The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 08-12-2002AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 12, 2002 - 7 p.m. Mayor: Roger Belsaas Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen 1. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve minutes of July 22, 2002 regular Council meeting. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. A. B. 4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 5. Consent agenda. A. Consideration of ratifying new hires for the Community Center and Public Works B. Consideration of 3/2 beer license - River Fest Street Dance - Rescheduled for September 6, 2002. C. Consideration of preliminary and final plat approval for the Monticello Commerce Center 6t" Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. D. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing installation of rooftop telecommunications site. Applicant: Steve Johnson and Voicestream Wireless Corporation. E. Consideration of a concept stage planned unit development to allow for expansion of a drive-in banking facility and coordinated commercial development within the Central Community District Applicant: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. F. Review and acceptance of feasibility report for reconstruction of parking lots. G. Consideration of annual maintenance agreement with Wright County. H. Consideration of adopting a resolution approving Monticello Heartland express 2003 Budget and Transit Assistance application. I. Consideration of approving final payment to C.W. Houle, Inc. for Groveland 2" d Addition, Project No. 2001-05C. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 7. Public Hearing on proposed improvements to Downtown Parking Lot, Block 35 and consideration of award of work. Agenda Monticello City Council August 12, 2002 Page 2 8. Public Hearing - Consideration to adopt a resolution approving TIF District No. 1 -3 1 - UMC Applicant. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration to adopt a resolution approving TIF District No. 1-32 - Production Stamping, Inc. Applicant 10. PULLED FROM AGENDA 11. Public Hearing - Consideration to approve business subsidy for Production Stamping, Inc, and to authorize entering into the Contract for Private Development among the HRA, the City, and Wurm Partnership, L.L.P. 12. Consideration of quotes for work on parking lot improvements. 13. Consideration of review and acceptance of feasibility study for the extension of Cedar Street. 14. Consideration of resolution requesting a railroad crossing at 7"' Street. 15. Review of six month Liquor Store financial report. 16. Discussion on feasibility of converting Broadway overhead power to underground] 17. Approve payment of bills for August. 18. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 22, 2002 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Roger Carlson, Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen. Members Absent: Clint Herbst 1. Call to order and Pledize of AlleLyiance. Mayor Belsaas called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and declared a quorum present. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. 2. A. Approve minutes of July 8, 2002 regular council meetinLy. BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 2002 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Annrove minutes of July 8, 2002 workshop meeting. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 2002 WORKSHOP MEETING. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Public Works Director, John Simola added a discussion of crosswalk signs and work on the parking lot behind Loch Jewelers to the agenda. Brian Stumpf added discussion of two fire department related items to the agenda and Mayor Belsaas added discussion of a letter he had received regarding garage sales and barking dogs. Brian Stumpf asked Bret Weiss if there was anything new to add to Item #9, the Front Street Project. Bret Weiss indicated no. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ADD AGENDA ITEM #9 TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Citizen comments/petitions, requests and complaints. None. 1 z Council Minutes - 7/22/02 5. Consent Agenda: A. Consideration of ratifying new hires. Recommendation: Ratify the new hires as identified. B. Consideration of appointment of elections judges for 2002 primary election. Recommendation: Appoint election judges as identified contingent upon completion of training. C. Consideration of request for approval of an off-site storage facility - Walt's Pawn & Gun. Recommendation: Approve the request for off site storage of pawned items contingent upon storage facility meeting code requirements of the community it is located in. D. Consideration of establishing a hearing date for an ordinance allowing Sunday liquor license holders to sell liquor for on site consumption prior to noon on Sundays. Recommendation: Set a public hearing date to consider an ordinance amendment allowing for amendments to the Sunday liquor license hours of operation. E. Consideration of final plat and development agreement for the Morning Glory PUD/Resi- dential subdivision. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the final plat and development agreement for the Morning Glory subdivision. F. Consideration of concept and development stage approval for planned unit development and preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge. Applicant: Shawn Weinand. Recommendation: Approve concept and development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge. G. Consideration of approving cooperative agreement with Wright County for reconstruction of CSAH from Washington Street to Otter Creek, Project No. 2000-16C. Recommendation: Approve the cooperative agreement as drafted, authorize the City Engineer, City Administrator and Public Works Director to attend the bid opening and to proceed with the project should the bids come in within 5%-10% of the cost previously estimated by the City Engineer. 9. Consideration of accepting bids and awarding the contract for the Front Street Improvements, Project No. 2001-06C. Recommendation: Award bid to Schluender Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1971987.80. Res. No. 2002-45. Brian Stumpf requested that item #5D be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. ROGER CARLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE ADDITION OF ITEM #9 AND THE REMOVAL OF ITEM #51). BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. r 2 Council Minutes - 7/22/02 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent aLvenda for discussion. Brian Stumpf stated he did not feel the City should allow liquor sales before noon on Sunday. He questioned whether it was necessary and how it would be policed. License holders would be limited to a specific number of times that they could request sales before noon on Sunday, most likely it would be limited to twice a year and each request would have to receive approval by the City Council. Mayor Belsaas explained that the permit would be for special events and since the number of permits a license holder could have is limited, he didn't feel the ordinance change would create a problem. Brian Stumpf felt there was no reason to change the City's ordinance regarding liquor licenses. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED NOT TO AMEND THE CITY ORDINANCE BY CHANGING HOURS OF OPERATION FOR SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE HOLDERS. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH ROGER BELSAAS VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 7. Assessment hearing for Gillard Avenue Pathwav and consideration of award of contract for Gillard Avenue Improvement Proiect No. 2001-10C. City Engineer, Bret Weiss reviewed the bids received on the pathway work. The cost of the pathway work was proposed to be spread over 15 parcels. At 100% of the cost being assessed the assessment would be approximately $5,135 per parcel. However, at an earlier meeting the Council determined that 25% of the cost would be assessed and the remaining amount would come from pathway funds. At 25% the cost per parcel would be $1,283. Mayor Belsaas opened the public hearing. Jeff Nelson from 9721 Gillard Avenue North asked for clarification of the maintenance of the pathway as referenced in the City's letter of July 10, 2002. The Council reaffirmed that the City would not be responsible for snow removal from the pathway. Mr. Nelson also questioned how the pathway would impact the drainage in the area. Bret Weiss indicated that with the pathway alignment it would require some retaining wall work to be done and the engineer felt the drainage would not be a problem. John Simola spoke on behalf of Rosalind Sandusky, 9751 Gillard Avenue who indicated that she was in favor of the project but felt the assessment should spread throughout the entire community. She noted she has a sprinkler system in her yard and wanted to know how it is handled if property is damaged