Oak Ridge area.
Following is thp agenda item from A uglmt 1996 with anmr mndiAratw=
In August 1996, the City received information from realtors representing Art
Anderson of an interest by Anderson to sell his property for development
purposes. The Anderson property is located in the township directly across
from the Oak Ridge subdivision. This petition is in addition to a petition for
annexation of property under control by Orrin Thompson Homes that was
made long previous to the Anderson request. Action on the Orrin Thompson
project was tabled some time ago pending completion of the wastewater
treatment plant.
According to the agreement between the City and the Township, these
properties aro pet, located in what is known as the "Urban Service Area,"
which means that they are pet, eligible for immediate annexation. The
purpose of the Urban Service Area is to identify properties most logical for
annexation and to avoid leapfrog development. The Urban Service Area was
identified in 1990. Since that time, there has been a substantial amount of
development of the areas within the Urban Service Area, and perhaps it is
time to consider amending the Urban Service Area map accordingly.
With respect to both properties, when the original Urban Service Area was
established, the properties were separated from city services by land now
occupied by the Oak Ridge development. Now that the Oak Ridge
development is complete, and the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet system is
installed, both properties now meet all of the criteria that are used in
establishing which properties should belong in the Urban Service Area.
Therefore, the request to include this land in the Urban Service Area is
reasonable.
R
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
T SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY SHORTAGE
According to a recent study funded by Orrin Thompson Homes and Tony
Emmerich, the sanitary sewer capacity available to serve the general vicinity
is limited to approximately 120 acres of line capacity. This means that it
would be impossible to fully develop the Emmerich property (40 acres), the
Orrin Thompson property (80 acres), and the Art Anderson property because
the land area encompassed by all of these properties together amounts to 160
acres. Bret Weiss indicated that it might be possible to serve all 160 acres;
however, it will not be known if capacity for more than 120 acres exists until
the 120 acres is on line. Please note that Tony Emmerich does not have the
latitude to develop his site at this time and is agreeable to others developing
first even if it means that his site is left undevelopable.
FUTURE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
The trunk sanitary sewer report completed in 1996 revealed a very high cost
to develop future trunk sanitary sewer for this area, and there are no plans
to expand capacity for this area in the near tens. Both the trunk sanitary
sewer plan and the comprehensive plan point general residential
development toward the south and southwest sides of the city where
development can occur on a more compact, efficient basis and where the cost
to install trunk sanitary sewer systema is less. Further, portions of the trunk
sanitary sewer systems needed to serve the southeast area can be built over
time and funded by other land development projects. In sum, it appears that
it is physically and financially impossible to allow development beyond 120
acres to occur in this area at this time.
Following are other circumstances relating to development of the three major
parcels of land competing for the remaining capacity.
PROPERTY
The Emmerich/Poterson property consists of approximately 40 acne bounded
by the freeway to the north, Meadow Oak development to Cho east, and a
wetland to the south. This area was included in the Urban Service Area
because them was road access to the site, and utilities are located along the
eastern side of Meadow Oak that could easily serve the area. This site
bounded by the fieeway on one side is rolling and relatively nice; however, it
would not be likely to result in home values equal to homes built in the Orrin
Thompson or Art Anderson area. It does not appear that there are any short
term prospects for development at this site.
Council Agenda - V27/97
ORRIN THOMPSON PROPERTY
The 80 -acre site for the Orrin Thompson development is located in a position
adjacent to the location of city utilities. Sanitary sewer could easily be
extended to this area. In addition, the Meadow Oak trunk storm sewer
system was sized to handle this area; however, special efforts will need to be
made in order to divert flow from the Orrin Thompson development area to
ditch 33. It is not known at this time what exact method or cost is involved
in diverting the flow. In addition, half of the development site is located
within the planning area for the city and township known as the Orderly
Annexation Area. The other half is located entirely in the township and
outside of the planning area. The planning area was established in the early
1970's to designate the area thought at that time to be the ultimate
boundaries of the city. This is a very clear and distinct line for planning
purposes, which the City, Township, and County manage cooperatively.
There is no rule, however, that says that the City cannot annex land outside
of its Orderly Annexation Area.
ART ANDERSON PROPERTY
When the Urban Service Area boundaries were established in 1990, the Art
Anderson property was clearly = eligible for inclusion in the Urban Service
Area because sewer and water service was nowhere near the property. As a
result of the development of the Oak Ridge subdivision and due to Meadow
Oak storm sewer improvements, the Art Anderson property now meets the
criteria for placement in the Urbanization Area. In fact, it has the advantage
of being located entirely within the City's Meadow Oak storm sewer
watershed. No major improvements aro necessary to channel storm water
from this site to an existing system. The Anderson property is also entirely
within the Orderly Annexation Area, Therefore, considering placement of
the Anderson property in the Urban Service Area at this time deserves merit.
B. ALTRRNATIVP ACTIONS:
1. Motion to request that the Township consider amending the
Urbanization Plan to include hmh the Art Anderson and Orrin
i� Thompson properties in the Urban Service Area based on the finding
that the properties aro ripe for annexation due to proximity to sanitary
sower and water service and duo to immediate availability of trunk
storm sewer service. ( ' \ c,
Under this alternative, a letter would be submitted to the Township
requesting an amendment to the Urban Sorvice Area map. If the
Township agrees with the proposed change, then the developers would
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
be free to start the process of development, which would include
preparation of a development plan, which would then be followed by
review and subsequent annexation/subdivision approval.
Under this plan, there would be more acreage within the Urban
Service Area than what the City can serve at this time. Development
would then be allowed on a first-come, first-served basis. Once the
capacity is used up, there would be Urban Service Area property
remaining that could not connect to city services. This option is not
likely to receive support from the Township because it would result in
annexation of land (Orrin Thompson) which is now outside of the OAA
planning area. Please note that Township support is not necessary to
allow annexation of the Orrin Thompson property, but such action by
the City without Township support would likely result in termination
of the urbanization plan.
Motion to approve request by Art Anderson and approve inclusion of
the 40 acres of the 80 requested by Orrin Thompson.
This option would result in equal land and sanitary sewer capacity in
the Urban Service Area and would force available capacity to be used
entirely within the MOAA boundaries. This option is likely to have
the greatest support of the Township but could result in Orrin
Thompson abandoning its project.
Motion to approve Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson requests and
remove the Peterson/Emmerich property from the Urban Service Area.
This would result in capacity equally developable land area. Peterson
has not been contacted regarding this matter.
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator that both the Orrin
Thompson and Anderson properties be included in the Urbanization Area
because in having direct access to utilities, they both meet the basic criteria
for being in the urbanization area. We should then attempt to convince the
Township of the merits of this position regardless of the location of parcels
relative to the MOAA planning boundary. Development of the three -parcels
would then be allowed on a first come, first-served basis.
M SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of urbanization plan; Map showing affected parcels.
RESCL:ITION 90-52
URBANIZATION PLAN
JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
CONCERNING THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA
WHEREAS; reoccurring boundary adjustments have occurred between the
City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for the last twenty
years and uncertainty as to future adjustments has resulted; and
WHEREAS; responding to requests for boundary adjustments on a case
by case basis, apart from an overall plan for urbanization, is
expensive, time consuming, and counterproductive; and
WHEREAS; it has been difficult for the Town of Monticello and the
City of Monticello and property owners within the Orderly
Annexation Area' to plan separately for development and growth; and
WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has requested that the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, the City, and the Town work
cooperatively in re-examining the future of the Orderly Annexation
Area to determine if development is being properly focused; and
WHEREAS; the Minnesota Municipal Board has urged the City and Town
to approach the orderly annexation issue with a spirit of
cooperation; and
WHEREAS; it appears to be in the best interest of both parties that
joint cooperation and planning between the parties be conducted;
and
WHEREAS; the parties want to stabilize and enhance the
predictability of boundary adjustments; and
WHEREAS; there is a basis for agreement between the parties for
accomplishing these goals, and the parties hereto do set forth the
terms of this agreement by the following:
Tho Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello hereby jointly
agree to the following:
1. CONTINUING THE MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA
That the following Orderly Annexation Area in the Town of
Monticollo was established by a Minnesota Municipal Board Order on
Docomber B, 1972, as in need of orderly annexation pursuant to
Minnesota Statute Chapter 414, et al.
C URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90
Mi
Page 1
2. LAND USE GUIDE PLAN
The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, upon their
adoption of this policy, approve the Monticello Orderly Annexation
Area Plan which is attached as Exhibit "B" (hereinafter referred to
as the Guide Plan).
3. URBAN SERVICE AREA
The area identified within the Guide Plan -as the "Urban Service
Area" is an area that abuts the City of Monticello and is presently
urban or suburban in nature or is about to become urban or
suburban. Further, the City of Monticello is now capable of
providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area.
4. ANNEXATION PROCESS
Annexation should be allowed to occur upon the following terms and
conditions:
A. The property must be located within the above described
"Urban Service Area";
B. The property owner must petition both the City of
Monticello and the Town of Monticello for annexation;
/ C. The property owner shall submit a development plan to the
l City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello showing the
need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least
80• of the property petitioned for annexation;
D. The development plan must be of sufficient detail to show
it will meet the standards and requirements of the City
of Monticello's zoning and planning ordinance, land use
plan, comprehensive plan, utilities plan, assessment
procedures, and financing plan;
E. Municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and
ready for use within two (2) years from the date of
annexation; and
F. There shall be no future petitions for annexation until
all previous conditions in the development plan have been
complied with.
Prior to final City approval of the development plan, said plan
shall be submitted to the Town of Monticello for review. Concerns
exprossed by the Town of Monticello shall be addressed prior to
formal approval of the development plan by the City of Monticello.
URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90 Page 2
10"
All efforts will be made to establish development plans that
incorporate the land use planning efforts of both the City of
Monticello and the Town of Monticello. No development plan shall
be considered by the City under this agreement without written
summary of comments submitted by the Town of Monticello to the City
of Monticello. If the City receives written approval of the
development plan from the Town, a joint petition for annexation
shall be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board.
If the Town of Monticello does not approve the development plan,
the City shall then either reject the development plan, or the
issue may be submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to
Minnesota Statute Chapter 414.
5. TERMS
The term of this agreement shall be ten (10) years from the
effective date of this agreement. Both parties reserve the right
to terminate this agreement upon sixty (60) days' written notice.
The effective date shall be upon the approval of the City Council
of the City of Monticello and the Town Board of the Town of
Monticello and acceptance by the Minnesota Municipal Board and said
subsequent order approving this agreement.
6. LA.`JD USE/ZONING AND PLANNING
The zoning and planning throughout the Orderly Annexation Area as
described above shall be under the control of the Monticello
Orderly Annexation Board until annexed to the City of Monticello.
If the property is annexed to the City of Monticello, the property
shall be designated as agricultural according to the City of
Monticello Zoning and Planning Ordinances. Any alteration or
change to the zoning classification shall be subject to a public
hearing to be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission.
The City of Monticello shall notify the Town of Monticello of said
land use classification hearing.
7. TAXES
Any and all of the property taxes collected in the Orderly
Annexation Area shall remain the property of the Town of
Monticello. Any and all property taxes collected from annexed
properties shall be the property of the City of Monticello after
such time that said property actually receives City sewer and water
service or after expiration of a period of three (3) years,
whichever occurs sooner.
URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90
Page 3
C
8. ISOLATED TOWN PROPERTY
Any property within the "Urban Service Area" that becomes or is
about to become isolated as a result of annexation proposed under
Section 4 shall be submitted for consideration to the Minnesota
Municipal Board along with the proposed annexation for
consideration by the Minnesota Municipal Board. In general, the
creation of such isolated parcels should be avoided.
9. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA IDENTIFIEV ON THE ANNEXATION PLAN
AS THE AGRICULTURAL AREA.
No development should occur within the orderly annexation area
which is outside the "Urban Service Area" as described in the MORA
Annexation Plan unless said development meets the standards of the
zoning and subdivision requirements of the Mcnticello Orderly
Annexation Board, the City of Monticello, and the Town of
Monticello. Said development can only occur if all local
government standards are complied with or are capable of being
complied with in the future. The intent of this paragraph is to
strongly discourage development outside the "Urban Service Area" as
identified in the Orderly Annexation Plan.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of
Monticello this 13th day of
November
By
City A�nistrntor
URBANPLN.RES: 9/13/90
TOWN OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the Town
Board of the Town of.
Mantic*.10, this day of
19U
s Cainha
ATTEST /L�CNl4ir
Town Board Clerk
M
Page 4
MONTICELL
Mull
ORDERLY
ANNEXA'rlON
AREA
11.1 �I I�•.1 I) I'I'I Ir . /1 AI I•11'IG IM :ILII IR .� // �\' / j
\5
4
'UATION BOUNDARY
CURRENT 0&DERLY ANN
CURRENT URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED URW '3EflVIC& AREA, BOUNDARY
C i'tiRt[NT CITY LVIl*
1Y
BridgeLand Development Company
August 22, 1996
Honorable Mayor and City Council
clo Jeff ONeill, Assistant City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Monticello Urban Service Area Amendment
Dear Mr. ONeill:
Per our meeting on August 15th, enclosed is our letter and supporting documentation for our
petition for a Monticello Urban Service Area Amendment for our property.
As we discussed, after this property is included in the Monticello Urban Service Area, we will be
petitioning for annexation of this property into the City of Monticello from Monticello Township.
After annexation it would be our intention to immediately apply to the City of Monticello for
Preliminary Plat approval for approximately 80 single family lots.
I believe that the information herein submitted is of sufficient detail so that your local officials can
make a positive decision on our request for a Monticello Urban Service Area Amendment.
If you have any questions, or need additional information please feel free to call the at 985-5000.
Thank you for your timely response to our request.
Sincerely, /
Neal Krzyznniak, Presi
qG
20141 leenk Trail, Suite A LakeWile, UN SS01I
(612) 985-5000 FAX. (612)169•Svv6
MONTICELLO URBAN SERVICE AREA
AMENDMENT
40 ACRES
NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 SECTION 19
HIGHWAY 118
MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP
OWNER:
ART & DARLENE ANDERSON
PETITIONER:
BRIDGELAND DEVELOPMENT CO.
9�
HISTORY OF BRIDGELAND DEVELOPMENT CO.:
For the past ten years I have been involved in land development in the following cities: Lakeville,
Apple Valley, Woodbury, and Eden Prairie. I am currently pursuing developing land in Lake
Elmo, St. Bonifacius and of course, Monticello. Most of our developments have been single
family, but there has been some multi -family and commercial.
PROPERTY OWNER: Art and Darlene Anderson
8871 Jason Avenue Northeast
Monticello, MN 55362
612-295-2605
PETITIONER: Neal Krzyzaniak, President
Bridgeland Development Co.
20141 Icenic Trail, Suite B
Lakeville, MN 55044
612-985-5000 Fax: 612-469-5906
SITE LOCATION:
As shown on the following site map, the subject property contains approximatdy 40 acres and is
located in the northwest quarter of Section 19, Township 121 North, Range 24 West, Monticello
( Township, Wright County, Minnesota. The property is located on the south side of County Road
118 (Jason Avenue), and is directly across the street from the recently constructed Oak Ridge and
Briar Oake's Estate subdivisions.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is identified as PID q 213 000 19 22 00 and is legally described as follows:
NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Section 19, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota.
LOCAL ACCESSIBILITY:
The subject property has approximately 900 lineal feet of frontage on County Road 118 (Jason
Avenue). This roadway is a two lane rural, all weather asphalt road.
A full range of daily and weekly goods and services are available in Monticello's Retail Trade
Area. The city's commercial establishments, recreation area, educational facilities, and health
services are located within a five minute drive of our property.
C METROPOLITAN ACCESSIBILITY:
The City of Monticello is located approximately 19 utiles (20 Minutes) from the intersection of
Interstate Highways 94 and 494. The subject property is located in Wright County, but the
community has toll -tree metropolitan telephone service.
—1
:....I.Y.1:s.v ►h 9 �r
L
................ : 39
39 erN Jrtr. .� • �' d �.
//7
r vsbaar� .: I L trLEA
O En5t V' i ? _4 encs VL
.: ::: ::...:...:. .......... ...::ii:i::..
%S C
C
ren...... ... ...:.............. ....... ........ ... .. $, Jo Vi G
ce
40
7� \ � Clr,� -::.:. rY D,sif .;'._' •';,. ... J V \LQ i y5� SC Q de' J O
....:::... .
CCh\ I
/e NTICE '�: �� aTonrce.r,,; s ii
.G c/ p;�^yle r�� �c9le� .via
•i7` C�`GC O 'y7�Z3 �••.. w S l��h ...: _ ...... :' .E .•/' , _ 90TH S 7.4O Nf f T �1
s;s•
-Ob ✓id f `o• h`• `� urs
94lsf. ✓Jeln ' cTua_y '�` ^�i �•� / 8 : �� . ,
on wnLlsa AD 0.
`l
ao Ne `� enran i
IICh.,s f,rKJp ,2e
•% K%ern c.� Tara/�l 7 ?•) .5 i X .r•:E r ah_ �yy'
• CCC` C • 73. h9 • ul� Pw� v p QL� ^ v/e.n d �S Sd
�x♦ 1 NE tl ^� '�' V � TL �� j ny�� C.7I'fer .+7~., r��e
� .i � u � r ll � ^i ti • i Omc54 '�'� • � .
�I t- • � COr/i �2 � 7arrG � C\ rE� a• r,otinea«o �r r'<'oe
\ M, rrs/O 4r0 $'w5eill--),p 0 :/c9/ +M • g are .2 {'r
�4i • T ao.nos I -IU / ?�. 40 •Jo y . �:
,arm,
�i Z; Kpf i yn TiSec[fpr T., �/ a�an �Ldra b,
Y sof Jr2
tl .D y C .
• � ' W Ja• , S /(o/kel • ,� ``yy�� �Es�ne� a r,J S �:�!/nSy�' Y
•. •s .f "�'h JO • / �I 1M 57 `� JO 40 fS `,,. •q0 "• '-8CJ be Ir,
PL E •he Cd ,
/i0 ^ •He%I) N.C. AQ7Ni L N.E.ri • �� FeG/G/`O�/ d BOnk • Sn' '
1-rvbfh t�� g 7
r» vV) N EGaNioy/Mcr r 7B. el gp of Tler rn'E.
L. ��' E)z x�\^� �---� Ben2ckson� �•�'�
r/i o Rok �/G�y cfh, �o� L• ` Ltilorea�H. L.c. �-. i
c", (L,C) INyw bb/2 t l7` B/•�KjJC �', /P7.
r' /L C h /45 _ • J 'M J' N Ij C d ZGGhman,lvdhom
1 ' 7JrN7S7 ,,,O. -.fa,
✓ r. e/ h'o/key 't JE% era,
Ae LOCATION , AP
I'v/d J ? '• / oJ�'rr �� �c�r„•h, her• N
37 t (ke•• P %SEL /CAN 1 "2200'
/cn
s9JN % J
� • v N.C. • `, 1 — \ ✓ Source Land Atlas and Plat Book
t of Wright Co., Minn
F. 2. `ef Pr--4-fCAN�
SITE DRAINAGE:
The attached Topographic Map shows the existing surface drainage for this parcel. The
map shows that the majority of the surface water currently drains northeast, to the existing
wetland across Hwy. 118. A small portion ofthe site drains to the southeast.
The proposed Preliminary Plat for this site will be designed to retain surface water on the
site, with off-site stormwater discharged at less than the pre—existing razes.
SOI. SUITABnM FOR URBAN PURPOSES:
The following Soil Map shows the existing soil types for this property. The area in white
contains well -drained upland soils; and the shaded area indicates poorly drained hydric
sods.
The upland soils will provide excellent sites for residential home construction. The poorly
drained hydric soils may have some limiting constraints for residential development and
these areas may be preserved as open space.
Prior to detailed site planning and design of this parcel, detailed soil investigations and
wetland delineations will be performed to identify all limiting soil constraints for the
property.
SITE UTILITIES:
The attached Monticello Urban Service Area Map shows the existing limit of the Urban
Service Area for this part of the city. This site is artently at the southern edge of the
Urban Service Area.
The 40 acre parcel could easily be served Rom the east by the existing city sanitary sewer
and watermain in Oak Ridge Dr. in the Oak Ridge subdivision. As shown on the
Topographic Map, the site surface drains towards the asst. We aro requesting that the
Monticello Urban Service Area be extended to include this 40 acre parcel.
A �
' \
S p
- -CITY OF M ELLO
—ILII � ' � �3 ♦� �\. � i l�/(�``9y44'e`� �
Q CO � V � ^ O �•. �\\e0\ r��l
o \
v r_ I
LOP
-- o ,poo,-� o I • : \ � �--, _
�- -a O
TOP BAPNIC MAP
N
e
♦ qq
—;:i f Source: U.S.G.S. Map, Mondcek %juaarnngle
2 AAd
_, �._�•--::,.. ;Hai -.�.. '.� = •..
40,
:• :+. �;.� - `i m'f`r^ �- w ;;, •
'ter • i / /,� :h.. , •A .. „r '
• iii. �':. �.,: �: 'kt \ " }�r ',f `.t 4}:y, } � �'.
` #, ra �;v ►9,r,
,;�.f..�•r `� - `a �u� � �r�'�! .f Sit, ':'1't .' ~y'y + F
cOoego
�»cqt� � niY Sod
Wrgttit
oU
R
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
City Council is asked to consider authorizing the City Engineer to complete
the preliminary design specifications for the Highway 25/Chelsea Road/I-94
improvements. Council is also asked to select the preferred option for the
alignment of Chelsea Road. As you recall, the choices include options #2 and
Q. As you know from previous meetings, money has been allocated by the
State of Minnesota to complete construction of four lanes from the freeway
bridge to Kjellberg East and West. The State has also earmarked funds
sufficient to pay for construction of the short local road sections that connect
to Highway 25. Finally, funds have also been allocated for construction of a
loop ramp and the cost to reconstruct the commuter parking lot at another
location. Total value of State funds set aside for improvements amounts to
$2,250,000. In addition, it is possible the City could acquire a portion of the
funding of the cost of property for the relocated commuter parking lot.
Under the proposed project, the City will be required to fund the cost to
acquire land necessary to accomplish the realignment of Chelsea Road and
will be responsible for funding the coat of any other roadway improvements
that the City would elect to include in the project. Such sections include the
cul-de-sac at East Oakwood Drive and the segment of Chelsea Road between
County Road 117 and Cedar Street. In addition, the City is responsible for
funding upfront engineering expenses, which will be reimbursed by the State
when the project is ordered.
Council is also asked to consider selecting option #2 or &3.
The strengths of option M2 are as follows:
O Minimizes Business Impacts. The intersection under option N2 is
closer to the original Oakwood intersection than under option N3, thus
creating less of an impact on property owners, particularly those west
of Highway 26.
O Popularity. The large majority of property owners polled prefer
option M2 over option N3.
C
C
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
O Land Acquisition Cost Based on Tax Values. Land acquisition
coats and business relocation costs are lower for #2 than #3.
O Construction Cost. The Chelsea right-of-way is straight under
option #2, which will result in a slightly lower construction cost.
O Future Tax Base. The 18 -acre commercial site south of the Silver
Fox Motel remains whole under option #2, which protects options for
the highest and best use of the land. Option #3 severs this property
and, therefore, reduces site development flexibility.
O Access West of Highway 25. The future road west of Sandberg Road
leading into a future developing area will be straight, thus providing
easier and more efficient access to Highway 25 from the west.
The strengths of option # 3 are is follows.
O Stacking Room on Highway 28. The distance on Highway 25
between Oakwood and Sandberg Road intersections is greater, thus 0
improving stacking space; however, MN/DOT is comfortable that
option #2 meets the separation standard.
O Storm Pond. No disruption to an existing drainage pond adjacent to
Marvin Road. However, the pond disturbed does not meet city
standards and is replaceable.
The Wright County Highway Department has been provided information
regarding the options and has met with Ron Bray of WSB to discuss the
concepts in detail. There appears to be support for either option; however, it
is important to noto that formal approval of closing Oakwood East and
moving the commuter parking lot must be obtained from the County.
Therefore, it is recommended that further work on the plans be contingent on
County approval.
B.
1.
AI.T . NAT A .TIONS;
Motion to authorize the City Engineer to prepare preliminary design
specifications for the State Highway 25/Chelsea Road/I.94
improvements under option 02. Authorization is contingent on
completion of a scope of services agreement between the City and
MN/DOT, and contingent on obtaining the necessary approvals liom
1
Wright County.
17
N
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
Motion to authorize the City Engineer to prepare preliminary design
specifications for the State Highway 25/Chelsea Road/1-94
improvements under option #3. Authorization is contingent on
completion of a scope of services agreement between the City and
MN/DOT and on obtaining the necessary approvals from Wright
County.
Motion to deny authorization to proceed or to table.
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator to proceed under
alternative #1. This action represents an important step in the process of
improving the local and state transportation network serving the area. It
stems from a city-wide transportation plan completed in 1993 which
identified a serious short- and long-term traffic problem. The transportation
plan was followed by a detailed study in 1995, which was undertaken for the
purpose of determining potential alignment changes to allow the timely
acquisition of land before development and to guide roadway development on
undeveloped land. MN/DOT interest in funding large portions of the project
has spurred the actual construction. The loop ramp will be of value in
encouraging truck traffic to use Highway 25 versus Broadway as Cho best
access to the freeway. The effect of the project will be an improvement in
traffic circulation and an increase in commercial value of adjoining
properties. Final City costa have yet to be determined, but the consensus
seems to be that the project needs to be completed, and waiting further will
result in higher land acquisition and business relocation costs in the future.
Letter Brom MN/DOT identifying terms of partnership with City. Please see
the recent special mecting information for more detail.
16
01/23 '97 0827 ID:SI CLOUD TR4NS LRIAIITN FAX:
Mhlnesota DapartmaM o1 Transportation .
v 37w 12lh Si. N.
P.O. Box 370
SI. Clrwo. MN 56302
January 22, 1997
Rick Wollnefler
Monticelli, City Administrator
P.O. Box 1147
Monticellu. MN 35362-9245
Re: S.M. 8605-/0 (TM 25)
Channelization and Signal Revisions on Til 25
Dear Mr. Wolfrteller:
NIS
lel: 61219.5-4181
Fax: G12/2,5 3957
Toll Flee: 1/ 800/ GS7.3961
This later is intended to provide a commitment on Mn/DOT's behalf, regarding the cooperative
construction agreement we are contemplating firr the TH 25 Project.
We have discussed the use of the City's consultant in an attempt to accelerate delivery of this
project. This will also provide for good coordination between the City and State given the
relatively extensive City work proposed. In our diumions, the consultant would prepare the
layout, fsruject Memorandum, final plans, and administer the construction contract. The Attorney
General's office has advised us that they will not allow a non•MrtlDOT organization to enter into
cundemnmion on MNDOT's behalf. if right -of way needed for mainline TH 25 has to go into
eminent domain, Mn/DOT will need to perform all eminent domain work as per dircutiun from the
Attorney 6cneral's D@ioe.
This prow ss is completed through the following steps:
1)
Oily approval of layout and acl=wledgmeni of local participation.
2)
Mn/WT- ily informal agreement to allow City to design project (done).
3)
Mn/DOT commitment to fund projeut and reimburse City for agreed upon design costs
(this later)
4)
City and MmWT agree on consultant "Scope of Services" proposal,
S)
City hires consultant according to City consultant hiring regulations.
o)
Ctmsultant designs project and prepaes plant. Consultant invoices City as per local
I egulations.
7)
MnMOT prepares cooperative agreement based on final plan set. Agreement between
City and Mr%WT Is executed.
An oqualevp«tut n writibytir /04
0123 '97 08:71 ID:ST CLOUD TRMSNUtlalllN F -A : PHUL
8) City las and awards construction contract.
9) City invoices MNDOT for Mn/11101-s share of the construction cgsts acwrding to the
estimated quantities and bid prices, plus the design costs accumulated and extirpated
(lump sum) construction engineering costs for Mn(DOT's portion of the design.
10) Mr✓DOT cuts check to City.
11) City receives funds from Mn/DOT, pays any outstanding engineering costs, and retains
the balance to be paid to the construction contractor as work is completed, and
consultant as project administration fee is invoiced.
12) Aller construction, the final quantities are used to determine final project cost. The City
then invoices or refunds the difference to Mn/DOT.
"Cost allmation" between City and State are detailed in the "Procedures for Cooperative
Construction Projects Within Municipalities" document attached. A final figure can only be
determined after the construction project is complete. 1 urge you to have your Engineer review
the Cooperation Policy also, and offer an opinion. The City may wish to add local infrastructure
as a part of the project. The guidelines diswss cost participation allocations.