during the course of construction. Brian Stumpf pointed out that this improvement was petitioned for by the property owners and while the property owners are being assessed 25% of the cost, the taxpayers are picking up the 75%. Kevin Fair, 9681 Gillard Avenue, expressed his concern about snowplowing. He felt that in the course of removing the snow from the road it would end up on the trail since the trail is only five feet off the road. If that is the case he felt it would be very difficult for the property owners to maintain IN Council Minutes - 7/22/02 the trailway. He suggested the cost of clearing the snow from the pathway also be assessed. Bruce Thielen noted that John Gurney had contacted him and expressed this same concern. John Simola explained that the City clears only the main corridors. This includes the pathways around the schools, the pathway along School Boulevard and a segment of trail along TH 25 from Kjellberg's park. He added that most communities select which segments to maintain and it is usually based on usage. The Public Works Department will monitor this. John Simola added that if the snow crowds the blacktopped surface of the road it would have to be pushed off. Bret Weiss showed the Bruggeman development area and the points of access. He noted that if this development goes through it could bring traffic up to 3000 ADT. Design standards for roadway width is 32' and Gillard is 24'. He added that there is 100' of right of way and the road could be widened on the township side. If the City in the future entertained plans to widen the road, it could impact the pathway. Bret Weiss felt Gillard Avenue should be able to handle the traffic and even if there was another access from the Bruggeman development, drivers would prefer Gillard because it is a straight shot to County Road 39. He explained that when the street was constructed there was no assessment to the properties on the township side of Gillard Avenue. Mayor Belsaas then closed the public hearing. Mayor Belsaas stated that he saw no reason to change what the Council did at the previous meeting. Bret Weiss stated that if there were people in opposition to the assessment, they needed to give notice to the Council at this time and file an appeal in District Court within 30 days. BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE GILLARD AVENUE PATHWAY PROJECT AT 25% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST OR $1,283 PER PARCEL AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,178. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Res. 42002-43. 8. Assessment hearing for delinquent utilities and consideration of certifvin2 delinquent utilitv accounts to the Countv Auditor. City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, briefly explained the assessments for delinquent utilities. Brian Stumpf asked at what point is the property notified that water will be turned off.. Rick Wolfsteller noted that for commercial accounts it was when the unpaid amount reached $500. Mayor Belsaas opened the public hearing. No one present spoke for or against the proposed assessment. Mayor Belsaas then closed the public hearing. BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FORDELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES AS PRESENTED. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Res. #2002-42. 0 2 Council Minutes - 7/22/02 9. Consideration of accepting bids and awarding the contract for the Front Street Improvements, Proiect No. 2001-06C. Included with consent agenda. Res. 42002-45 10. Consideration of development stage planned unit development and preliminary and final plat approval allowing 11 single familv residential units in an R-3 District. Central, Minnesota Housing Partnership. This item had been discussed at a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission held at 5:30 on July 22, 2002. The Planning Commission felt comfortable that what was being proposed was similar to the concept stage PUD. Originally the units were to be 15008 sq. ft with 9' of separation between the units. It was also noted that in order to qualify for funding the price needed to be in the $124,000-$126,000 range. The Planning Commission felt the need to increase livable area by requiring a full basement or at least partial basements in the facilities. This would decrease the square footage from 1008 to 936 on the main floor and the loss of footage on the main floor would be offset by the basement area. Jeff O'Neill showed the design and layout of the units. He indicated that the Planning Commission also wanted to the retain the greater landscaping plan which also requires an irrigation system. The Planning Commission wanted something affordable but aesthetically pleasing. The units are two bedroom units with a two car garage. It was noted that there was a list of conditions that the Planning Commission had included in their approval of the development stage PUD. There were no revisions to these conditions other than adding the requirement for a full/partial basement in the units. Sheri Harris stated that if the cost of the units gets above $126,000 they can't get the gap funding that they need. While they are not certain of the exact amount these changes will add, they believe they will be between $123,000 to $125,000 per unit. Although the Planning Commission wanted full basements, they gave them the latitude to go with a partial basement. BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD ALLOWING 11 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TOWNHOMES, ALONG WITH APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WITH THE MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UNDER THE PUD REQUIREMENTS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WILL NOT RESULT IN A DEPRECIATION OF ADJOINING LAND VALUES. APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Establishment of homeowners association or other format for assuring long term maintenance of the PUD. The association or agreement/covenants must include the following items: 5 Z Council Minutes - 7/22/02 • Snow Removal • Mowing of common area and maintenance of landscaping. • Parking stalls, drive maintenance. • Regulations governing fences, storage buildings, • Maintenance of exterior of building B. Required use of pre -finished siding. C. Completion of all site improvements and home improvements as identified in the approved plans. D. Landscaped plantings and/or screening fence to be provided along the western boundary of the site along with installation of landscaped plantings as shown in the attached supporting documentation. E. Landscaping plan should include installation of an irrigation system. F. Side yard lot lines to follow a building wall thus giving all side yard space to the homeowner opposite of the building wall. G. Approval of grading and drainage plans by the City Engineer. H. Curb and gutter included with the alley. I. Removal of existing driveways. J. No accessory buildings. K. Units to have a full/partial basement with ingress/egress windows. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Consideration of establishing procedure for selecting firm to provide legal services for the City. The City Administrator indicated that five firms had been requested to submit proposals for legal services and three firms had responded. The Council needed to indicate how they wanted to proceed on this. There was discussion on the services provided by the current firm and whether there was any improvement in their response time. It was questioned whether the firm had ever been sent a letter listing specific concerns and asking for improvement on those. If not, it was felt that this should be done. The Council was informed that the present city attorney was going to be leaving the firm and going into practice on his own. The firm he was leaving was not interested in taking on the city and since the Council would prefer to deal with a larger firm that would have the expertise needed, it was felt that the present legal counsel would not be considered further. It was noted that the current attorney may be retained to continue with litigation in process. The Council felt they would interview the three firms at a special meeting of the City Council. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO HAVE THE FULL CITY COUNCIL CONDUCT THE INTERVIEWS OF THE THREE SELECTED LEGAL FIRMS AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF Z_ Council Minutes - 7/22/02 THE CITY COUNCIL SET FOR AUGUST 12, 2002 AT 5:00 P.M. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Added Items: Crosswalk - John Simola brought a sample of crosswalk sign currently being utilized by some cities. However it was noted that the signs has not been approved by the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Committee. Officials are trying to get this sign approved by the Committee but there is set procedure that needs to be followed to do so. Utilizing the sign without following the specified procedures would place the full liability on the city. He noted that later this year or early next year the results of the various entitites experimenting with the use of this sign would be submitted to the MMUTCD Committee. John Simola recommended that the City not install this type of sign at this time. Parking Lot Improvements - John Simola informed the Council that they are looking at making an improvement to the public parking lot located on Block 35, behind Loch Jewelers. The parking lot is in very bad shape and needs to be replaced. The original parking lot improvements were made in the 1970's and the downtown businesses were assessed for the improvement. The engineer is preparing a report outlining the cost for the work. It was suggested that the cost of replacing the parking lot be assessed. Staff was requesting that the Council authorize setting a public hearing on the proposed improvement. BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT LOCATED IN BLOCK 35 AT THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PROVIDED NOTICE REQUIREMENTS COULD BE MET. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Fire Department Issues - Brian Stumpf noted that there is problem at the southeast corner of the fire hall building with people cutting across there to get to the bike park. The Fire Department was requesting that some kind of fencing be put in place to correct the situation. There is some fencing remaining from the bike park installation that could be used. Fred Patch and Brian Stumpf will meet and work out the placement of the fencing. Brian Stumpf also noted an item for the Police Commission agenda relating to unauthorized vehicles in the parking lot at the Fire Hall. John Simola suggested that a sticker identifying the vehicle as an authorized vehicle would aid the sheriff in enforcement of the parking restrictions. City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller indicated that a Police Commission meeting was set for July 31. Complaints - Roger Belsaas indicated that he had received a letter from a resident concerning garage sales and problems with barking dogs. He expressed concern that there may not be enough clout in the animal control ordinance to resolve the problem and suggested that it be looked at. Autumn Ridge - Jeff O'Neill indicated that the access to County Road 117 from the proposed plat was being reviewed by the County and there is a possibility that only one access will be allowed. Bret Weiss indicated that he felt that two accesses are appropriate and warranted. The County would not okay it unless the speed limit was 45 mph. Bruce Thielen asked if the County would do a speed study. The 7 Council Minutes - 7/22/02 Council felt the speed limit in this area would have to be looked at especially when the Gold Nugget property developed. 12. Approve payment of bills for Julv. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR JULY. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. Adiourn. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 8:05 P.M. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recording Secretary N Z, Council Agenda - 8/12/02 5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for MCC and Public Works. (RW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Council is asked to ratify the hiring of new employees that have occurred recently at the MCC and Public Works Department. As you recall, it is recommended that the Council officially ratify the hiring of all new employees including part-time and seasonal workers. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify the hiring of the part-time employees for the MCC and Public Works Department as identified on the attached list. C. SUPPORTING DATA: Lists of new employees. Name Burton, Maria Cellette, James Coffey, Erica Dehler, Alicia Diamond, Paul Hilgart Jr., Lloyd Koch, Kathleen Name Scholl, Amanda employee council list: 8/1/02 NEW EMPLOYEES Title Department Hire Date Class Slide Attendant MCC 7/23/02 PT Custodian MCC 7/24/02 PT Slide Attendant MCC 7/25/02 PT Slide Attendant MCC 7/22/02 PT Construction Inspector Public Works 7/22/02 FT PC Member Planning & Zoning 6/24/02 PT Slide Attendant MCC 7/18/02 PT TERMINATING EMPLOYEES Reason Department Last Day Class Voluntary MCC 7/18/02 PT Council Agenda - 6/14/99 5B. Consideration of ADDrovina a one day (1) liquor license for the Lions Club for the River Fest Street Dance. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This year the street dance which is held in conjunction with the River Fest activities was rained. Out the dance has been re -scheduled for September 6, 2002. The Monticello Lions Club is requesting approval of a 3/2 beer license for the event. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Approve issuance of the one day (1) liquor license to the Lions Club for the re -scheduled River Fest dance on September 6, 2002. 2. Do not approve the license. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Lions Club be issued the one day (1) license for this event contingent upon submission of proper liquor liability insurance coverage. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A copy of the application. Application for 1 to 4 Day Temporary On -Sale Liquor License Pagel of 2 �..... .... '.,+ Minnesota Department of Public Safety ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION % �+ 444 Cedar St., Suite 133, St. Paul, MN 55101-5133 (651)296-9519 FAX (651)297-5259 TTY (651)282-6555 ' �{�l�l►�-'rrrh �x • ilk 5 (Orga-R.izatio c�a; or loon 11111h:d toy 3 pe on in ;a 12 moritb period) `�'"3t'`.��'��. t., R 141U N "I' INFORMATION 3 � � �� c.��i� '� 1�"�Y Cf T aA T'r c�T�t E ANI.Z'l D TAX 1. XEM11 N��s'! f31:.I� :'TF'...:. fri.)I.�T: /V/`=> ,'o X G 3 flan/ T/ C E L L O ( n/ -5-5- 3/ v NAMI�? 01 l'l~sl't-SON �•I:�.K Ntr �APPl,;T��ATION aGETZ SF_LSAAS f�i_�Sfiwtl SS Iii ic�NT: HOME I'l lf)`*lF ^fit lQl..fOR Wi1 T BF S01,D � 1 to 4 days) E TWE T` ()R AN1ZATT()NT _. _T1f ? 01111 to N� }NPRO 1'. _ . ... lr �� c �� ''0 �" ... _........... ,..... ... 7 7 , i ✓-154 T, t.f%frT� r /_ 1, b, /�lv. �rS 3 -z . ............. .... 1 t (JRGAN17AT1O' Ei 1�lt:F T NAIL I" � 1. 1f.1 ; a� T�.S '4g8J 1417cHG-c.G R'D, ��G GS E MA,- 5757,3c> F* a 11�S� �U l r /"I/K I;• MAHC-A 6T� S r. N6 /elaWr/C£LLo>1 Nlc/ Sfs"',�la z %N1TaMJU�44U:5c will be isod. 1farl caci . , dcs4r.f�,'rilart 4t -Zg9� Co .*? vv 1T/,C> jQ c4L, o F Fx ! 571;' E..�.. .O.0 G� "I`�£. SGf%>~U' Will the app ic�m co atract or liquor se4cei? ffso, giw' the €tante artrl aclt$ms o tl$a l.,ignor lictus : prc vialing &-rw,.'im Will ibc applivaaat c;an i.iqu()r lial�jWy iaswrarace; if so. tlac �arrri�r" � ar�aaao atrarT �trat�uaat ofcoivicaagi. (NOTE, lamrwice is not riv%vdQvias v) CPQ P �' � G �NG Y ,$ / r� oo/ D c) o APPROVAL .��i.��::�'k�"l�?�r l'�]:LJ�';E' ��: ,�.li'��:�'�►��ll� "�` �:Y"�.�� i�,�. �:.f?��iR'�'�� B�l�li'1��S,�UBT'tl��'I"�'.I.E`��i�•'�� 1��I�.�4R. C`#.)"��`�"��.�.dw CITEDATE FiliE PAID ...�._.....w......................._.......,.„,,,•.ve-wx#�.,.,'tccvu.:�. w�r.4Pa+e SIGNIXITIREV CITY (:I,JAK OR COUNTY 0T•'R.OA.T, i)ATE APPROVED UCE'NSE DATES ,° PJ' ((OV:1 I) UQlTt?R CONTROL. DWCTOR 1"+?OTE. bio 11006p aratte these two parks, said both l arU las t1w address aabove anri thy. an irral sigritd 1w this dhixion Nvill be rcturtieal as the ric-ensu. Submit to the CiVy or a`:"ounty at tenst 30 dans before tint rvrai.1.. P13-09079(8,19,9 - 5\3 http://www.dps.state.mn.us/alegamb/aleenff/forms/4daytemp.html 3/14/2002 City Council Agenda - 08/12/02 5C. Consideration of a preliminary and final plat for the Monticello Commerce Center 6"' Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. (JO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Monticello Industrial Park Inc. requests preliminary and final plat approval for the Monticello Commerce Center 6`` Addition. This request is submitted in conjunction with development of two industrial projects - Ultra Machine Corporation and Production Stamping. This plat encompasses a total area of about 17 acres and is located north of the High School Campus, west of the Twin Cities Die Castings facility and south of Chelsea Road. Undeveloped property is located to the west of the site and across Chelsea Road to the North. Lot 2, Block 1 is the easterly lot and will be the site for Production Stamping. This 7.25 acre parcel meets all IIA standards. This parcel features a 50' ponding easement along the southern boundary. Lot 1, Block 1 is the site for Ultra Machine Corporation. This 10 acre parcel meets all I 1 A standards and includes a ponding area at the southern edge. Both the Production Stamping and Ultra Machine Corporation developments are allowed as permitted uses, therefore the Planning Commission will not be reviewing the site plans unless a conditional use permit (for outside storage) or a variance is needed. It is not expected that either a CUP or variance will be needed. No public improvements will be needed with this development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to approve the preliminary and final plat for the Monticello Commerce Center Sixth Addition. Motion contingent on final review by the City Engineer. 