Outside the scope of this agreement. but worth mentioning, is that Mn/DO7' will be asking for the
City to enter into an agreement for maintenance and provision of power for the revised signal
systems.
The consultant will be a party to an agreement between tim consultant and the City, as City rules
dictate. Mn/DOT will not be part ofthe agreement, but since MN00'1' will be reimbursing the
City for consultant fees. Mn/DOT must approve the Scope of Work proposal (step 4).
Mn/DOT works with municipalities through the cooperative agreement process successfully on a
regular basis, this is mono a matter of partnerships between governments. Each party is indeed
exposed to some risk. Mr✓DOT takes a risk by surrendering direct control of the consultant to
the City. The consultant takes the risk that they can perform acceptably and continue to be
selected for projects. Since the City will be reimbursed for the consultant fees, through the
project construction budget, the City and consultant assume the risk that they will be reimbursed
only if the construction contract is suceessfuUy let and awarded.
We aro all very interested in seeing this project completed as soon as possible. There is much
support, and much has already been invested. I'm confident that we will an it completed
successfully.
Pkease give me a call if 1 can help in any way. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Dave Solaw.
i Distrio Pre -Design Fingincer
Enclosure
I I
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
1 :1: 'J. :.hl , I M.a ,1
The Planning Commission has recently completed work on an ordinance
designed to control placement and design of telecommunication towers in the
city of Monticello and is presenting it to Council for consideration.
Construction of telecommunication towers has increased greatly nation-wide
due to explosion of cell phone and digital communications and associated
technological changes. Freeway corridors are a logical area for construction
of towers, and it is likely that the City of Monticello will be faced soon with
an application. The purpose of the ordinance is to direct construction of
towers and to shape the design in a fashion that will minimize the negative
impacts of towers.
The ordinance was prepared by the City Planner and was reviewed at two
Planning Commission meetings. At the first meeting (public hearing), a
representative from the telecommunication industry was present to voice
concerns. The concerns were reviewed and some comments were
incorporated into the ordinance. Finally, development of this ordinance was
benefited from the numerous ordinances developed by other communities and
represents the "latest" in regulation of telecommunication towers.
Please review the comments by the City Planner and the ordinance itself for
further detail.
Motion to adopt the ordinance amendment based on the findings of the
Planning Commission and associated report provided by the City
Planner,
Under this alternative, the City Council would accept the ordinance
based on the finding that reasonable regulation of telecommunication
towers is necessary to preserve the character of neighborhoods.
Directing towers to certain areas and regulating height is necessary to
minimize neighborhood impacts while allowing telecommunication
activities to occur and, thus, the ordinance is consistent with the
comprehensive plan for the city.
19
117
Council Agenda - 1127/97
Motion to deny adoption of the ordinance amendment as proposed.
Council should select this alternative if it would like to study the
ordinance further or make significant changes.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator and Planning Commission recommend
alternative ill.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
NAC report to Planning Commission and City Council, November 27,1996;
Letter from American Portable Telecom commenting on draft ordinance; NAC
response to APT letter, December 24, 1996; Draft copy of proposed ordinance.
20
1JW-We-1`"0 I— — _ _ _ _ _ . . .
NFNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLAN NINO - DESION - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
Madhulike Singh / Stephen Grittman
DATE:
27 November 1996
RE:
Monticello - Wireless Antenna Tower Regulation
FILE NO:
191.06 - 86.12
( A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City is anticipating an increase in requests for wireless communication antenna towers
as this technology continues to advance, and the federal government issues additional
licenses for service providers. In order to avoid an unsightly clutter of freestanding
antenna towers around the community, we have put together some information on the
ways In whip this issue is being addressed by other communities.
The draft amendment is intended to respond to advancing wireless communication
technology and the provision of the 1896 Telecommunication Act. The 1886
Telecommunication Ad basically stipulates that wireless communication Is a necessary
service which must be reasonably aceonnodated by nwni ipWitiea. Thus, the City cannot
prohibit pomatal wireless service lowers, but may *manage' their location In a limited
way. In addition, the City must have procedunos which allow satellite receiving dishes.
Only where the regulations allow reasonable access will the regulations be considerod
valid. Further, hem radio operators have an additional category of protection from local
rogulation. The attached ordinance attempts to address each of those issues.
In rovlow of the draft amendment text, ploaso make note of the following:
• Various antenna types have been specifically defined.
6775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. QUITE 005 5T. LOUID PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 e
PHONE e 1 2.598.0830 IAX 6 1 2.50B•9837
I'f�
-'-
• The term 'personal wireless service antenna' reference is intended to introduce a
generic tern which includes various wireless communication types including
cellular, personal communication service (PCS) enhanced specialized mobilized
radio (ESMR) and similar services (see definition).
The proposed ordinance creates preferences for towers in certain locations, such
as industrial districts, or City water towers, or on existing antenna tower structures.
Preferred sites are given administrative permits, with certain limitations Including
height. NorHxderred sites, or requests for exceptional heights, require conditional
use permits, and relatively extenslve review. The intent is to encourage the
applicant to seek permitted sites, and avoid the processing requirements of the
CUP. Moreover, monopoles tower design is given additional height in an effort to
avoid the lattice or guy -wired tower construction styles.
Exhibit B list the variety of background materials relating to the regulation of antennas.
1 ; r11 :•fly.'
1. Approve adapting the zoning ordinance amendment by establishing antenna
regulation as proposed.
This amertdrnent should be based upon a finding that the amendment Is necessary
to manage and reasonably accommodate wireless communication antenna towers
and Is [Mended to respond to advancing wireless communication technology and
the provisions of the 18913 Telecommunication Act
2. Deny adoption of the ordinance amendment
C. STAFF -RECOMMENDATION
Stag recommends approval of the Ordinance amendment The 1998 Telocommunication
Act stipulates that Winless communication is a necessary service which must be
reasonably accommodated by municipalities. The proposed ordinance creates
preferonoss for towers in certain locations, with certain limitations including height. Non -
preferred sites, or requests for exceptional heights, roquire conditional use permits, and
relatively extensive review. The intent Is to onoourage the applicant to seek permitted
sites, and avoid the processing requlromeMs of the CUP.
D.
Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B - Sounx
c
116
aeava
mro a tamp
ma. wa
aanrwaa
o+tisi Wim.
/? treroraan[Tal,
\/VIS rua
naw �aarlarr
rtaa,
nwaota
tears
tar. a w.w
atrat� e
aceta uattar
cera aur•
u.r+mra•
011,0. arnaop
rau a wuaan
nnr�om.
rmm. rrmrnrararar
ra.na lnaron
reran a om.o
orrriraram•
a sn
rsnw a rnnat
rsnw a iwt
awramic.
c.nt�'our
anwa rra
+tarn a ns
wr:atry
ermono'si rtwmt
CI
December 3, 1996
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,ppa mna
rnar• a ran.
ra a wau
1600 NORWEST FWANCIAL CEMER as nwaarraw
79M XERXES AVENUE SOUTH s"�iuta t�'irw
SLOOIOHOTON. M MESOTA SU31.1194 ter
TELEPHONE (812)633-30M
mob rtar aru
FAX (41t) 696.7777 nal am
R rrgi �
miara aaan
.rat race
cmaoia war
ntarr.au•�aa
tan r, aoac
trr• ram
case nror
c trr.r.ti
racer rtaat rnua
c tonaost
tear a rrnavo
d • nm000r
e nw.a
e aora"1.oaa
woman +nwr
• amaammar�mr
The Honorable Brad Fyle
Shirley Anderson, City Council
Clint Herbst, City Council
Tom Perrault, City Council
Brian Stumpf, City Council
City of Monticello
P. 0. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Wireless Personal Communication Service Regulation
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I write on behalf of American Portable Telecom (APT) which we represent in connection with the
development of wireless portable communication services pursuant to one of two licenses for the Greater
Twin Cities Metropolitan Region issued by the United States Federal Communications Commission. The
purpose of this letter is to present general comments relating to the dnili ordinance amending Section 3.12
of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by Establishing Antenna Regulations (the Proposed Ordinance). In
general, APT encourages the City's efforts to address expanding technologies within the framework of its
Zoning Code. APT recognizes a significant amount of effort has gone into the development of the
Proposed Ordinance, both by City staff and consultants. We provide the following comments in order to
facilitate development of a set of performance standards for personal wireless communication systems
which will, we believe, allow the City to exercise its regulatory authority without acting inconsistent with
the 1996 Telecommunications Act requirement that the City must accommodate wireless communication.
The following comments address substantive issues only. We have no commented on grammatical,
typographical, or similar "proof reading issues."
IIc/
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
The Honorable Brad Fyle
Shirley Anderson
Clint Herbst
(� Tom Perrault
Brian Stumpf
December 3, 1996
Page 2
Functional Engineering.
Throughout the Proposed Ordinance, reference is made to evaluation of various consideration by a
"registered professional engineer." Our understanding of the various issues to be evaluated by engineers
suggests there are essentially two components to the evaluation. First, structural issues about the
soundness and design of the physical equipment as erected is to be evaluated. Secondly, issues relating to
the performance of transmission and reception equipment used to provide wireless communication is to be
evaluated
It is good practice to require that any construction be designed pursuant to plans and specifications of a
registered professional engineer to assure the structure is designed to withstand natural and artificial
forces exerted upon it. This is a very appropriate function of a registered professional engineer. It is not,
however, necessary in APT's view that a registered professional engineer supervise the actual
construction of the towers. Accordingly, the need for verification of antenna installation by a registered
professional engineer should be deleted.
With respect to coverngetinterference analyses and capacity analysis for antenna location and height
issues, specifying analysis prepared by a "registered professional engineer," presents a problem. These
are issues for qualified radio frequency engineers. Although there are a limited number of registered
professional engineers who are also very competent in issues of radio frequency engineering, the fact of
registration has no relation to competence in radio frequency engineering. To obtain the best analysis of
the technical issues involved, the City would improve its position by obtaining analysis by a "competent
radio frequency engincer" without regard to local registration.
Transmission Line Loss and Ground Equipment.
In developing reasonable regulation which accommodates personal wireless communication services, it is
important to understand physical constraints upon system development. One of those physical constraints
is that signal strength is directly related to antenna height and distance from transmitting equipment.
Stated another way, the higher the antenna, the greater the signal, provided the ante= height does not
result in excessive distance between the antenna and the transmitter. How this affects components of the
system is to require the tower and transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment to be located as close
as possible to each other. This means that the preferred placement for the tower and antenna must
necessarily accommodate the transmitter and switching equipment. Thus, the provisions on location of
switching equipment within existing buildings or in the rear yard only, etc., create technical difficulty, in
establishing tower locations.
With respect to ground equipment, it is also important to understand the aesthetics of the ground
equipment installations. Compliance with screening requirements will adequately eliminate the need for a
building surrounding the ground equipment which is designed for outdoor use.
'ID
LARKIN, HOFTMAN, DALY & UNDGREN, LTD.
The Honorable Brad Fyle
Shirley Anderson
Clint Herbst
Tom Perrault
Brian Stumpf
December 3, 1996
Page 3
Tower Locations and Height.
APT has optimally designed its towers to be 165 feet in height. This will provide the antenna elevation
that will optimize coverage distance when balanced against line loss to the ground equipment. The use of
this antenna placement allows the minimum number of antennae to be used while providing service to a
particular area. To the extent allowable heights place antenna at lower elevations, more towers will need
to be constructed. Lowering tower elevations will also have three secondary effects. First, because the
lower elevation provides a smaller coverage area, available alternative locations for the additional towers
will be fewer. Secondly, to the extent towers ars significantly lower than the optimal height, those
shortened towers will have significantly impaired the ability to co -locate multiple antennae on a single
tower. Thirdly, if towers become too low, the signal will become screened by obstacles such as tall trees
or buildings.
Our recommendation for the City is to reconsider its height restriction. This will allow fewer towers,
greater siting flexibility, and improved ability for co -location. Most importantly, because tall trees in
residential areas can grow to 80 feet in height, the 75 foot limitation can preclude services in certain
residential areas. A 100 foot maximum should be substituted.
Site Availability and Industrial Setback.
The City is, according to its consultant discouraging the use of sites the City does not prefer. (??I
Although that is a commendable goal, we request the City reconsider the specific language it has used
relating to sites. The Ordinance appears to require proof that placement of the antenna in a less restrictive
district is not technically feasible. Based on our past experience in the industry, because the FCC
licensees are not public utilities with condemnation authority, locating equipment sites is not, as with
NSP's electric production, merely a function of engineering analysis. APT is only able to place towers at
sites that are available in the absolute discretion of the owner of those sites. Accordingly, it is appropriate
to allow consideration of availability of sites in other districts, as well as technical feasibility.
Additionally, as we understand the proposed ordinance, it would discourage the use of multi -story
apartment buildings as well as single family residential buildings. We request this be reconsidered.
It is important to APT that it have flexibility in developing its site. One of the most significant
considerations is the placement of a tower with respect to other improvements on the property.
Accordingly, it is requested that a provision be made for modifying setback when appropriate based on
existing improvements and their locations within a property.
Conclusion.
With limited modification, the Proposed Ordinance can be made to accommodate both the need of the
City to regulate tower development as well as the requirements of the industry in order to assure that the
116,
LARKIN, HoFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
The Honorable Brad Fyle
Shirley Anderson
Clint Herbst
Tom Perrault
Brian Stumpf
December 3, 1996
Page 4
City is served by a seamless personal wireless communication system efficiently and effectively in
conformance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. To that end, we would appreciate the
opportunity to work with staff to develop specific language to accommodate the foregoing concerns and
would welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions or comments.
VV
o E. K rstad, for
H FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Mr. Jeff Peterson
oan9a.ou
C
/IF
NFNCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
Stephen Grittman
DATE:
December 24, 1996
RE:
Monticello - Antenna Towers
FILE NO:
191.06. - 96.12
At the last Planning Commission meeting, a representative of one of the wireless
communications licensees was present to suggest possible changes to the City's
Ordinance amendment regulating antenna towers. We have conducted additional
( research and provide the following responses to the letter presented at the meeting.
1. A suggestion was made that the Ordinance's requirement for a registered
professional engineer supervise construction be dropped, relying on the
requirement that such an engineer would be supervising design. This language
came from similar Ordinances which have been adopted Math in the Twin Cities and
other parts of the country. It is intended to supplement the City's inspection by
certifying that the tower was in fact constructed in accordance with the design.
2. A change to the Ordinance's requirement for registered engineers to design the
system coverage was proposed, substituting 'qualified radio frequency engineers'
as registration may be irrelevant to this aspect of the industry. This change would
appear to be a positive amendment to the proposed ordinance.
3. The letter suggested that the requirement for screening of ground equipment was
adequate to hide undesirable aspects of the tower installation, and that the
restriction of such equipment to rear yards should be removed. What the language
does is allow such equipment to encroach into rear yards, but front and side
setbacks must be adhered to, as with any other land use. Since the purpose of this
clauso is to enhance the effect of any screening, we would not recommend any
change.
8778 WAYZATA OOULEVARD. 'SUITE 888 ST LOUID PARK, MINNE80TA 88410
PHONE 612-505,0036 FA% 013.808.9637
116
4. The letter requested that the Ordinance dispense with the requirement be housed
in a building, since it is weatherproof. If the equipment is in fact adequately
screened, this would appear to be an acceptable recommendation.
A request is made to increase height limitations to 165 feet in the industrial areas,
and 100 feet in residential areas. It is our understanding that as more towers are
needed to provide adequate capacity, the antenna arrays will necessarily be
remounted to a lower position to cover a new, smaller geographic'oelr. A higher
tower limit in the industrial area may be appropriate if the Ordinance includes a
requirement that upon reconfiguration of the cell area, the unnecessary tower
height is removed.
In residential areas, the Ordinance is designed to discourage towers. Raising the
height would be counter to this intent by making it more feasible to locate towers in
those areas. There are very few obstructions, including trees, which would interfere
with a 75 foot height in Monticello.
It was suggested that more flexibility be built into the Ordinance, particularly in non-
industrial areas. As noted above, such areas have been designed to discourage
tower location.
The letter discusses a modification to the tower setback language. As proposed in
the draft Ordinance, a tower must be setback from adjacent buildings a distance
equal to its height. However, this may be reduced upon a certification that the
tower is designed in such a way as to avoid collapse which would endanger nearby
property. As a result, we believe that the language accounts for setback flexibility
under an appropriate standard.
pc: Gregory Korstad
C
JAW24-1997 06:47 NRC 612 595 9E37 P.02i12
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDnQNCE BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS:
section 1. Section 2-2 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following
definitions:
Essential Services
Section 2. Section 2-2 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions:
CAI.1) Antenna, personal wireless Service. A device c—leisting
of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically
conducive rods or elements, usually arranged in a
circular array on a single supporting pole or other
structure, and used for the transmission and reception of
wireless communication radio waves including cellular,
personal communication service (PCS), enhanced
specialised mobilized radio (ESUM), paging and w..milar
services and including the support structure theraof.
(AI.2) Antenna, public Utility Micro rive. A parabolic dish or
cornucopia shaped electromagnetically reflective or
conductive element used for the transmission and/or
reception of point to point UNF or VHF radio waves in
wiroless telephone communications, and including the
supporting structure thereof.
(AI.31 Anteaaa, Radio and Television, srcadcast Transsittinq.
A wire, not of wires, metal or carbon fiber rod or other
electromagnetic element used to transmit public or
commorcial broadcast radio, or television programming,
and including the support structure thereof.
//=
C4
JRN-24-1997 08:47 NRC 612 595 9Eu'7 P.03i12
(Al. 41 Antenaa, Radio sad Television Receiving. A wire, Bet of
wires, metal or carbon fiber element(s), other than
satellite dish antennae, used to receive radio,
television, or electromagnetic waves, and including the
supporting structure thereof.
JAI. 51 Antenaa, Satellite Dish. A device incorporating a
reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar
configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone,
horn, or cornucopia. Such device is used to transmit
and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between
terrestrially and/or orbitally based uses. This
definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are
commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs
(television, receive only) and satellite microwave
antennae and support structure thereof.
(AI. 61 Antenna, Short -Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving.
A wire, set of wires or a device, consisting of a metal,
carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conductive
element used for the transmission and reception of radio
waves used for short-wave radio communications, and
including the supporting structure thereof.
(AZ.71 antenna Support Structure. Any pole, telescoping mast,
tower, tripod, or any other structure which supports a
device used in the transmitting or receiving of radio
frequency energy.
(sC1 Essential Services. The erection, construction,
alteration or maintenance by public utilities or
municipal departments of underground or overhead
telephone, gas, electrical, communication, water or sewer
transmission, distribution, collection, supply or
disposal systems, including poles, wires, mains, drains,
sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police
call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants and other similar
equipment and accessories in connection therewith for the
furnishing of adequate service by such private or public
utilities or municipal departments. Transmission/
reception support structures and antennas shall not be
considered an essential service.
ISA.11 Secondary Ones A use of land or of a building or a
portion thereof which is subordinate to and does not
constitute the primary use of the land or building.
// 1000
JAN -24-1997 08:47 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04i12
(Sp. I) Structure, Public. An edifice or building of any kind,
or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of
parts joined together in some definite manner which is
owned or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or
local government agency.
Section 3. Section 3-12 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(community reception/transmission devices) is hereby amended to
read as follows:
SEMON J-12
CCMMICATIWT 88CSPTIO9/TSANSUZSSXCN DMCSS
)A) POYPOSSs The purpose of this section is to establish
predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening
of wireless communications equipment in order to accommodate
the growth of wireless communicating systems within the City
of Monticello while protecting the public against any adverse
impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public
welfare.
(B) ABDM. SUNDAnSw The following standards shall apply to all
personal wireless service, public utility, microwave, radio
and television broadcast transmitting, radio and television
receiving, satellite dish and short-wave radio transmitting
an: receiving antenna.
1. All obsolete and unused antenna, towers, or poti�na of
towers, shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the
time at which said antenna or tower is no longer
functioning, or becomes unnecessary to accomplish the
purpose of the communication installation, unless an
exemption is granted by the City Council.
2. All antenna shall be in compliance with all City building
and oloctrical coda requirements and as applicable shall
require related permits.
Structural design, mounting and installation of the
antenna shall be in compliance with manufacturer's
specifications and shall be verified and approved by a
registered professional angineer.
unless the antenna/antenna support structure and land is
under tho eamo ownerehip, writton authorization for
antenna orection shall be provided by the property owner.
/I K
J44-24-1997 08 48 NRC 612 595 9E37 P.05i12
S. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna
\rl(
structure.
6. The height of the antenna shall be the minimum necessary
to function satisfactorily, as verified by an electrical
engineer or other appropriate professional.
7. antennae shall not be artificially illuminated unless
required by law or by a governmental agency to protect
the public s health and safety.
S. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be
accompanied by any required federal, state, or local
agency licenses.
9. 2f a new antenna support structure is to be constructed,
it shall be designed so as to accommodate other users
including but not limited to other personal wireless
service comaanies, local police, fire and ambulance
companies.
10. Antenna support structures under two hundred (200) feet
in height shall be painted silver or have a galvanized
finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise allowed
by federal law.
11. Except as may be applicable in cases where a cond-.:ional
usepermit is required, antennae and support structures
for federally licensed amateur radio stations and used in
the amateur radio service are exempt from sub -paragraphs
3, 6, and 9 above, and must comply with Subd. 12. .below.
12. Amateur radio support structureal (towers) must be
installed in accordance with the instructions furnished
by the manufacturer of that tower model. Because of the
exporimontal nature of theams eur radio service,
antennae mounted on such a tower may be modified or
changed at any time so long as thqppublished allowable
load on the tower is not exceeded the structure of
the tower remains in accordance with the manufaeturore
specifications.
ICI ACCWSORT AND aXC03MART VOR ams The following
standards shall apply to all accessory and secondary use
antennae including radio and television receiving antennae,
satellite dishes, TVA09 two (2) motors or less in diameter,
short-wave radio dispatching antennae, or those necessary for
the operation of electronic equipment including radio
receivers, federally licensed amateur radio stations and
television receivers.
// L
e
JRN-24-1997 08 58 NRC 612 S95 9837 P.01%4
1. Accessory or secondary use antennas shall not be erected
in any required yard (except a rear yard) or within
public or private utility and drainage easements, and
shall be set back a minirm= of five (5) feet from all lot
lines.
2. Guy wires or guy wire anchors shall not be erected within
public or private utility and drainage easements, and
shall be set back a minimtmi of five (5) feet from all lot
lines.
3. Accessory or secondary use antennaa and necessary support
structures, monopoles or towers may extend a maximum of
fifteen (15) feet above the normal height restriction for
the affected zoning district, except support structures
and antennas used in the amateur radio service may extend
a maximum of seventy (70) feet above grade, as defined
in this Ordinance, in any zoning district.
4. The installation of more than one (1) support structure
per property shall require the approval of a conditional
use permit.
[D) VIM ORAL WIn81.ss8 MMY CR ANTEM i
Residential District Standards.
(a) Antennas Located Up= A public Structure. Personal
wireless service antenna located upon a public
structure shall require the processing of an
administrative permit and shall comply with the
following etandards:
i. The applicant shall demonstrate by prcrvidinV a
coverage/ interference analysis and capacity
analy@31prepared by a qualified radio
frequency engineer that location of the
antonna(s) as proposed is necessary to meet
the frequency rouse and spacing needs of the
wireless communication system and to provide
adequate coverage and capacity to areas which
cannot be adequately served by locating the
antennas in a more restrictive zoning
district.
ii. Transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment shall be housed within an existing
structure whenever possible. It a now
equipment building in necessary for
transmitting, receiving and switching
/IM
JAN -24-1997 08:58 NRC 612 595 9837 P.02/e4
equipment, it shall be situated in the rear
yard of the principal use and shall be
screened from view by landscaping where
appropriate.
iii. An administrative permit is issued in
compliance with the procedures established by
the City Council.
(b) Antennas Not Located Tryon A Public Structure.
Personal wireless service antennae not located upon
a public structure shall require the processing of
a conditional use permit and shall comply with the
following standards:
I. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a
coverage/ interference analysis and capacity
analysis prepared by a qualified radio
frequency engineer that location of the
antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the
frequency reuse, capacity and spacing needs of
the wireless communication system and to
provide adequate coverage.
ii. The antennas shall be located on an existing
structure, if possible, and shall not extend
more than fifteen (15) feet above the
/ structural height of the structure to which
! they are attached.
iii. If no existing structure which meets the
height requirements for the antennae is
available for mounting purposes, the antennas
may be mounted on a single ground mounted pole
provided that:
a. The pole not exceed eaventy•five (75)
feet in height.
b. The setback of the pole from the nearest
residential structure is not less than
the height of the antenna. Exceptions to
such setback may be granted if a
registered structural engineer specifies
In writing that any collapse of the pole
will occur within a lesser distance under
all foreseeable circumstances.
IV. Transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment shall be housed within an existing
structure whenever possible. Now equipment
8
JfW-24-1997 08:48 A1C 612 595 9837 P.06i12
necessary for transmitting, receiving and
switching shall be situated in the rear yard
of the principal use and shall be screened
from view by landscaping where appropriate.
Unless the antenna is mounted on an existing
structure, a security fence not greater than
eight (8) feet in height with a maximum
opacity of fifty (50) percent shall be
provided around the support structure.
vi. The conditional use permit provisions of
Section 22-3 of this Ordinance are considered
and determined to be satisfied.
Business District Standards:
(a) Antennas Located Upon A Public Structure. Personal
wireless service located upon a public structure
shall comply with the following standards:
i. Transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment shall be housed within an existing
structure whenever possible. Now equipment
necessary for transmitting, receiving and
switching shall be situated in the rear yard
of the principal use and shall be screened
from view by landscaping and fencing where
appropriate.
ii. An administrative permit is issued in
compliance with the procedures established by
the City Council.
(b) Antennas Not Located Upon A Pµblic Structure.
Personal wireless service antennae not located upon
a public structure shall require the processing of
a conditional use permit and shall comply with the
following standards:
1. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a
coveragge/ interference analysis and capacity
analyeia prepared by professional engineer
that location of the antennas as proposed is
necessary to meet the frequency reuse and
spacing needs of the cellular system and to
provide adequate portable cellular telephone
coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be
adequately served by locating the antennae in
a less restrictive district.
//0
JAN -24-1997 08:49 NRC 612 595 See P.09i12
ii. The antennas shall be located on an exiating
structure, if possible, and shall not extend
more than fifteen (15) feet above the
structural height of the structure to which
they are attached.
iii. If no existing structure which meets the
height requirements for the antennas is
available for mounting purposes, the antennas
may be mounted on a single ground mounted pole
provided that:
a. The pole not exceed seventy-five (75)
feet in height.
b. The setback of the pole from the nearest
residential structure is not less than
the height of the antenna. Exceptions to
such setback may be granted if a
qualified structural engineer specifies
in writing that say collapse of the pole
will occur within a lesser distance under
all foreseeable circumstances.
iv. Transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment shall be housed within an existing
structure whenever possible. New equipment
necessary for transmitting, receiving and
l switching shall be situated in the rear yard
of the principal use and shall be screened
from view by landscaping where appropriate.
V. unless the antenna is mounted on an existing
structure, at the discretion of the City, a
security fence not greater than eight (8) feet
in height with a maximum opacity of fifty (50)
percent shall be provided around the support
structure.
vi. The conditional use permit provisions of
Section 12-3 of this Ordinance are considered
and determined to be satisfied. I
3. Industrial District Standards:
(a) Antennas Located Upon A public Structure. personal
wireless service antenna located upon a public
structure shall require the processing of an
administrative permit and comply with the following
standards:
8
n P
I
JRN-24-1997 08:49 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 10/12
i. An administrative permit is issued in
compliance with the procedures established by
the City Council.
(b) Antennas Not Located Upon A public Structure.
Personal wireless service antennae not located upon
a public structure shall require the processing of
an administrative permit and shall comply with the
following standards:
i. The antennas shall be located on a structure,
if possible.
11. It no existing structure which meets the
height requirements for mounting the antennas,
the antennas may be mounted upon a supporting
pole or tower not exceedlag one hundred sixty-
five (165) feet in height. Such pole or tower
shall be located on a parcel having a
dimension equal to the height of the pole or
tower measured between the base of the pole or
tower located nearest the property line and
said property line, unless a qualified
structural engineer specifies in writing that
the collapse of the pole or tower will occur
within a lesser distance under all foreseeable
circumstances.