2. Motion to deny the preliminary and final plat for the Monticello Commerce Center Sixth Addition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommend alternative 1. The plat appears to meet or exceed the minimum platting requirements for industrial sites, therefore staff recommends alternative 1. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of Preliminary and Final Plat. Qrip• / +�aoa •/ I G'U b+wo2\�r 3 &t A*y pIC 1CoI R / Auod o Moo oM tilo q.11 --O 3+y a /q b NY C\2 I 1 1 R 111 / L 1' -,--------------LB$9�-------------��Jf1��= 016K LO _ r �y Irl IYrI l l / l jlrr l � Irl 1111 1 1111 1111 /��/ I111,4 k O0' n I 1111 I III 11 '///!►/I // --—— —————— ————— 1 VIII �1��1 �/ 11111 '---- Y/9--1—UL9tl—— / \.............. _..�......! ss't LzL 3 SZ ,s-Ooo0 N ..........a ............... 1 , I, \\\ "--- / '— I 111111All rt -t 6+N°2 ♦ / / 1 "a PW JKLKO cj C City Council Agenda - 08/12/02 5D. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowinu installation of a telecommunications roof mounted antenna. Applicant: Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. (JG) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Voicestream Minneapolis Inc. is requesting approval of a conditional use permit which would allow them to install a roof -mounted antenna atop a building owned by Steve and Candace Johnson. The site, located at 121 West Broadway, is in the CCD district, which allows telecommunication antennas and support structures subject to a conditional use permit and compliance with the conditions listed in section 3-12 [AB] of the ordinance. Voicestream seeks to expand its network coverage in order to provide "in building" coverage within the City of Monticello. Currently, coverage characteristics are such that a user cannot maintain a phone call of good quality, initiated outside a building, and carry the call into the building. With the installation atop this building, a stronger signal strength and "in building' coverage will be attained in the heart of Monticello. With the increase in cellular use and the need for good connections to and from wireless devices, cellular antennas are popping up at a record pace and will continue to do so. The main purpose of our ordinance is to provide for the appropriate location and development of antennas and antenna support structures to serve the residents and businesses within the city while minimizing the adverse visual effects the structures have on the community. A method for doing this is maximizing the use of existing and approved antenna support structures and buildings to accommodate new antennas in order to reduce the number of antenna support structures needed to serve the community. The proposed antenna platform is 7' in height and approximately 270 sq. ft. in horizontal area. This meets all of the ordinance conditions as shown in exhibit Z as well as satisfies the objectives described in 3-12 [AA]. Proposed to be located in the downtown CCD District, DAT will be reviewing the aesthetics of the structure and its affect upon the downtown prior to the planning commission meeting. I will provide the planning commission with their input and recommendation. The Design Advisory Team and Planning Commission recommended approval of this request per Alternative 1. City Council Agenda - 08/12/02 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit allowing Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. to install a telecommunication antenna on the roof of the building located at 121 West Broadway subject to the conditions listed in exhibit Z, based on the finding that it is in compliance with the objectives of the ordinance. 2. Motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit based on findings discussed at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff, Planning Commission and the DAT recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Voicestream Minneapolis Inc. The plans submitted are as sensitive as possible to the building architecture and comply with city code, and the installation of a telecommunication antenna atop an existing building maximizes the use of existing structures while providing the community with their communication needs. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site location Exhibit B - Exiting building Exhibit C - Antenna platform example Exhibit D - West Elevation Map Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval 2 c n W Of Q1 CO � V U 0 W LLJ CO > �M U 3 � Q d. 2 .-. U in W z O �_- r I I Ln Z x m -- —rT1�f T-T�f T1�—TT—rT1—r Exhibit Z General Requirements for all Communication Antennas and support structures. Location: Antennas shall be located on existing buildings and structures, if possible. Antennas located upon a public building or structure shall require the processing of an administrative permit issued in compliance with the procedures established by the City Council. Where an antenna support structure is used to support antennas, the installation of more than one antenna support structure per property shall require the approval of a conditional use permit. 2. Yards: Minimum setback requirements for antennas and antenna support structures shall in all zoning districts be the same as those permitted accessory buildings, uses and equipment. 3. Height: Antennas shall not extend more than ten feet above the highest part of the building or structure to which they are attached no more than ten feet above the highest roof elevation. 4. Security: Antennas support structures shall be constructed, fenced, or secured in Such a manner as to prevent unauthorized climbing. No barbed wire, razor ribbon, or the like shall be used for this purpose. 5. Screening: Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure or screened from view from any public street. 6. Neighboring Property Impact: Antenna and antenna support structures shall be designed and located such that in the event of structural failure, neither the antenna nor the antenna support structure will fall on adjoining property. 7. Design: The use of guyed antenna support structures is prohibited. The design and installation of new antenna support structures must utilize an open framework or monopole configuration. Permanent platforms or structures accessory to the antenna support structure or antenna that increase visibility or prohibited. No part of the antenna support structure shall exceed 500 square feet in horizontal area. S. Color/Content: Antennas and antenna support structures shall be constructed of A corrosion resistant material or be painted a neutral color, and shall not be painted with scenes or contain letters or messages which qualify as a sign. 5 J 9. Illumination: Antennas and antenna support structures shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect public health and safety. 10. Compliance: Antennas, antenna support structures, electrical equipment and connections shall be designed, installed, and operated in conformance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. personal wireless communications service antennas, are only permitted as conditional uses and must meet the conditions in 1 through 10 above as well as the following additional conditions: 1. Antenna support structures for personal wireless communication systems shall be allowed as conditional uses provided: A. Minimum spacing between personal wireless communications service antenna support structures shall be 1/4 mile B. All new antenna support structures for personal wireless communication system antennas shall be a single ground mounted metal, concrete, or plastic composite (i.e., fiberglass, graphite fiber, etc.) pole. Such antenna support structures shall not exceed seventy-five feet in height in agricultural -open space (AO), Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R -PUD), Performance Zone (PZR and PZM), and Business (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4) zoning districts, and shall not exceed one hundred sixty-five (165) feet in height in Industrial (I-1, I-1 A, and I-2) zoning districts. 