111. An administrative permit is issued in
compliance with the procedures established by
the City Council.
(E) BATRUITZ DXMMSe
1. Residential District Standards. Single satellite dish
TVROB greater than one (1) meter in diamater located
within the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district
of the City shall require the processing of a conditional
use permit and shall comply with the following standards:
(a) All accessory andsecondarryy use provisions of this
ordinance are satistactorily met.
(b) The lot on which the satellite dish antenna is
located shall be of sufficient size to assure that
an obstruction -free receive window can be
maintained within the limits of the property
ownership.
9
// Q
C4
JRN-24-1997 08:59 NRC 612 595 9837 P -03/Z4
(c) Rxcept where the antenna is screened by a structure
exceeding the antenna height, landscape buffering
and screening shall be maintained on all sides of
the satellite dish antenna in a manner in which
growth of the landscape elements will not interfere
with the receive window.
(d) The satellite dish antenna is not greater than
three (3) meters in diameter.
(e) The conditional use permit provisions of Section
22-3 of this Ordinance are considered and
determined to be satisfied.
2. Business District Standards. Satellite dish antennas
within the business zoning districts of the City shall be
limited to those listed as permitted accessory and
secondary use in the applicable zoning district subject
to the provisions of this Ordinance.
3. industrial District Standards. Commercial, private and
public satellite dish transmitting or receiving antennas
in excess of two (2) meters located within the I-1 and I-
2 Districts of the City shall comply with the following
standards:
(a) All accessory and secondary use provisons of the
zoning districts of this Ordinance are
satisfactorily met.
(b) The lot on which the satellite dish antenna is
located shall be of sufficient size to assure that
an obstruction free transmit -receive window or
windows can be maintained within the limits of the
property ownership.
(c) Except where the antenna is screened by a structure
exceeding the antenna height, landscape buffering
and screening shall be maintained on all sides of
tho satellite dish antenna in a manner in rich
growth of the landscape elements will not interfere
with the receive window.
(d) The conditional use permit provisoes of Section 22-
3 of this Ordinance are considered and determined
to be satisfied.
10
JAN -24-1997 08:59 NRC 612 S95 9837 P.04iO4
(F] C^DIEMCIAL AND PUBLIC RADIO AND TBLEVIBIOA TRAKMEMIai0
ANT8MM8, AND PUBLIC DTILITY ffiCRON VE ANTEMMs Commercial
and public radio and television transmitting and public
utility microwave antennas shall comply with the following
standards:
1. Such antenna shall be considered an allowed caaditional
use within the I-1 and I-2 Districts of the City and
shall be subject to the regulations and requirements of
Section 22-3 of this Ordinance.
2. The antennas, transmitting towers, or array of towers
shall be located on a continuous parcel having a
dimension equal to the height of the antenna,
transmitting tower, or array of towers measured between
the base of the antenna or tower located nearest a
property line and said property line, unless a qualified
structural engineer specifies in writing that the
collapse of any antenna or tower will occur within a
lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances.
3. Unless the antenna is mounted on an existing structure,
a fence not greater than eight (8) feet in height with a
maximum opacity of fifty (50) percent shall be provided
around the support structure and other equipment.
Section become 4. This Ordinance shall bece effective
immediately upon its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of
1997.
ATTEST:
By:
AYES:
NAYS:
CITY OF MONTICSLLO
By:
Bill Fair. Mayor
Rick Walfeteller, City Administrator
11
//S
TOTAL P.04
l
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
Effective December 15, 1996, D & K Refuse and Recycling, Inc., which
included the recycling and waste hauling business, was sold to Superior
Services, Inc. Superior Services has requested that they be allowed to take
over the remaining portion of the recycling contract for D & K, which runs
until April 20, 1998.
City staff has met with Tom Dullinger of Superior Services and discussed
some of the past problems we had with D & K. Superior Services has
indicated they will work hard to overcome some of the past problems an,i
bring consistency back into the recycling program. Just through our initial
meeting, we have come up with some ideas that would simplify the scanning
process, increase accuracy, and provide backup in the case of scanner failure.
The first alternative is to transfer the remaining 15 months of our
recycling contract to Superior Services, Inc.
The second alternative would be to go out for bids at this time.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we transfer the
remaining months of our existing contract to Superior Services, Inc. 1 believe
they have the capabilities to make improvements to the program and would
like to give them the opportunity to do so. In addition, the number of
recycling contractors available in the Monticello area has dwindled.
Consequently, 1 don't believe we would receive better bids than we currently
have, which are based upon $1.58 per month for single family through
triplex, and $1.08 per month per unit for multiples and apartments fourplex
and above. A copy of our current agreement with D & K is enclosed for your
review.
Copy of agreement with D & K; Copy of letter from D & K dated
December 18,1996; Copy of letter from Superior Services, Inc. dated
January 16, 1997.
I
AGREEMENT FOR CURB -SIDE RECYCLING
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
THIS AGREEMENT is made on this 20th day of April, 1995, between the CITY OF
MONTICELLO, hereinafter referred to as CITY, whose address is 250 East
Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362.9245, and D & K REFUSE AND
RECYCLING, whose address is 29 South 21st Avenue, St. Ciioud, Minnesota 56301.
CITY and D & K REFUSE AND RECYCLING agree:
I. GENERAL
1.1 This agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with
the laws of the state of Minnesota.
1.2 This agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of each
of the parties, but neither party will assign this agreement without the
prior written consent of the other party.
1.3 All notices shall be in writing and transmitted by certified mail to the
respective addresses as noted above.
1.4 This agreement, including appendices, is the entire agreement between
the parties. This agreement may be modified only by written
agreements signed by both parties. Wherever used, the terms "D & K
REFUSE AND RECYCLING" and "CITY" shall include the respective
officers, agents, directors, elected or appointed officials, and employees.
1.5 If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this agreement is held
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable,
the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect and
shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated.
1.6 It is understood that the relationship of D & K REFUSE AND
RECYCLING to CITY is that of independent contractor.
D & K REFUSE AND RECYCLING SHALL:
1. Provide curb -side pickup and marketing of five recyclable materials
consisting of a) newspaper, b) aluminum and bi-metal beverago and tin
food cans; c) glass containers; d) plastic containers 1, 2 & 3; e)
corrugated cardboard; 0 glossy page magazines; and g) discard mail on
every other Monday (west of Highway 25), Wednesday (apartments), and
CURBSIDE.AGR: 1/05 i/V, # Page 1
Thursday (east of Highway 25) in the city of Monticello beginning
April 20, 1995. The hours of pickup shall be no earlier than 8 a.m. and
no later than 5 p.m.
Should Monday, Wednesday, or Thursday be a holiday or should
inclement weather exist prohibiting pickup, the following day shall
become recycling day for that pickup only.
Contract services shall include, but not be limited to, the provision for
all wages, benefits, salaries, fuel, consumables, materials, and supplies.
Provide a sufficient number of qualified personnel, vehicles, and storage
facilities as necessary to accomplish curb -side recycling and marketing
in an acceptable manner. The contractor will utilize hand scanners to
read bar codes located on each of the recycling containers. The City will
furnish three (and one backup) hand scanners (and provide normal
maintenance of same) to the contractor and will provide residents with
three plastic recycling containers per individual pickup, three or more
90 -gallon roll -around containers for apartment buildings above a 4-plex
but less than a 24 -unit, and six roll -around 90 -gallon containers for
apartment buildings over 24 units. Should any of the hand scanners or
containers be damaged when in the use of the contractor and not
considered normal wear and tear, the contractor shall be liable for the
repair and/or replacement of the scanners or recycling containers.
If a contractor requires, additional scanners, he may purchase them
through the City of Monticello at cost. Should the hand scanning
system fail temporarily, the contractor shall provide documentation of
those individuals recycling and the products they recycle until the
necessary repairs can be made. The contractor will not be asked to do
more than two consecutive city-wide pickups using the handwritten
documentation method without additional compensation.
The contractor shall return the scanners to City Hall after each
complete pickup cycle to allow sufficient time during regular hours for
unloading prior to the next pickup.
4. In addition to providing information regarding recycling pickups as
listed above, the contractor shall provide accurate and verifiable records
of tons of individual materials picked up along with marketing reports
on a monthly basis to be submitted with request for payment.
If a market for a particular material is unavailable and a market
develops for an alternate material, the City shall have the option of
switching materials.
5. All of the contractor's equipment, including vehicles, shall be clearly
marked with the contractor's name and phone number. The contractor
CURBSIDE.AGR: 1/5/95 lab Page 2
C
shall maintain the cleanliness and appearance of his equipment to "the
standards of City equipment and the City's contract refuse hauler."
6. The contractor shall provide certificates of insurance for worker's
compensation, general liability, and auto in the following amounts:
General Liability - aggregate
$1,000,000
person injury
$1,000,000
each occurrence
$1,000,000
Auto Liability -
$1,000,000
Workmen's Compensation -
$ 100,000
The contractor shall hold the City harmless for responsibility for any
recycled materials once they come into the possession of the contractor.
The contract shall provide for a monthly rate per unit for individual
pickups and a separate monthly rate for multiple units above a 4 -plea.
The contract shall provide payment for all households within the city of
Monticello whether they are recycling or not. The base rate will be
determined by 1,675 individual pickups and 504 multiple unit pickups
(as of January 1, 1995). The prices shall be $1.58/month/unit for
individual pickups and $1.08/month/unit for multiple pickups. The
pickup of recyclable materials at five (5) city buildings every two weeks
shall be incidental and included in the base bid. The contractor shall
keep all monies from the sale of recyclable materials picked up at curb-
side.
8. Appendix A is a detailed set of specifications regarding the preparation
and condition of the recycled materials to be picked up at curb -side.
Materials not properly prepared or not listed will not be picked up. In
such oasis, the contractor shall leave a note or sticker for the property
owner giving the reason for rejection.
9. The contractor shall pick up office paper once a month at one city
building as part of the base contract.
10. The contractor, at the starting date of the contract, shall furnish and at
all times maintain a satisfactory and sufficient bond or irrevocable letter
of credit from a bank approved by the City in the amount of not less
than one-half of the annual contract ($19,144.92) as required by law
with a corporate surety satisfactory to the owner. The form of bond is
that required by statute. Personal sureties will not be approved. The
bonding company or bank shall notify the City 90 days prior to the
expiration date of the security. If notice is not given, the security shall
be automatically extended for an additional year at no cost by the
bonding company or bank.
CURBSIDE.AGR: V5195 /at ^ Page 3
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO SHALL:
1.
The City of Monticello shall provide individual homeowners with three
baskets for recycled materials. The City of Monticello and the resident
together will pay for these containers. Each container shall be labeled
as to its permitted contents and will be color coded yellow for
newspaper, red for glass, blue for cans. Plastic shall be placed in a
separate container or bagged. For the multiple pickup locations (above
4-plexes), the City of Monticello will provide three or more 90 -gallon
roll -around containers for each apartment building up to 24 units, and
six 90 -gallon roll -around containers for apartment buildings above 24
units. These containers shall be marked as to the appropriate
materials.
2.
The City of Monticello shall provide three hand scanning devices (and
one spare) for reading bar codes, along with leather carrying cases and
batteries. The City will provide maintenance and batteries for normal
wear and tear of these devices. The City of Monticello will also provide
the unloading of these devices when delivered to the City Hall.
3.
The City shall provide promotional material and material indicating
rules and regulations for material recycling and preparation to each
resident in the city of Monticello.
4.
The City will make payment to the contractor on a monthly basis within
15-30 days after acceptance of a formal payment request, including all
the necessary documentation as required.
b.
The City will update the accounting of individual pickups and multiple
unit pickups through the building permit process and certificate of
occupancy. Adjustment to the contract price will then be made on a
monthly basis.
III. COMPENSATION
The City shall pay to D & K Defuse and Recycling as compensation for
services performed under this agreement a monthly fee based upon the
availabio number of individual residential pickups and the number of
multiple units for multiple pickup. For the purpose of the initial bond,
it is assumed that there are 1,675 individual pickups and 504 multiple
unit pickups (as of January 1, 1995). Compensation will be based upon
$1.58 for individual pickup and $1.08 per multiple unit multiple pickup
per month. The actual number of possible pickups shall be determined
by tho City's accounting system. Adjustments will be made on a
monthly basis through the building permit statement of occupancy
system.
CURBSIDE.AQR: 1/5!95 / 7 iz Page 4
Payment for office paper pickup shall be incidental.
2. In the event that a change in the scope of services provided by D & K
Refuse and Recycling occurs, the City and D & K Refuse and Recycling
will negotiate a commensurate adjustment in fees. A change in scope
of services shall be determined to be the deleting of newspaper, glass,
plastic, aluminum, metal cans, cardboard, magazines, or discard mail
from recycling, or the addition of other materials as requested and
approved by the City.
IV, TERM AND TERMINATION
1. The term of this agreement shall be three years commencing on
April 20, 1995.
2. Either party may terminate this agreement for a material breach of the
agreement by the other party after giving written notice of breach and
allowing the other party fourteen (14) days to correct the breach.
3. Either party may cancel this agreement without cause by giving the
other party one hundred eighty (180) days' written advance notice.
V. DISPUTES FORCE MAJEURE
1. Neither party shall be liable for its failure to perform its obligations
under this agreement if performance is made impractical, abnormally
difficult, or abnormally costly due to any unforeseen occurrence beyond
its reasonable control. However, this article V 1 may not be used by
either party to avoid, delay, or otherwise affect any payments due to the
other party.
Both parties indicate their approval of this agreement by their signatures below.
D & K REFUSE AND RECYCLING
Date Date
CURBSIDE.AGR: 1/6195
• • •a •
411 loor
/
/a E Page 6
r
CITY OF MONTICELLO
CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM
APPENDEK A
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
I. Material 1: Newspaper
A. Description of types of paper accepted:
Newsprint and inserts
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Clean of food particles and other foreign substances
C. Bagged in paper bags or bundled and tied
II. Material 2: Glass
A. Description of types of glass accepted:
Any glass that is used as a food container, no plate glass
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Glass must be rinsed out and clean of food particles, labels may
be left on
111. Material 3: Aluminum and bi-metal cans
A. Description of types of cans accepted:
All aluminum and bimetal cans are accepted
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Clean of food particles and paper labels removed
IV. Material 4: Plastic (Type 1, Type 2, and Typo 3 Containers)
A. Containers (except oil) shall be drained and rinsed without caps and
removable handles.
B. Motor oil containers shall be well drained and caps removed (do not
rinse).
CURBSIDE.AGR: 1/5!98 /� Pago 6
C. All plastics shall be placed in a separate container marked plastics
and/or "save" or bagged and placed at curb -side with at least one bar
coded bin.
V. Material 5: Glossy Page Magazines
A. Only magazines with coated or slick paper.
B. Do not mix with newspaper.
C. It is not necessary to remove covers, inserts, or address labels.
D. Does not include plastic or cellophane, carbon paper, phone books, comic
books, or catalogs with glued bindings.
VI. Material 6: Discard Mail
A. Envelopes (with or without windows), computer printouts, all
whitelcolored paper, typing paper and stationery, notebook
paper/letterheads, pamphlets. Staples, paper clips, rubberbands, and
scotch tape do not have to be removed.
B. Does not include brown envelopes, carbon paper, chipboard (pop cases,
garbage, cereal boxes), construction paper, plastic wrappings or gift
( wrap, manila envelopes or file folders.
VII. Office paper pickup (1 city building only):
A. Description of types of office paper accepted:
Computer and ledger paper, white only
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Free of foreign substances (e.g. carbon or staples)
VIII. Other materials with available markets included in proposal:
A. Description of materials:
Corrugated cardboard, tin food cans, used motor vehicle batteries,
and glossy paper magazines
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Corrugated cardboard: 2 ft x 2 ft sizes or less and bundled.
Tin food cans: labels removed and free of food particles
Motor vehicle batteries: caps on and &ee of cracks
CURBSME.AGR: I/N5 /� Pago 7
D&K Refuse
and Recycling
51. [loud
Backer
29 South 21st Ave. 46301
14998 Industry ave. 68208
812-241-0920@==612.261-6200
December 16, 1996
To All Of Our Valued Customers,
We arc excited to announce that D6K Refuse and Recycling Inc.
bas merged our operations with superior services Inc. effective
December 15, 1996. Our decision to combine OAK Refuse with
Superior vas made after careful examination of their company.
Superior Services Inc. was established in 1992 by merging 22
independent haulers in the Wisconsin market. Several factors
entered into our decision making process, including:
superior's corporate philosophy is similar to ours
because the company is comprised of smaller, independent hauling
operations. I
Superior owns and operates o local landfill in
xonticello which has the desired offset of stabilising prices in
the long term.
superior has a strong focus on customer service and
employee morals which will ensure that they will continue to
provide you with the same Quality service you were accustomed to
receiving from OAK Refuse.
The local service crow and management team will be
offered the opportunity to continue with superior.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide your waste removal
services and we ars hoping that you will continua to give
Superior Services and the crew a chance to serve your future
needs. if you have any questions or concerns, please real free
to call us at 251-0920. Thank you.
S •raly,�
Davin and Kay Linn
14
/a # TOM P.02
3
3-
Superior
Superior Services - Central Minnesota
2355 12th Street S.E.
St. Cloud. MN 56304.9791
320.251.8919
Fax 320.251.7113
January 16, 1997
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear City Council:
D b K refuse has sold their garbage and recycling business to
Superior Services effective December 15, 1996. As you know, D b K
refuse and recycling has a contract with the City of Monticello for
the pick up of recyclables. with the city councils approval,
Superior Services would like to continue with the contract D 6 K
refuse and recycling currently has. I promise to the city of
Monticello unintorrupted service and will work with you on any
problems you may have now, or in the future. Please give this your
consideration and let me know if I can be of any help to you.
Sincerely Yours,
Tom Dullingor \%
General Manager
TD/lb
PROVIDINQ 'SLIPERIOR' WASTE SERVICES /OLZ
A
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
: «
The Mayor of Delano, the honorable John Jaunich, has been talking with
representatives from various communities in Wright County and elsewhere
about the possibility of starting a joint sludge processing facility such as the
one now under operation in Baron County, WI. The facility in Wisconsin
processes liquid sludge transported from several communities in Wisconsin.
It is my understanding that the same truck that hauls sludge from the
community then takes back clear supernatant from their sludge to be treated
at the wastewater treatment plant. Mayor Jaunich believes that this type of
joint facility could be of benefit to the City of Delano and other communities.
Judie Rose, the Wright County Fourth District Commissioner, is also of the
opinion that such a facility could benefit cities within her district;
consequently, she has made attempts to get communication going between
the cities to see if such a facility could become a reality in Wright County.
Although it is possible that the Wright County Municipal Solid Waste
Compost Facility could be adapted to process sludge, it is not being promoted
for such at this time; consequently, the actual site location may or may not be
part of the feasibility study. As Judie Rose indicates in the enclosed letter,
the cost of development of an RFP is expected to be $3,000; and the cost of a
feasibility study could range from $30,000 to $70,000, depending upon
whether or not plant siting is included. The actual cost per community is
dependent upon the number of communities participating.
The benefit of a central processing facility to the City of Monticello would be
minimal in the early life of our plant expansion, as we currently have almost
six months' storage and own and have "handshake' application agreements
on enough land for the foreseeable future. However, based upon the
engineer's design data, within the next 15 or 20 years, our sludge storage
capabilities will drop from the almost six months of current storage to only 68
days. Unless we are able to develop almost year-round sites using
exceptional quality Claes A sludge, it is anticipated that we would be adding
sludge dowatering and/or additional sludge storage at the wastewater
treatment plant. Tho estimated construction cost of n sludge dowatering
facility would be well over a million dollars by itself. The cost of additional
sludge storage has not been priced. It is, therefore, conceivable that at some
22
(A
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
point in the City's future, the City may receive some benefit from a regional
sludge processing facility. When and if the need would occur and how much
benefit there really would be is difficult to determine at this time.
1. The first alternative would be to agree to be part of the study for a
regional sludge processing facility at a maximum amount not to exceed
(determined by the City Council).
rJi '
2. The second alternative would be not to participate in the study, as the
`s benefits for the City of Monticello reach too far in the future to actually
be determined.
As Public Works Director, I think there is a need for such a facility among
many communities throughout Wright County and other nearby cities. The
townships could also benefit for the use of septage at such a facility. I think
the process should be encouraged; however, I do feel that if we are able to
produce an exceptional Class A Quality sludge as proposed by HDR, our
sludge needs should be taken care of for many years in the future until we
have storage capacity problems. Therefore, even if the Council agreed to
participate in the study, we may not be able to say that we could deliver a
certain number of gallons of sludge to a processing facility if our own
program proves succesatiil. Consequently, it seems most logical to
recommend alternative #2 but continue to encourage Mayor Jaunich and
County Commissioner Rose in their endeavors.
Copy of letter from Judie Rose dated January 14, 1997.
OJNTY C,�
j 2
78sO
RICHARD W. NORMAN
Conry Cord—w
Mr. John Simolo
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway, Bos 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Deer John:
COUNTY OF WWGHT
10 2nd Street NIV, RM 235
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313.1188
Tel: (611) 682.7378
/•800•362.3667
Fax: 612.682-6178
COAMUSSIONERS
KEN JUDE
Am leer",
PAT SA IVAT/.KF
S—d /h.. t
JACK RUSSF.K
P.rd thorn,
J11D1E ROSE.
f' -h th""et
DICK AM77SON
h(th litho
January 14, 1997
Three meetings have been held concerning sludge disposal, wherein we attempted to explore available options /tither by working
together or individually) to cities. We have reached a point where we need to decide if the interested communities will pay for
e feasibgity study, to continue to investigate alternatives.
I have spoken with a couple of plant operators. We are in agreement that a feasibility study must be a working document that
cities can either use individually; or, as a group. Also, we need a Request for Proposal (RFP) written specifically lot our
communities.
I have contacted an engineer who will visit with all interested eotemnitias end submit a RFP for evaluation. Subsequently; he
will hold a meeting for final input, and will review the proposals submitted by the engineering firms. The cost for these services
is $50.00 per hour, with a toted not to exceed $3,GDO.
Hopefully, two cities will provide monies up front for the engineer. There is no point in pursuing this if the cities have no interest
in paying for a feasi ly study. Now is the time to comatit funds. The cities being contacted are Albertville, Buffalo, Delano,
Howard lake, Maple lake, Montiee0o, Rockford, Waverly, Becker and Big lake. The cost of the feasibility study can be divided
equally; or, prorated using the percentage of sludge produced. Obviously, equal division would be the simplest.
I went it to be clearly, understood that the County is not promoting the composting of sludge at its facility; however, we do
recognize that this Is an option. The County has no involvement in this project, other than my time. I was asked to facilitate
discussions between the cities.
Monticello hes spent over $1.0 rsrilGon to address their issue of sludge disposal. Given the sum of money already invested, it
makes sense to work together to find a sotution(s).
I have spoken with two engineering firms and have requested a cost range for a feasibility study. This could run from $30,000
to $70,000, depending upon whether 'plant siting' is included. The feasibility study cold also be done in phases, making two
all partners remain on board.
It is imperative that all conaruttities let me know thele interest in participating in a feasib9ity study. Plane take this item to
low next co rid meeting and send ma a written response by February 15, 1997. If you have any questions, please tall me at
6121682J8961wok1day); or 5121662.3102 Oamelermdngl.
Jim Gtdbman of the State Bard of Government troevation and Cooperation would like to speak to us about his department and
FgmlOApwfrnily / Affirmutive Artpe Employer, 13A—
vbt they can do to assist us it we continue collaborative planning. There are no males available until January of 1998;
�l .nerefae, we are unable to obtain funding for a feasibility study. However, we could apply for a $100,000 grant under "service
sharing".
I look forward to your lonely response.
Sincerely,
Ju3ie ose, Fourth District Coomdssioner
JR:hng
PROPOS® ABRIENIO$T
L The engineering company will write an RFP for a Feasibility Study of sludge processing by several dUes;
Including general projection costs and options.
IL The engineering company will:
ML Write a preliminary RFP for review. Contact will be made by phone for Initial Input and concerns
from County and City perttoand Copies of the preliminary RFP Will be sent to designated County
and City Pereonnel for review.
b. 'ravel to Wright County to conduct a meeting with designated County and City personnel for final
comment and Input.
C. Revise the RFP based upon final comment and Input. Copies of the revised RFP will be sent to
Wright County for distribution.
III. The engineering company will evaluate the RFP responses and make recommendations to the elites as
foDowa:
a. Review RFP's and recommend three firma for final Interview.
b. Asslat with Interview process and flual selection.
C. Includes one trip to Wright County for Interview and ftnal selection.
IV. The total contract amount with the engineertng company for the above work In Items L U and W will
not exceed $9,000. The hourly rate will be $60.00. 'Ravel expenses will be tilled at 5 251mile.
V. Wtight County andlor amclated CIUes will be responsible for
a Advertising the RFP.
b. Final selection of Engineering Conaaltant.
C. Agreement preparation for Feasibility Study with selected engineering Mm Including related
negotiations.
1cTBl1M
11411111012111111 Camp" W11119M G9MV
Council Agenda - V27/97
1�
1- N I r A
At the previous meeting, Council members had asked that this topic be
placed on the neat agenda to review the current purchasing procedures used
by the City Administrator and staff and to discuss the establishment of a
formal policy regarding overall City purchasing procedures.
Since about 1975, I believe the City Administrator has been operating under
the policy of being authorized to make purchases on behalf of the City up to
approximately $2,000 without specific Council approval beforehand. This
procedure has been utilized not only by myself but the two previous
Administrators as well. Generally speaking, if an item costing around $2,000
or less was originally included in the current year's operating budget, after
quotations were received from various vendors and the item was discussed
with the appropriate department heads, I had been authorizing the
purchases prior to Council approval.
As an informational point, State Statutes do allow city councils to delegate
the authority for purchasing and paying claims to a city administrative
official. In this case, the City Council does have the authority to allow the
City Administrator to make purchases providing all purchasing requirements
of State Statutes are followed. For any contract or purchase of less than
$10,000, it is recommended that, so far as practicable, two quotations be
obtained for the item. For items valued between $10,000 and $25,000, the
purchase can be made by either sealed bids or by direct negotiation, which
would include obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase when
possible. For items or contracts over $25,000, sealed bids would be required.
These procedures have always been followed by the City; and in most cases,
more than one quotation has usually been obtained even when not required
by State Statute.
1 believe some Council numbers have questioned whether items included in
the City's annual budget need to be specifically reconsidered by the Council
before the purchase is made. As you may have determined, it has been our
past practice to place on the agenda larger ticket items for discussion before
purchases are made, but this would not be a necessary requirement if the
Council wanted to allow the City Administrator and/or certain staff members
to make purchases that aro in our budgets. From a Council standpoint,
many items can be redundant and certaimy unnecessary for additional
discussion, while other purchases may warrant further discussion. If a policy
was simply established allowing any budgeted item to be purchased as long
as it meets state purchasing requirements, the Council would probably want
Council Agenda - V27/97
to spend more time during the budget preparation process. In the past
number of years, I believe some Council members have not spent too much
time discussing specific department budgets knowing that any controversial
item would again be reviewed by the Council at a later date.
In adopting a formal purchasing policy, there are a number of alternatives
available to the Council, including continuing with the present arrangement
of simply allowing the Administrator to make various purchases up to a
specified dollar amount all the way to authorizing City staff to make
purchases as long as they're included in the budget, regardless of cost. The
policy could also allow departments, with the approval of the City
Administrator, to make non -budgeted purchases as long as the overall
department budget would not be exceeded for the year. This would allow
some flexibility throughout the year in possibly making certain purchases
that were not thought of earlier but could be handled by amending other
parts of a specific department's budget.
From a staff level, I would not have a problem with being delegated the
authority to make all purchases on behalf of the City as long as they're part
of the adopted budget. This would relieve the Council of having to deal with
miscellaneous purchasing questions on the Council agenda, assuming they
have been previously debated during the budget process. On the other hand,
the Council has to be comfortable with this delegation; and if not, you may
want to simply consider establishing other guidelines for authorizing
purchases which may include specific dollar limits. From what I can
determine, there is not a model policy that is applicable to all communities,
and it is really just a decision of the City Council on the amount of delegation
the Council wants to bestow upon the administrative staff.
Council could delegate authority to the City Administrator to make
purchases on behalf of the City that are included in the current years
operating budget up to a maximum amount of $28,000 and to allow the
department heads, with the approval of the Administrator, to make
various purchases that were not originally included in an annual
operating budget for that department as long as the department
budget is not exceeded annually.
The $28,000 limit noted above is the maximum allowed without
advertising for bids.