5o Monticello/Mercantile Bldg. A10711 • 't I •� a -maw i5ti0P AA Imonticello/Mercantile Bldg. A10711 Mon" Pr�ferreclrtl; hoc. owl 4w AO City Council Agenda - 08/12/02 5E. Consideration of a concept state planned unit development to allow for expansion of a drive-in bankine facility and coordinated commercial development within the Central Community District. Applicant: Wells Faro Bank, N.A. (JO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Following is a concept Planned Unit Development Proposal involving the Wells Fargo Bank/Library area. This site plan shows an expansion of the existing bank building/larger drive thru, along with demolition of the Library and the addition of a commercial/retail building along Walnut Street. Development of this site as proposed is contingent on completion of an exchange between the Bank and City whereby the City would acquire the Marquette Bank building (future library) in exchange for providing the Library property to Wells Fargo. Part of the preliminary "deal" requires that Wells Fargo provide a commercial retail development site along Walnut Street following standards identified in the redevelopment plan for the New Main Street. The site features preservation of the oak trees creating a pocket park in the middle of the new main street. It also includes development of parking on the south side of the site which will be used jointly by the Wells Fargo development and the Towne Centre site. Preliminary analysis of the parking provided shows that there are sufficient stalls on site. In fact, there is capacity to increase the size of the retail space as long as there is full cross easement parking allowed on site. The Planning Commission and Design Advisory Team recommended alternative 1 below. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve a development stage planned unit development. Motion contingent on the addition of sidewalk along 4" Street. Motion based on the finding that the commercial PUD is consistent with. the comprehensive plan and consistent with the character of the Walnut Street Corridor. City conditions relating to the City/Wells Fargo land and building exchange are satisfied with this site plan. Selection of this alternative sets the stage for the next step in the exchange process and allows the bank to move toward development stage PUD. If the concept PUD approval is granted it is likely that the bank will push for finalization of the terms of exchange, then apply for development stage PUD approval. City Council Agenda - 08/12/02 2. Motion to deny approval of the concept stage PUD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff, Planning Commission and DAT are supportive of approval of the concept PUD with condition that a sidewalk along 4t" Street is installed. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of Site Plan 2 A dd 6'cke wo 14. MINNESOTA STATE HIGHWAY NO. 25 4,t �. � ,�,y,� p� y n g, yTr�y.,t� r r� fr�,•7 . }(" ,ii �..�i'-+t' ltilrfr't t: L t,•, :a ;xi .F.,:+�.� :�- S. ,� f ..�fdt�i_T"':fcfr' y-� {. I , :v.•��:1j i"FZ�� 'd.•+'visi.a`-'1 ut '.'ty .'yyt� „FT ,-..'' �r� ;ct, a', is". �. I L , l ' rF9. •i.: _2 ; F r . �- , ;'r .y _ • f S • fifk Yr WO Tyr/ � ///�� / \ � .� • '� S c�J �eY _' � F. �J l ! '�9[ rrT .�•i~ !FM'.^"�.1•li.! � i•1 . ili t : z\EXIS TI C� . I \Al \6000 R I 114 t dIr A. .,.,-.. '-:—� ms`s •=�'�;;� . . ; 1� �." � '��,—•:�,s. , ".-�--�-•�' ,. , r� ��•-' ice^ -t-' : s"� . v i :. PIJOPOSI�D'ADE IT AP"E- RTY- tt r I/ �I I I TOTAL PARKING - 44 SPACES . r /�',�• (' Y ' • - r. ,,•..♦ .,.i,,i.�w.•• •' per- w-A.Sx.. •�,a' r r • I I 4 y t { 1 RE r �_ _� 1 •• r • ♦ 4 ,.r" - • :-w2.-.Iw-J�- Y •- �gL.Lrh•c-A , J� ^ "� r• i•(i ." RETAIL ;,:. ; r 7 r 4 , ♦ �..^:'-lam` ty '. ' ,,-. •_ N, ._.+ '�-? � _�- �-:. _ �.-��' � �•� C l��r ,T�i" .�.' �_t�,,:�1- i-�1,b,�lii4�F _ —Y' -1'p_ r - x=.'.adi;-ii7t�r��„-iY.-i'r:-._-..-r ti -'se+, '.:� is 'we•� ' ,y WALNUT STREET FR � l 0 40r so• 12 NORTH r'— (125) CARS SHOWN INCLUDES (44) CARS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER + (14) ON STREE-_-'t•• BKV G R O U P Architecture Interior Design Engineering Boarman Kroos Vogel �Gn r•�o u p IncI . 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612.339,3752 Facsimile: 612.339.6212 www.bkvgroup.com CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my drect supervision and that I am a duty Ucensed Professional ARCHffECT under ;the laws of the State of Minnesota. ARCHITECT Date License Number PROJECT TITLE WELLS FARGO MONTICELLO MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA SHEET TITLE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVISIONS No. DATE DATE 7/30/02 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NO. 1174.74 SHEET NUMBER SDA 0 2001 BKV Group As- -+z +... '° r Council Agenda - 08/12/2002 5F. Review and acceptance of feasibility report for reconstruction of parking lots. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: WSB & Associates was commissioned to complete cost estimates and feasibility studies for the overlaying of the liquor store parking lot as part of the liquor store improvement proj ect and the reconstruction of the block 35 public parking lot. Hi -Way Liquor Parking Lot: Approximately half of the Hi -Way Liquor parking lot was built in the mid 70's with the construction of the liquor store. In the early 1980's the liquor store parking lot was expanded to allow for the increased traffic and to provide parking spots for campers, boats and other recreational vehicles. The entire parking lot is due for an overlay and there are some stressed areas that will need minor repairs prior to the overlaying process. In addition, modifications need to be made at the northwest corner of the parking lot where the new liquor store addition is at a higher elevation than the previous parking area. The feasibility study was not received from WSB & Associates, therefore, the estimated costs for this project are unknown at this time but quotes will be presented at the meeting. Plock 35 Public Parking Lot: This property acquired from the school district in 1958 is believed to have been first paved in the early 60's. It was in extremely poor condition in the late 70's and received a 1 %2" overlay in 1978. The parking lot is currently in poor condition. There are many depressed areas and areas where the bituminous is alligatored right through the overlay as well as the two underlying layers. It is the opinion of the City Engineer and the Public Works Director that an overlay would not be cost effective. Consequently, it is suggested that we remove the three layers of bituminous, reshape and add to the Class 5, and place a 2" layer of base course bituminous and a 1 %2" wearing course to restore the condition and drainage characteristics to the parking lot. The estimated construction cost for the project including a 5% contingency is $40,204.50. Adding 20% indirect costs for engineering, inspections and construction management brings the total estimated cost to $48,245.40. This information is included in the enclosed feasibility study. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to accept the feasibility studies for the two above projects. 2. The second alternative would be not to accept the two feasibility studies and request that one or the other be redone or revised. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation ofthat the City Council review and accept the feasibility studies for both projects Council Agenda - 08/12/2002 as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING' DATA: Copy of feasibility study for block 35, downtown parking lot improvements. Council Agenda - 08/12/02 5G. Consideration of annual maintenance agreement with Wright County,. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The 2002 Maintenance Agreement with Wright County is enclosed for your consideration and approval. Each year the city of Monticello enters into a maintenance agreement with Wright County for snow and ice removal on CSAH 75 from Willow Street to the eastern end of our community at Meadow Oaks Drive. This includes all of the four -lane portion as well as a small amount of two-lane. Also included is 25% of the snow and ice removal on CR 39 West from Kampa Circle to CSAH 75. The maintenance agreement also includes a one time spring sweeping only. The city through this maintenance agreement is responsible for any snow removed by hauling. The county repays the city based upon a three-year average for county costs. The actual payment for 2002 is based upon the average costs for years 1999, 2000 and 2001. The repayment to the city amounts to $11,628.57. The city of Monticello has continued to perform this maintenance on CSAH 75 and CR 39 as we feel it offers a better level of service to our citizens. It is anticipated that the future agreement negotiated in 2003 will be renegotiated based upon the reconfiguration of CSAH 75 which is expected to change the way in which snow and ice removal are handled and may include additional snow removal by hauling. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to approve the 2002 Maintenance Agreement with Wright County as enclosed with the reimbursement for this year of $11,628.57. 