25
Council Agenda - 1/27/97
` 2. Council could delegate authority to the City Administrator to mase
purchases up to some other specified dollar amount, including allowing
departments to make purchases within that dollar limit provided the
overall department budget is not exceeded.
Council could authorize the Administrator to make purchases up to a
specific dollar amount as long as the item was included in the original
budget for that year.
4. Council could adopt some other policy as amended.
From a practical matter, if sufficient review has taken place during the
budget process, it would not seem necessary that the City Council would need
to again review specific purchases as long as all requirements of State
Statutes have been met. The City Council has the authority to delegate
purchasing authority to the City Administrator, but you have to be
comfortable with the dollar amount you're authorizing. I've enclosed a copy
of the 1897 capital outlay item outlining larger ticketed items to be
purchased to give you an idea of the type of equipment and purchases that
would be made if you gave a blanket authorization for budgeted items. If the
Council would not be comfortable authorizing all purchases up to $26,000, 1
would recommend that the Administrator be allowed to make purchases up
to a lower dollar amount such as $6,000 or $10,000. Based on your decision,
a policy would be drafted to correspond to your actions.
D RIIPPORTIE DATA:
Copy of capital outlay items.
C
26
CAPITAL OUTIAY ITEMS
1897 BUDGET
'(
FUND/
FUNDING
P .P RTMF.NT
1TEM
AMOUNT
SOURCE
Data Processing
Software updates
$ 1,500
General Fund
Building permit software
5,000
General Fund
Equipment:
Printer stand
125
General Fund
Personal computer (big dept)
3,000
General Fund
Main frame computer updating--
AS/400 lease for 6 months
9,180
General Fund
Less: Maintenance agreement savings
(3"9251
General Fund
TOTAL DATA PROCESSING
$ 14,880
Building
Two (2) cellular phones
$ 1,000
General Fund
Inspections
Building inspection vehicle
14,000
General Fund
Office furniture:
Desk
400
General Fund
Drafting table
250
General Fund
Chair
250
General Fund
Bookcase
300
General Fund
Office partition or remodeling
GQO
General Fund
TOTAL BUILDING INSPECTIONS
$ 16,800
Economic
Development
MCP matching contribution
$ 35,000
Capital Outlay
Downtown revitalization prof.
Public Works
Office equipment:
Administration
Filing cabinets
$ 1,000
General Fund
Calculator
150
General Fund
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN.
$ 1,150
1
Parking Lots
Parking lot improvements - overlay
$ 30,000
Capital Outlay
Refuse
Carts and bins
$ 16,000
General Fund
PW Inspections
New 4 -wheel drive vehicle
$ 20,000
Capital Outlay
Parks
Trop planting program
16,000
General Fund
Picnic tables (10)
4,000
General Fund
Bridge Park - security camera
2,500
General Fund
Play structure improvements
10,000
Capital Outlay
River park enhancements
20,000
Capital Outlay
Pathway improvements:
Riverroad Plaza to Middle Schl
16,000
Capital Outlay
Ellison Park to Mississippi Dr.
30,000
Capital Outlay
Iqft
97BUDGIIT 111"7
PAGE 101
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS
1997 BUDGET
�( FUND/
FUNDING
D .PF Ai?TMF ld7
lis
AMOUNT
SOURCE
Parka cont...
Meadow Oak Park - Outlot A.-
:Concession
Concessionbuilding
12,000
Capital Outlay
Parking lot
13,000
Capital Outlay
Basketball court
2,000
Capital Outlay
Prairie Creek Park development
_2,604
Capital Outlay
TOTAL PARKS
$126,000
Streets
V3 of small loader & trailer
$ 20,000
General Fund
Paint striper 4,700
General Fund
Less: trade-in (1-5001
General Fund
3,200
Repair intersections:
77-3 street prgj - various locations
10,000
General Fund
185 CFM air compressor
12,250
General Fund
Sealconting
27,500
General Fund
Chelsea Rd. realignment - partial
115,Q4S)
Capital Outlay
TOTAL STREETS
$187,950
Snow/lee
Second Va of plow hookup for loader
$ 5,500
General Fund
Snowblower
70.000
General Fund
TOTAL SNOWIICE
$ 75,500
Water
Refurbish well 02
$ 10,000
Gopher State One Call
computer software
_1-344
TOTAL WATER
$ 11,300
1 Sewer
Boom anti -fall device
$ 3,700
Sewer Fund
V4 of new jetrodder/voc
25,000
Capital Outlay
Biosolids farm improvements
10,000
Sower Fund
WWTP land acquisition - balance
17RA60
Capital Outlay
TOTAL SEWER
$214,150
Library
Copy machine
$ 4,000
Capital Outlay
Personal computer
2,000
Capital Outlay
Parking lot overlay
4,000
Capital Outlay
'
Parking lot overlay
_1.440
Library Fund
TOTAL LIBRARY
$ 11,000
jy6
07B0n0ET•
1#1407
PAGE 102
CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS
1997 BUDGET
FUND/
D .p RTMENT
17EM
AMOUN
FUNDING
SQURCF
Fire
Unallocated/unspecified
$ 5,300
City Hall
Office partition furniture
$ 3,000
General Fund
Future city hall expansion - partial
65�
Capital Outlay
TOTAL CITY HALL
$ 68,000
Deputy Registrar
Space heater
$ 200
General Fund
J
C
1�
070UDGET: 111447
PAGE 103
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/11/97 14:59:55
:RANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
41716 12/31/96 A J SPANJERS CO., IN
41717 12/31/96 BRAY/MARY
41718 12/31/96 C J BROWN BUSINESS S
41719 12/31/96 CITY OF RICHFIELD
41720 12/31/96 D & K REFUSE RECYCLI
41721 12/31/96 DEHMER FIRE PROTECTI
41722 12/31/96 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, I
41723 12/31/96 FYL.E, BRAD
41724 12/31/86 G & K SERVICES
41724 12/31/96 G & K SERVICES
41724 12/31/96 G & K SERVICES
41124 12/31/96 G & K SERVICES
41724 12/31/96 G & K SERVICES
+1?4 12/31/96 G & K SERVICES
1'/24 12/91/96 G & K SERVICES
41724 13/31/86 G & K SERVICES
41124 12/31/96 G & K SERVICES
41724 12/31/96 G & K SERVICE -3
41125 12/31/90 GOULD BROS. CHEV-01,0
61726 12/81/96 HOGLUND COACH LINES
41197 12/31/96 J M OIL. COMPANY
41720 17/31/96 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKIN
41IV) 12/31/90 KUM CLEANING
41729 12/91/9G KGM CLEANING
41130 12/31/90 LO(ATOR El MONITOR SA
41730 11/31/90 L01;A70k & MONITOU 1;A
611)1 12/31/90 MN OFPAWJMFN'f OF HFA
C113? 12/:11/96 MN LTATF TkEASUkFk
I
Disbursement Journal
I
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1119 REPAIR BRICK/CITY 18,545.00
1125 PROF SERV/CEMETERY 300.00
597 NEWSLETTERS PRINTED 1,462.27
904 FIRE HYDRANTS/WATER 0 798.75
611 RECYCLING CONTRACT 3,643.22
674 MTC SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 42.50
56 PROF SERVICES/WATER 108.00
62 REIMS/EXPENSES 149.93
051
UNIFORM RENTAL
61.07
851
UNIFORM RENTAL
109.69
851
UNIFORM RENTAL
43.50
851
UNIFORM RENTAL
43.50
851
UNIFORM RENTAL
213.92
051
UNIFORM RENTAL
98.59
051
SHOP RAGS
10.32
851
RUGS/i4TC OF BLD/DEP
RE 32.57
851
MISC ENVIRONMENTAL
CHG 48.35
851
RUG/MTC OF BLD/SHOP/G
111.74
707.25 tl
70
VEHICLE REPAIRS/FIRE.
204.29
403
HEARTLAND BUS CONTR
5,263.52
flS
OAS/FIR F. DEPT
62.12
697
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE
00.53
107E
LtFANING/DEP RCG
339.14
1076
CLEANING/P WORKS
266,25
G00.99 •I
434
MTC OF EQUIPMENT/WATER
79.00
434
MTC OF kQU1PA IRE DEPT
79.07
1(+9.15 e
235
4TH QTR CONN EEE
?,404.00
?G2
CTATF f1lU GIIkCHG/4T
1,063.65
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/11/87 14:59:55
IRRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
41733 12/311/96 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
41734 12/31/96 MONTICELLO FIRE DEPA
41734 12/31/96 MONTICELLO FIRE DEPA
41794 12/31/96 MONTICELLO FIRE DEPA
41735 12/31/96 MONTICELLO PUBLIC LI
41735 12/31/96 MONTICELLO PUBLIC LI
417.35 12/31/96 MONTICELLO PUBLIC LI
41735 12/31/96 MONTICELLO PUBLIC LI
41736 12/31/96 OLSON. USSET,AGAN &
41736 12/31/96 OLSON, USSET,AGAN &
41737 12/31/96 PAUL A WALDRON & ASS
41738 12/31/96 PETERSEN'S MONT FORD
041730 12/31/96 PETERSEN'S MONT FORD
41239 12/31/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF
41739 12/31/96 ROYAL PRINTING & OFF
41740 12/31/96 SCHARBER 8 SONS. INC
41741 12/31/96 SIMONSON LUMBER COMP
41741 12/31/96 SIMONSON IUMDER COMP
41742 12/1/96 SUPERIOR S;LRVICES-CE
41742 12/31/96 SUPERIOR SERVICES -CE
41143 12/31/OU WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
41144 12/31/06 WR16MT•HENNEPIN COOP
6111NI.RAL CHECKING
Disbursemerlt Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
185 ANIMAL SUPPLIES/REIMB 18.0..80
135 SMOKE EATER/FIRE DEPT 124.00
135 OPEN Hsi/ -JULY 4TH£XP 190.65
13S MISC SUPPLIES/FIRE DEP 43.84
358.50 r
464 LIBRARY PROGRAMS 2,174.09
464 MIST* SUPPLIES/LIBRARY 271.46
464 BOOKS/LIBRARY 80.00
484 MISC CHGS/LIBRARY 1,807.15CR
698.4;0 y,
292 LEGAL FEES 2,391.75
292 LEGAL FEES/CEMETERY 382.50
2,774.25 III
030 BLD INSPECTION FEES 2,887.50
16S VEH REP PARTS/STREETS 2.17
165 VEHICLE MTC/WATER DEPT 66.00
&7.83 I
1044 OFFICE SUPPLIES/P WORK 12.00
1044 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CITY ?.53.23
265.83 0
228 VEH REPAIR PARTS/PARK 124.49
193 SUPPLIES/PARVO 9.05
193 SUPPLIES/STREET DEPT 30.09
47.84
1087 GARBAGE CONTRACT P 10,162.03
1087 SALES TAX/GARBAGE CON 650.12
10,020.91 ti
219 AODIL LANDFILL CH63 5,499.20
512 UTILITIFC 0.00
TOTAL 60,292.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
X11/02/97 07:18:38
t WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
41745 01/02/97 BOHANON/KEN AND CARO
41748 01/02/97 BUSINESS RECORDS COR
44747 01/02/97 CENTRAL MINN INITIAT
41748 01/02/97 EDAM
4,1749 01/02/97 HERMES/JERRY
41750 01/02/97 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
41750 01/02/97 MARCO BUSINESS PRODU
41751 01/02/97 MN DEPUTY REGISTRAR'
41752 01/02/97 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
41753 01/02/97 MONTICELLO CHAMBER O
41754 01/02/97 MONTICELLO SENIOR CI
41755 01/02/97 QUINLAN PUBLISHING C
41758 01/02/97 SIMPSON/CYNTHIA
41757 01/02/97 TELXON CORPORATION
GENERAL CHECKING
C
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1011 LAND PAYMENT 219,600.00
27 COMPUTER MTC AGRMT/ 7,450.82
822 MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,000.00
896 MEMBERSHIP DUES/OLLIE 160.00
81 LIBRARY CLEANING PYMT 227.50
106 MTC AGRMT/TYPEWRITER 98.00
108 COPY MCH MTC/CITY HAL 344.22
442.22
121 DEPUTY REGISTRAR DUES 220.00
185 ANIMAL CONTROL PYMT 1,129.70
193 MEMBERSHIP DUES 390.00
139 MONTHLY CONTRACT PV 2,833.33
177 SUSCRIPTION/GARY A 89.78
999 FIRE HALL CLEANING PYM 50.00
842 MTC AGRMT/SCANNERS/RE 856.16
TOTAL 233,229.31
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/1'3/87 0$:53:,00
(",ARRANT DATE VENDOR,
GENERAL CHECKMG
41758 01/13/'97 OJR CONSTRUCTION SER
41759 01/13/97 KOROPCHAK/OLIVE
41760 0t/13/97 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITO
41761 01/13/87 MN DEPART OF NATURAL
41762 01/13/97 B & 0 PLUMBING & HEA
417G3 01/13/97 COPY OUPLCATING PROD
41764 01/13/97`DANKO EMEkGENCY EQUI
41764 01/13/97 OANKO EMERGENCY EQUI
41764 01/13/97 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUI
41765 01/13/87 FLICKER'S T.,V. & APP
411G6 01/13/97 MARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
41766 01/1"3/97 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
41766 01/13/97 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
41766 01/13/97 HARRY',^, AUTO SUPPLY
4 116 01/13/97 HARRY'S AUTO ,SUPPLY
41766 01/t3/87 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
41766 01/13/9.7 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY
41)ti7 01/13/97 HOOLOND hUti COMPANY
4t760 01/19/97 KENNEDY 8 GRAVEN
41760 01/13/97 KENNEDY & GRAVL'N
41760 01/13/87 KENNEDY & GRAVEN
41/&D 01/13/07 EARCAN'ft ACE HARDWAR
41103 01/13/97 LARSONIf. ACI( HAROWAk
41700 01/13/91 LAULON'6 ACE HAkDWAk
41IGO 01/13/97 LARSUN'r� ACC HARDWAR
41166 01/13/07 IARSON'S ACE HAkUWAR
4110) 01/13/91 LAR';UN'C, ACC HARDWAR
6116) 01/13/97 1ARf,t1N'C ACE HARDWAk
4170'] 01/13/07 1ARLrN'3 ALF HAkl)WAk
411G0 01/1'1/37 1ARC,0N':, ACC, HAk0WAk
41!1,'1 (71/13/97 I,AN50N'ti AV( HARDWAR
Disburgement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1120 PURCHASE 2.20, FRONT 29,900.00
97 CLOSING COSTS/FRONT S 230'.00
219 ROAD PLAT MAP -8 1S-.00
118 WATER/SNOW/ATV REG 2,216.50
600 *FY* 75.00
41 *FV* 68.00
1126 *FY*
54.00
112,6 *FV*
431.52
1126 *FY*
935,. 00
1,320.52
60 *FY*
14.90
78 *FV*
120.81
76 E%QOTS/,HOODS/FIFE DEPT 140.1E
78 *FY*
7-.44
70 FY*
0.92
7,8 *FY*
6.30
70 *FY*
10.94
78 *FV*
33.94
320.25
02 *FY*
1,1.44
039 *FY*
70.9b
939 *FY*
70.95
039 *FY*
43.00
184,90
074 *FV*
74.OG
814 *FY*
12.26
074 *FY*
11.70
874 *FY*
14.00
074 *FV*
G.HO CR
074 *FV*
4.211
074 *FY*
13.0J
0/4 *FY*
31).00
074 *Fv*
15.50
014 *FV*
{.74
177.41
C41770 01/13/97 1 Ail W .;HARP, INC. 930 *FV* 47.93
BRC FINANCIAL. SYSTEM
01/'13/97 08:53:,00
CARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
417.11 01/13/97 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT I
41772 01/1,3/97 MAUS FOODS
41'772 01/13/97 MAUS FOODS
41772 01/'13/97 MAUS FOODS
Disbursement Journal
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
104 *FV*
tO8 *FY*
108 *FY*
108 *FY*
41773 01/13/97 MONTICELLO PRINTING 137 *f Y*
41774 01/13/97 MONTICELLO TIMES 140 *FY*
41774 01/13/97 MONTICELLO TIMES 140 *FY*
41774 01/13/97 MONTICELLO TIMES 140 *FY*
41774 01/13/97 MONTICELLO TIMES 140 *FY*
41775
01/13/97
NATIONAL
BUSHING
PAR
144
*f V*
41775
01/13/'97
NATIONAL
BUSHING
PAR
144
*FY*
41775
01/13/97
NATIONAL
BUSHING
PAR
144
*FY*
41775
01/13/97
NATIONAL
BUSHING
PAR
144
*FY*
41775
01/13/97
NATIONAL
BUSHING
PAR
144
*FY4
C41776
01/13/97
OL! -)ON &
SONS t'LF.CTRI
160
*FY*
41776
01/13/97
OLSON &
SONS ELECTRI
160
*FY*"
41777 01/13/97 ONE CALL CONCLPTC., I 03,0 *FY*
41710
01/13/97
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYF.RON
162
*FY*
41770
01/13/97
ORR-GCHELEN-MAYERON
167'
*FV*
41770
01/13/97
ORR-OCHFLI:N--MAYfRUN
162
*FY*
41710
01/18/97
URR-SCHELIN-MAYERON
102
*FY*
41119
01/13/97
URR-1SGHELLN-•MAYCR0N
162
*FY*
41713 01/13/07 PHOTO I 743 *FY*
41700 01/19/07 QUANTUM 1 Aflf. INC. 056 *f V*
41101 01/13/07 11 !i WVGT DIRECT 1104 *FY*
41102 01/13/07 WRIGHT 00INTY RLPt,RO ?54 *FY*
417113 01/13/91 MCI) & AOSOCIAT@0, IN 993 *1Y*
41709 01/1'3/07 Wt,h fl Atit,tlt lAlf G, IN 099 *FY*
4!103 111/13/07 V'H1 & A'I';OCIAT(- i. IN 093 *FV*
C4l'iUD 01/19/01 W1,41 ft A01alCIAIFS, IN ODD *FY*
4170 01/13/01 M',O & AS 1liPIAi(. ;, IN 993 *FV*
41'161 O1/1J/9! Wf11 & A:.'a1LIA5f:,, 1N 003 *FY*
4110.3 01/13/91 M')U 8 A, 1q.*CZAT'r t;. IN 993 *bY*
1,768.12
10.64
25.66
53.49
69. 7.9
24.39
2,144.41
166.95
ts6.8o
55.72
2,523.00
60.3.9
91.34
6$.43
42.11
63.95
320.12
1"63.20
Ii01 .26
044-45
160.00
506.40
170.00
910.00
505.01
103.79
2,345.14
7.99
1G.GG
30.40
19. G0
42.50
05.00
fi:)2. 50
1^'1.50
1,1i0��.00
!Oc S7
05.00
11
BkC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
09/13/97 08:53:00
C.dARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
41783 01/13/97 MSE & ASSOCIATES', IN
41783 01/13/97 MSB & ASSOCI ATE S, IN'
41783 01/13/97 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN
41783 01/13/97 WS8 & ASSOCIATES, IN
41783 01/13/97 MSB & ASSOCIATES', IN
41783 01/13/97 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN
41783 01/13/97 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN
41783 01/13/97 WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN
41783 01/13/97 MSB & ASSOCIATES, IN
GENERAL CHECKING
C
I
Disbursement
Journal
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
993
*FY*
i
170x00
993
*FY*
85.00
993
*FY*
753,.25
993,
*FY*
552,00
993
*FY*
382.50
9'93,
*FY*
127.50
993
*FY*
155.48
993
*FY*
1-4,832.88
993
*FY*
85.00
20,343.48
TOTAL
63,409.7.7
it
I
I
RRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
C01/14/97 13:42':30
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
41764 01/15/97 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUI
41764 01/15/97 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUI
41764 01/15/97 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUI
41784 01/15/97 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
41784 01/15/97 RAOI$SON HOTEL
41786 01/15/97 CULLIGAN
41787 01/15/97 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUI
41787 01/.15/97 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUI
e
41788 01/15/97 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE
4 17 89 01/15/97 GOVERNMENT TRAINING
41790 01/15/97 HERMES/JERRY
C 41791 01/15/97 KOLLES SAND & GRAVEL
41792 01/15/97 KRAMBER & ASSOCIATES
41793 01115/97 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
41794 01/18/97 MINNEGASCO
41794 01/1$/97 MINNEGASCO
41794 01/15/97 MINNEGASCO
41794 01/15/07 MINNEGASCO
41794 01/15/97 MINNEGASCO
41794 01/15/07 MINNEGASCO
41794 01/15/97 MINNEGASCO
41794 01/15/97 MINNEGA$CO
41105 01/15/97 MN GOV FINANCE OFICE
41790 01/10/97 MN MAYORS AUSOCIATIO
41'107 01/15/07 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CO
41790 01/1G/97 MONTICuLLO AUTO BODY
C41709 01/15/97 MOON MOTOR GALES, IN
41000 01/15/97 NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE
Disbursement Jour,naJ'
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1,126 *960f 835,.;000R
1126 *88* 431,52CA
1126 *96* 54_.00CR
1,;320.52CR
98 REG FEE NEW COUNCIL M 435.00
178 HOTEL RES/NEM COUNCIL 204.00
639..00
753 WATER SOFTNER CHG/RENT 23.86
1126 *FV* 289.39
1126 -*FV* 431.52
720.81
510 *F Y* 83$.00
72 'REG FEE/KAREN'OOTY 150.00
81 LIBRARY CLEANING SERV 227.50
592 *98* 315.00
688 ASSESSING CONTRACT 1,814.58
1071 FIRE PHONE CHARGES 39..80
772 UTILITIES 431.46
772 UTILITIES 112.64
172 UTILITIES 124.52
772 UTILITIES 117.52
772 UTILITIES 89.00
772 UTILITIES 640.34
772 UTILITIES 3,495.80
772 UTILITIES 340.74
5,369.90
122 DUES/C £HUMAN 8 RICK W 30.00
125 MEMBERSHIP OUFS/MAYOR 20.00
105 ANIMAL CONTROL CONT 1,129.70
008 ULD INSPECTION VAN REP 05.41
142 *96* 17.35
424 DCN REG CUBGCRIPTION 52.00
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
0'1/'1-4/97 13:42:30
WARRANT DATE VENDOR
GENERAL CHECKING
41801 01/15/97 NORWEST BANK MINNESO
448011 01/15/97 NORWEST BANK MINNESO
41802 01/15/97 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
41803 01/15/97 RELIABLE CORPORATION
41804 01/15/97 STAR TRIBUNE
41805 01/15/97 TELXON CORPORATION
41808 01/15/97 U.S. POSTMASTER
44807 01/15/97 WALOOR PUMP & EQUIPM
41808 01/15/97 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPT 0
41809 01/15/87 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
41809 01/15/97 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
41809 01/15/97 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECU
41610 01/15/97 Y.M.C.A, OF MINNEAPO
GENERAL CHECKING
C
Disbursement Journal')
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I
154 PAYING AGENT 'Ft-Et/BON 700.00 i
154 PAYING AGENT FEES/BONG 62.50
262.50
1.75 WWTP CONTRACT PVMT 33,100.50
17-9 COMPUTER CARTRIDGES 68.23
197 SUBSCRIPTION 24.05
942 RECYCLING WANDS 93.09
210 BOX RENTAL FEE/FIRE DEP 8.00
369 *FY* 570.75
275 SAND/SALT/SNOW A IC 5,637.79
875 SEC ALARM SYS/FIRE DEP 55.91
075 SEC ALARM SYS/DEP REG 19.12
B75 SEC ALARM SVS/PARKS 15.98
91.01
224 CONTRACT PAYMENT 625.00
TOTAL 50,430.21
0
8RC FINANCIAL SY.STEM
0,1/11/97
15:00:59
Disbursement
Journal
CURRANT
AMOUNT GI,
DATE VENDOR
DESCRIPTION,
LIQUOR CHECKING
19236
12/31/86 CONSOLIDATED COMM DI
800163
ADVERTISING
47.50
19237
12/31/96 MINNEGASCO
800160
UTILITIES
217.77
I
19238
12/31/96 MONTICELLO TIMES
800032
ADVERTISING
229.05
19239
12/31/96 SHERBURNE COUNTY CIT
800183
ADVERTISING
100.80
i
19240
12/31/96 WRIGHT MAY SHOPPER
800106
ADVERTISING
190.00
LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL
785.12'
C
M i
9RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM=
II
01/13/97
08:54:48
Disbursement
Journal
C:AkRANT
DATE
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
LIQUOR CHECKING
19742
01/13/97
DAHLHEIMER DISTR,IBUT
800009
BEER PURCHASE
2°,584.70
19242
01/13/97
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUT
800009
CREDIT FROM DEC
194.40CR
19242
01/13/9,7
DAHLHEIMER OISTRIBUT
800009
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER
2.1 .30
2,411.60
19243
01/13/-97
DAY DISTRIBUTING COM
80001;0
BEER PURCHASE
538.00
19243
01/13/97
DAV DISTRIBUTING COM
'90001'0
CREDIT FROM DEC
8.40CR
5 2,9 .60
19244
01/13f97
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800011
BEER PURCHASE
1.,232.00
19244
01/13/97
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
000011
BAGS/SUPPLIES
29.00
19244
01/13/97
DICK WHOLESALE CO.,
800011
LIQUOR SUPPLIES
24.26
oll,l
1,285.25
19245
01/13/91
EAGLE WINE COMPANY
840012
FREIGHT CHARGES
36.85
19245
01/13/97
EAGLE WINE COMPANY,
800012
WINE PURCHASE
1,274.10
19245
01/13/97
EAGLE WINE COMPANV
800012
MIX FOR RESALE
39.28
1, 3r5? .20
A-,
19246
01/13/87
GRIGGS. COOPER a COM
800018
FREIGHT CHARGES
33.00
0
19246
01/13/97
GRIGGS, COOPER & COM
OOOD18
LIQUOR SUPPLIES
3,077.11
C
31 110.71
'SII
19247
01/13/87
GROSSLLIN UEVERAGE I
800018
BEER PURCHASE
7,766.05
19140
01/13/97
HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS
000212
5UPPLIE5
123.54
I!'I
19249
01/13/97
JOHNSON BROS WHOLEGA
000072
FREIGHT CHARGES
101.93
10249
01/13/97
JOHNSON OROS W14OLESA
800022
LIQUOR PURCHASE
4,019.98
�l
19249
01/43/97
JOHNGON EtROS WHOLESA
000072
WINE PURCHASE
2,G1).4?
0, 735.33+I
1021,0
01/13/97
MN JAYCEES
000100
ADVERIISINO
36.08
1921;1
01/13/97
MONTICELLO VACOOM CE
800090
VACUUM CLEANER REPAIRS
10.,95
I'
1.92'_,2
01/13/97
MOON MOTOR GAL FG
000210
CNOW BLOWER 'REPAIRS
46.97
10;)';3
01/1]/97
NORTHWEST CARPEL & U
000170
CARPL:T CLt.ANING
29G.07
182t>4
01/13/97
PAUST2U Q GON^
000109
WINE PURCHASE
2?0.00
i
1e);)14
01/13/01
PAI;TIS tl-30N'.;
000103
FREIGHT CHARGES
5.60
?34.90
yl
i 19>yj
01/13/07
PHIILIP, WINE. & SPIR
000100
FREIGHT CHARGES
41.06
10?b;,
01/19/07
PHIIIIn WINE 8 5PIR
000160
LIQUOR PUk01A-E
7.705147
5
01/13/91
PHILLIPO WINE. & SPIR
000100 WINO P1114CHAlf
509.0',
C 102i�f,
01/13/01
PHILLIPG WINE A 'PIP
0001CO MIX FOR REGALE
11,7.40
3 , 911).7(3
1I
i
l�
FRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
01/13/97
08:54:48
Disbursement Journal
fWARRANT
AMOUNT
DATE VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
LIQUOR CHECKING
19256
01/13/97 QUALITY MINE & SPIRI
800040
LIQUOR PURCHASE
31,81.56
19256
01/13/97 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI
800040
MINE PURCHASE
524.45
843.01
19257
01/13/97 THE WATSON CO., INC.
800202
CIGS/CIGARS FOR
RESAL 104.84
19258
01/13/97 THORPE DISTRIBUTING
800048
NON ALCOHOLIC BEER 99.35
19258
01/13/97 THORPE DISTRIBUTING
800048
BCER PURCHASE
7,813.80
19250
01/13/97 THORPE DISTRIBUTING
BOD040
BEER CREDIT
S.0DCR
7,898.15
LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL
36,308.65
l
I
C