2. The second alternative would be not to approve the maintenance agreement with Wright County at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the City Council approve the maintenance agreement as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter from Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer, and the 2002 Maintenance Agreement. WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building 1901 Highway 25 North Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. T.H. 25 and-C.R. 138 Telephone: (763) 682-7383 FAX- (763) 682-7313 January 8, 2002 Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 91 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: 2002 Maintenance Agreement Dear Mr. W teller: CppY WAYNE A. FINGALSON, P.E. Highway Engineer (763) 682-7388 VIRGIL G. HAWKINS, P.E. Assistant Highway Engineer (763) 682-7387 RICHARD E. MARQUETTE Right of Way Agent (763)682-7386 It is once again time to renew our annual municipal agreement for the maintenance activities on the road(s) listed on the enclosed agreement. Wright County has decided to change the method used for computing the reimbursement for these maintenance agreements with Wright County cities. Starting with the 2001 agreements, we will base the reimbursement on the average municipal maintenance costs for the previous three years. Previously, we had based the reimbursement on cost history for only one year. This change will minimize the variability in costs from year to year which can occur, particularly for snow/ice control The estimated total cost on the attached agreement is based on the average of the years 1998, 1999, and 2000 (since 2001 costs are not compiled yet). Please note that the actual payment for this 2002 agreement will be based on the average costs for the years 2001, 2000, and 1999. I have enclosed two copies of the 2002 agreement for your review and approval by the City Council. Please return both copies of the executed agreement. After approval by the County Board, one of the copies will be returned to you for your files. A check reimbursing your city for the maintenance activities covered under our 2001 agreement has already been sent. If you have any questions concerning this or if you note any discrepancies, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Enclosure (2) 2002 Municipal Maintenance Agreements Equal Opportunity /'Affirmative Action Employer 5 :O MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 2002 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Monticello hereinafter referred to as the "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 ofthe 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, 19583 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. PLAN ROAD SEGMENT MILES COST/NII. * TOTAL COST* C. CSAR 75 Willow St. to Meadow Oaks Dr. 5.65 1,299.03 $ 7,339.52 (Includes four lane portion.) D. CSAH 39 From City Public Works Bldg. to 0.32 324.51 103.84 W. Jct. of CSAR 75 B. CSAR 75 Four lane portion 5.22 744.70 3,887.33 B. CSAH 39 From CSAH 75 to Kampa Cir. 0.40 744.70 297.88 ESTIMATED TOTAL = $11,628.57 That routine maintenance shall consist of the following: (Maint. Plan) C. (CSAR 75) - Snow and ice removal. D. (CSAH 39) - 25% of the snow and ice removal. B. One-time spring sweeping only. *Based on average annual costs of years 1998, 1999, and 2000. That when the City deems 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 maintenance outside the curb or street area. That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance. That 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 out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by the City. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees of the City and all other employees of the City engaged in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall be 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 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 part of said City employees while so engaged on any ofthe work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the City. (Sheet 1 of 2) G 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 condemnation proceedings. It is further agreed that any and all full-time 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 the 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 part of said County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the County. That in December of 2002 , the City shall receive payment from the County for their work. This amount shall be based on the 2001 average annual cost per mile for the years 2001, 2000, and 1999 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. ADOPTED: ,20 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council of said City on .20 City Clerk APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: COUNTY OF WRIGHT Name of City Chairman of the Board Date ATTEST: County Coordinator Date (Sheet 2 of 2) 5H Consideration of adopting a resolution approving_ Monticello Heartland Express 2003 Budget and Transit Assistance application., (JG, CS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to review the proposed Monticello Heartland Express Budget and Transit Plan for 2003 and adopt a resolution for City participation in the program. The City currently has a contract with Hoglund Transportation for annual renewals until the year 2004. It is expected that the 2003 year will be renewed with an increase of no more than 4%. The total cost to operate the Heartland Express in 2003 is project at $86,975. Proposed budget costs include purchase of 2700 service hours at $75,924; fuel at $5,000; support personnel at $5,275; and dues, ticket printing and advertising at $1,500. The fuel and service hours cover one bus operating from 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, and a second bus to fill in during peak hours. The total projected budget of 86,975 would be funded by $12,000 in farebox and route guarantee revenue, $26,674 through the property tax replacement aid, and the balance reimbursed through state and federal grants. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt resolutions approving the Heartland Express 2003 Budget Plan and Transit Assistance application. This option would provide a projected budget of $86,975 to operate the Monticello Heartland Express. 2. Motion to deny approval of the Heartland Express 2003 Budget Plan and Transit Assistance Application as well as the Drug and Alcohol Policy. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #1 is recommended. The Heartland Express Bus is providing a much used service to residents of the community and should be continued. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Resolution - Budget CITY OF MONTICELLO RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - ADOPTION OF MONTICELLO HEARTLAND EXPRESS 2003 BUDGET AND TRANSIT APPLICATION Resolved that the City of Monticello enter into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide public transportation service in the city limits of the City of Monticello. Further resolved that the City of Monticello agrees to provide a local share of the total operating cost and 20% of the total capital costs: . Further resolved that the City of Monticello authorizes the Mayor and the City Administrator to execute the aforementioned Agreement and any amendments thereto. Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 12' day of August, 2002. Roger Belsaas, Mayor ATTEST: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator CERTIFICATION I heby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and coreect copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Monticello City Coundcil at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 12th day of August, 2002 as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Dawn Grossinger, Deputy City Clerk �4 r/ a a a U z PLO 49 U 0 0 H E-� 3 0 N O N O W as wx H� H 74 H Hai v� an C-0 A ti rn a 0 ao a� o A low U t� �U C M C LL ('7 O 0 N 00 co w o � � o� U GC o �v � Q w � Q �cg� � 00 coo 0 on l cl, H U a v x u ani Cd Q aG ce W C6 Cd Un 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 t� �U C M C LL ('7 O 0 N 00 co o� GC Q � � � Q �cg� � 00 t� �U C M C LL ('7 O 0 N 00 co U b 0 o M G 0 i1 W O p O. TS a R o a O N C O pI n 0 �30 a o 0 celami E-+ E "' Cq F- [- -+o E- �. N C) zs U a 4 ¢ � •� w � � � •� � o 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N CN Q.( a 4 U U m 0 O V O b 0�0^ v' 669 W N po 0 0 _ N O O en W � rl O O N n r 0 CIOU W � hil O N N O V O b 0�0^ v' 669 W N po 0 0 _ N O O en W � rl O O N n r w LL 0 0 N co 4 M F-- W � hil O ... H 48 UD � � 0 0 M x 0 0 � 0 � o A M M M M M M w LL 0 0 N co 4 M F-- a a a Cd U 0 0 � 0 N 0 N O tri � � iw o N 0 N i O O ~ v v w p 0 y � a IS a4 Ha r-. 0 0 0 0 0 N 69 0 0 0 0 0 64 00 ti 00 N 0 63 N 0 W � v U o 0 O M V H5 CO .� N �C a o b o U N 0 c � � W N O O ri N _ 0 0 66s C O W 49 O 69 V O O N r-. 0 0 0 0 0 N 69 0 0 0 0 0 64 00 ti 00 N 0 63 W � O H H H F 4 +� U N E ra ri ri GO r W a O 0 W � l V==4 � r W A r-. 0 0 0 0 0 N 69 0 0 0 0 0 64 00 ti 00 N 0 63 >C w 0 0 N rn 0 0 o cfl a a) �m U M c LL 0 N a) O H ¢ 4 U R; •-+ U N E >C w 0 0 N rn 0 0 o cfl a a) �m U M c LL 0 N a) 0 0 a a O 0 .y N a GO 0= on 0 N 0 N 0 0 H a 6 N .r � 0 0 O H o � � O N � O O O O N N O O O 6a y � 'L: 00 r- 06 O V9 .4 W 41, O Z C M G LL 0 O N co O O O O a o N 0 N y o00�'' V Qq so4 � O � (Nis o N O N O O O a a o A QqQq4us �. tug 49 00 00 U 0 0 N N z el o a a N � O O V r'j - a N O � •A„ a N Q � b o �a M � 'r' a a+ o w �oON A v ra}M Iu Q � o N � U� C� Gr, E-+ � � �• w rh � ;� ,;� �•+ o5n 19 a IQ.�r ai Ou A Wa oNa Q a � v w NNN a Ha O Z C M G LL 0 O N co v 'a a0000 0000C' M vi [- O a � a F M � d H U v H H H H H 0 0 0 0 d U U 0 00000 O O\ N 0 ooa� kn 00 N 00 wnOOo N N w as C40D a a a c z H H ED wb co a z wPC v a ? 5 7a o vc i-• o VM1 " o M cd w A UD '" o Baa ri o�•:° ,��' a H � '�'� o o �, a x a cd 00 �,° t Q p tx W W cd W ri 1n a H w Qa°�� I � `••' v � � � W N x o � � Q� r� — � aw�"roU cW aCD eq C41) It Qw�a H 0 O W H > NNNN� kn 4n NN N o NN N N N (A N N L�} a0000 0000C' M vi [- O h lz M M d kn N � � a O o O o 0 0 0 kn 0 V1 M lc Vi M M l0 N O W � r-1 N O O N _ coo-+ �t V)o 00 0 0 0 o�00 n00 M N w 00N � 00 O O y N H H H H H 0 0 0 0 d U U 0 00000 O O\ N 0 ooa� kn 00 N 00 wnOOo N N w as C40D a a a c z H H ED wb co a z wPC v a ? 5 7a o vc i-• o VM1 " o M cd w A UD '" o Baa ri o�•:° ,��' a H � '�'� o o �, a x a cd 00 �,° t Q p tx W W cd W ri 1n a H w Qa°�� I � `••' v � � � W N x o � � Q� r� — � aw�"roU cW aCD eq C41) It Qw�a H 0 O W H > NNNN� kn 4n NN N o NN N N N (A N N L�} V N M L 4- 0 c r . O . O . '--i 0) I— 'tet O its � dam' N ON M Orq O00 U d 00 ,--� 00 Cts N CIS N v� M CO `: N a_ O � r r..i m a c o N N __ V7 O O V7 O r �O 701 00 00 �`1 0000 O � W) N 00 00 ONO OM 00 N 00 O O kn � N M N M O i -i R W w w W) in 00 Q1 M 0000 N NM I!t N �-+ N N 06 --� N N N [— QCi N N Cd D a x rA ySaj v C ce 55 >'�4-+ o� W �c1cyy� W moo oma' 4.4 .� ai � , a� t.. ai a., s� o a� a�co � O o> o o c% o o ZE0 H P�-�H HHEoEo fsLO) uuou U — -4 00 01 M X `\` iv l I` 1 i\r _' � I`' F - 1 r / r � 1 r • ♦ - � ; r � \ r - L , -.- r - r'♦ I I I , , 1 1, ' f< I I ♦ � 11 f- 1" f. 1\I 1 �- Ff 0 C -4 -S826,33 04 -E 6=2109'33' ,,f��`� 2v:7•t)8 -- 7 -41.10 .LYS 143916a �, 1, r y l t i 1 1 r♦ r. „ r- .♦ r �=286.46 " 1 1 t. ;-►, C ; t: $ R=11;0.00 I —'a°° N89°52'42"W 477.41 I `,_ Isco —2a� �,RHrrlii✓ JCALt ORAWAGE k MttIrY ' 80 0 40 80 160 \ EASEMENT PER aAT FT. A.Y000 EASEYENr • -- ( IN FEET) \ PER DOG No. sans, I ' r S y O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT I ' FOUND O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT TO BE SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 10939 WITHIN ONE :;p YEAR OF RECORDING OF THIS PLAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY THE EAST LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, T. 121, R. 25 HAS AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NOOb7'11'E. to _ �.;00 �-NW CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 _� • / �--� tI «— y OF SEC. 14, T. 121, R, 25, J / ' WRIGHT COUNTY C.I.M. L J / / ryy . ao C� .`� OTJMT D .:. WEST LINE OF THE dCO / SW 1/4 OF SEC. 14, I I ";. �� I ♦ _I_ r li7 I I I I i° I I I I I I I T. 121, R. 25. L_ ffi �1 I L� \ /I' • A A R I -" I— l i r— I I i �, 589'52"36'W I\/I I I I\I I I I I- I I I I 127.16 �ppp IIW 570 54`W I ' g az m AUG 0 5 2002 Mr.•s✓ombs Frank coos ��,snr., Int~. DRAWAC>E k VM"Y L J \ ♦ \ / I I V !...._ \ J / � i IJ �• N O� �/\ `/\✓'/ MUM PERPAAl \ � '�M �t,!I�p1♦�� t' - -� P �•UJ \ A\ \ Ll. ASP. EASEMENT PER- • DOG. Na 587953_`- \ so . 50 `yy \ / 122.24 \ N89°33'54"E f SE CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 1 \ \ OF SEC. 14, T. 121, R. 25, WRIGHT COUNTY C.I.M. -- •— ` IY At \ I \ 0 KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: That Ocello, LLC, o Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Wright, State of Minnesota, to wit: Outlot D, MONTiCELLO BUSINESS CENTER, according to the recorded plat thereof, Has caused the some to be surveyed and platted as AUTUMN RIDGE and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the thoroughfares and cul de sacs and also dedicate the easements as shown on this plat for drainage and utility purposes only. In witness whereof said, Ocello, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this ____ day of 2002. STATE OF ________—__— COUNTY OF ---- — --- — The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______ --_ 2002 b — —_� Y , -------- ---------------- oe M ------------- of Ocello, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company, Notary Public, ------ —___ County, Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31, 2005 1 hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted the property described on this plat as AUTUMN RIDGE; that this plat Is a correct representation of sold survey, that all distances are correctly shown on the plat in feet and hundredths of a foot; that all monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as shown, or will be correctly placed as required by the local governmental unit; that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on the plat and that there are no wet lands, as defined in the Minnesota Statutes, Section 505,02, Subd, 1 or public highways to be designated other than as shown, --------------------- Paul A. Johnson Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 10938 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this _—_ day of ------------- 2002 by Paul A. Johnson, Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 10938. Notary Public, Anoka County, Minnesota __ My Commission Expires January 31, 2005 This plat of AUTUMN RIDGE was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of ---------- , Minnesota at a regular meeting held this --_ day of _—__—_----_ 2002. -----------------'----____-----, Chairman This plat of AUTUMN RIDGE was approved and accepted in compliance with Minn. Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd.2, by the City Council of the City of ----__—_— , Minnesota, at a regular meeting held this _--- day of — —_--- 2002. ----------------------------_, Maya -------------------------------, Administrator This plot was recommended for approval this ____ day of —_____—___—_- 2002. Wright County Highway Engineer Examined and recommended for approval this ,,,_,__ day of ------------- 2002, ----------------- "_____ Wright County Surveyor Taxes paid for all years through year ____ and transfer entered this _—__ day of -------------- 2002, Wright County Audita — I hereby certify that taxes payable in the year on lands herein described are paid this ___— day of ------------- 2002. Wright County Treasurer I hereby certify that this Instrument was filed In the office of the County Recorder for record on this __ — day of 2002, at ..,_._ o'clock __,M., and was duly recorded in Cabinet Number ----- Document Number County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS t 1 S73*41',a. 1� E la�4� 29,00 .3 3 g6 O 2rW ^ 29.00 X22 24. 25 I AU tUINIIIN Kli)(it A--2009'33" ---->L=42.20 C.8 RG.=S82° i♦ 1 1 i i 1 r 1 1 1 r- i n r ti r C 33 04 E 1 F. -4 1 1 1 1 1 \ 288.68 L _ L / ♦ / \ / L _ L V / 1 L J 4=14039116" \\ L=286.46 R=1120.Oo -15.00 \\ \ 20.00- cP 15.00 \- -20.00 N� \„� ryas % Jr \ (\, ✓ \ oft.. 4 \ �'�oo ,°� rya• � \ \ cP �p 2 50 FT AMOCO EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 587953 4 \ � i 7p 138 HW S \ 6 � 2 oo �, SA- .00 ss'2° 70 g a� �° °0 � ry °o 70,00 S � tisv�'o°° 4 � � � 6 70.0 g $ S73°'so ry� ��a '>0 00 °° ` OBJ LOT D 3 00 ti 9.00 $ N 0 ;10,00 ti� 20� foo \ a. 00 .4Q 0 " � o ° OO " 2 7 2 2000.00 $ \ \ 7 000 2000 $ $ \ \ \ 70 0Q 2 N73°43,54HW / - 1 ` = 8 2000 eta - ti tia•• � \ N7rOUTLOT A _ Asa'°oo 8 a 224tHµ `��31 . x4'0p 24.0p 154.00 DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT k' 24.00 24 S� ?f� OVER ALL OF OUTLOT A S77'44'35" �4� � 00 _ F 1. N 2 o g 29 OO 29. N77022 41 HW Neff 70.00 Nc J a o °O 2¢ 1 p6.00 i' o Wo `� o 4i 48 5 S .� 3 °p 24 00 70.00 ry N a o ^ a `t 29.00 4 00 24.00 24 00 ^ �^� N 1 n 2 0 0 ; v " 70 d $' ry N77"2'41 Hw 154 24.00 2g. OC ci ; o .w h S " 2 .00 S79 026'50-E J7J'89 OUTLOT B Oy N N ` °W °"� Z 70,• o N Z a �w r 7°.00 -.'� �T457,7772 07o44,35 HW N N h U-)' 3 F d- '1 N O , °O Z gj Z N89°52'36"E 127.16 INSET GRAPHIC SCALE 40 0 20 40 80 ( IN FEET 0 DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT TO BE SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 10938 WITHIN ONE YEAR OF RECORDING OF THIS PLAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY THE EAST LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, T, 121, R. 25 HAS AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NOn7'17"E. Mc;COMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS U) ui U) a W 2 LU 0 z a a LL w LU a U z a "C 42W � .Q O M �O cc .v a� M W CD cu ._ w cc Q N o � H � d LU o H •� 0 z a 00 � o N N 0 "C 42W M W to w Q N 00 LU o z oLL z LU a � U Q� Q � � N � o r ® p N �! o cn n v L 0 U ,. C a) c� w Council Agenda - 8/12/02 51. Consideration of approving final pavment to C.W. Houle, Inc. for Groveland 2nd Addition, Proiect No. 2001-05C. (WSB) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: C. W. Houle has recently completed the construction of improvements within the Groveland 2nd Addition and is requesting final payment and acceptance of the utilities by the City. The City Engineer has reviewed the final construction pay voucher and is recommending final payment in the amount of $119,282.83 being made contingent upon receipt of a Consent of Surety to final payment, IC -134 state tax forms, all necessary lien waivers and a two year maintenance bond. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Authorize final payment in the amount of $119,282.83 to C. W. Houle for the improvements to the Groveland 2" Addition, Project No. 2001-05C. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and City Administrator that the final payment be authorized and that the improvement project be accepted by the City. C. SUPPORTING DATA: • Copy of construction pay voucher • Letter from WSB & Associates AUG -08-2002 07:58 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.02/06 August 7, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Construction Pay Voucher No. 8 (Final) Gmveland 2 Id Addition Street, Utilities, and Appurtenant Improvements City of Monticello Project No. 2001-05C WSB Project No. 1338-00 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Please find enclosed the Final Construction Pay Voucher for the above -referenced project in the amount of $119,282.93. We recommend final payment subject to receipt of the following items: 1. Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding state income tax and; 2. Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured. 3. Consent of Surety to Final Payment certification from the contractor's surety. 4. Two-year maintenance bond. Please make payment in this amount to C. W. Houle, Inc. at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. �gjj , Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer Enclosures cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City of Monticello Bryan Houle, C. W. Houle, Inc. Minneapolis • 5t Cloud ' Equal Opportunity Employer r.9%WPWX VJJ&MYo JW !o cqLdac AUG -08-2002 07:58 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. VQU0@V NCL 0 (Final) Vote; 07117102 Pellad Ending: 07116102 Project'. Crow and 2ndAddlVano SUM% UtUltles & APPLIftnant IffiPlOverfients 1Nond"1100-mv Cay Project No. 2001-OSC 'U&M. P?Qa-g2 Mo. 1336-035 9. Vs. Nam EQ, ho - 7635411700 P.03/06 Originil C6n1racU1-'a(,5uM %Z 6.55 TOW Addlhow 90.00 Total Doduclant, W.00 ToW. Funds Rnmyc3evo(d %21 G T*tW Wbrk Certified � gaaG $1,203,793.91 Lass Ritwiw Peen 0. a V/0 SO.00 Law'Prawous Pikyr&Dhm 21 =k3� 0.98 Total Payments Incl-'ThU Vo=hAev I Balance Carried Furn mvU - Approved fbr PaymeK T�A, Vowhgr M3 c051?� 0 19 AssoclaIM& Inc. In accordance with field absorvallan, as performed in accordance vAlh lAdusly standards, and bawd an our prcfewioneG ®Anion, use mataftW k*Wled are saasfamiy and we work properly pert mad in wAardanes with the plans andS. 'oe ROW w®c as-gHtsWd W- bQ @gmp1aV@d Ez(gf Jfg'V 15D2M2 ta 1-D"Nfimad herein &W mm heresy reemmend SM a U �Fuo- Th16 W to CGPJfy that VQ Me DOM 09 rq kil"ad@a, WoWaWw. 9nd WkO, Mo quaWlies wU vduw oY Yjafk witiod horein is a fair appr0-16mat® GS&MIS for the WC�J COVGM6 bly 16110 VoUcher. conlr=or - q n" QRV O -R M6VA@o@) GNCI-1hid �. 'AqqF@VC<- 9©c Payment PJL31816. A�Aftgel?2d Reprasentallve G3 11 7a�' PAGE .02 TOTAL PACE -02 AUG -08-2002 07:58 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.04i06 C z I I N Q Ln w N 0 0) r Go cm N~ � gsssgo�$^gss.s,sss$s 8 'm� 8 � � � 'oo o cm d1 Hl CD 0 a a iR w 69'� CD wG O O O O O g O O O o o O O O G ri in LIS j .,.. $g$g88$$oS$gg$g88 Iwo CD q CL fL U ri O ri U V E o Q W O res s _ Lu JIr W o 3 w la F If Lu J J Y. m m W W gyp: Zc z� a w cdWr� V Q V a c .g, `„ N4 cC°7 p 3 a. �l i� W$ LU z z � z m 2 W m3a W z u" e� C7 z co to V a �f VOJ LLL LCL p in i E d gypp- �i •- q��qjj�ii Ty-� y�� It, evsjj m N N N N N N N N N N N N N t •- N N e 1A t0 1%. Co O)gm wm � r qm q- w- q- ljo --- -- - - - — — — r LL M AUG -08-2002 07 59 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. N N ry N N N I N N N CQ Pl �alNi Go hall, 40 40 A SSSSB$5,8,8S�S88 N ga'Q�, �i g' g' g s N d N Of N N 115 O id zcd r m � m, 7635411700 P.05i06 ILJ ak 1- os n to cm cm CD Me f s8SSs- S$ Iii r z g g$$$ w% on 1p m g r Sgg��gg g g g g �- L a_av° zl t V V itt7L tZ tZ t 1i t t y a d _ E i J v 7635411700 P.05i06 ILJ ak 1- os n to cm cm CD Me f s8SSs- S$ Iii r 4 g V g g$$$ w% on 1p m g r Sgg��gg g g g g �- L a_av° zl t V V itt7L tZ tZ t 1i t t y a J v 7635411700 P.05i06 ILJ ak 1- os n to cm cm CD Me f s8SSs- S$ Iii r 4 g V g g$$$ w% on 1p m g r g g g g g �- L a_av° zl 0 0 o 0 0 0 G O o 0 o o to Vs�� 1g$$-- S ai S$ Iii r 4 g V g g$$$ w% S Ri g g g g g �- L a_av° zl .s To, a E AUG -08-2002 07:59 c WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.06i06 S C H, $ R$$� N Q G O$ S g S, � g -• $ S = V S$& g S g 8 g S S r .0_ v v vt t t t t r rt t t t t V 555 55 455 ;0,.6_ C q Lil � W z z J Z z J J J J J J J W W W Lid V W 1 W a. a _ 0 0 00_7 0 0 0 0 0 I c Z o o v a v W W W �� - U U U U cn Ul- _ a z 2 z z z � 3 � 3� W W W W W W� W LL► W W w w W u1 0� O O O C 0 � C7 C7 C7 C7 G7 C7 C7 Z -Ez z z w w w w w Q CL CL a y y y W 0 0 0 0 G G O W I G c a s wiL a w w w a w_v = a s aQ [C V 8 V V U V U V� V � IA N N w •- •- T' •- � •- w r N N N r ltf V,�tn��m0�� 5�x TOTAL P.06 §�g 3 �� 84 N N r v r lrJ o N pp Oaf 4 !� QQ �J p @! tON f09 pp N G tOR y� aG oo N p B! p e! � - ed . I40 BSSSSSSS,$S.�A�S.-8SSSSS r S C H, $ R$$� N Q G O$ S g S, � g -• $ S = V S$& g S g 8 g S S r .0_ v v vt t t t t r rt t t t t V 555 55 455 ;0,.6_ C q Lil � W z z J Z z J J J J J J J W W W Lid V W 1 W a. a _ 0 0 00_7 0 0 0 0 0 I c Z o o v a v W W W �� - U U U U cn Ul- _ a z 2 z z z � 3 � 3� W W W W W W� W LL► W W w w W u1 0� O O O C 0 � C7 C7 C7 C7 G7 C7 C7 Z -Ez z z w w w w w Q CL CL a y y y W 0 0 0 0 G G O W I G c a s wiL a w w w a w_v = a s aQ [C V 8 V V U V U V� V � IA N N w •- •- T' •- � •- w r N N N r ltf V,�tn��m0�� 5�x TOTAL P.06 Council Agenda - 8/12/02 5J. Consideration of final plat approval for Autumn Ridue. Applicant: Shawn Weinand. (JO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The developer of Autumn Ridge, Shawn Weinand, has requested Council consideration of final plat approval for the Autumn Ridge development, a 167 unit townhome development located west of Oakwood drive and south of School Boulevard. At their July 22, 2002 meeting, the Council approved the preliminary plat and also gave concept and development stage approval to the planned unit development as a consent agenda item. There have been no changes to the preliminary plat design. However, the Parks Commission has scheduled a discussion of park dedication credit as it relates to this plat for their August 15" meeting so any approval should be contingent upon resolution of park dedication requirements. The resolution of the parks dedication requirement will be incorporated into the development agreement which is not completed at this time. Please note that the developer has requested a grading permit to be issued prior to completion of the development agreement. Staff is comfortable issuing the permit upon approval of the grading plan by the City Engineer. In addition the developer will be required to provide a $500/acre restoration project if for some reason the project does not proceed to completion. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the final plat of Autumn Ridge contingent upon determination by the Parks Commission and City Council as to park dedication requirements. Motion also contingent on completion of development agreement and review and approval of plans and specifications by City Engineer. 2. Do not approve the final plat of Autumn Ridge at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since there were no changes from the preliminary plat which was approved by the City Council, staff recommends Alternative #1 . The development agreement will be provided at an upcoming meeting of the City Council. At that time Council will review the Parks Commission recommendation as to the Park Dedication requirement and will have the opportunity to review the development agreement. Approval of the "final" plat under the conditions noted above is in reality an incremental step toward final approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of final plat. Council Agenda - 08/12/2002 7. Public hearing on proposed improvements to downtown parking lot, block 35. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The parking lot in block 3 5 at the corner of Third Street and Walnut Street has a long history with the city of Monticello. For many years the property belonged to the school district. Lying north ofthe Oakwood School block it was not the best location for a playground or other school activities as it was separated from the school by Third Street. In 195 8 a group of businessmen recognized the need for a downtown parking lot. Some familiar names were involved in trying to put a downtown parking lot together, Dale Lungwitz, Donald Pitt, Bob Dowling, Ray Marty, George Phillips and the like. The school district had actually acquired this property in February of 1946 from the Village of Monticello. An agreement was reached in 195 8 to return the property to the city of Monticello in exchange for closing of Fourth Street between Highway 25 and Walnut Street to be used as a school yard. It took until 1974 for the school district to deed the parking lot area to the city. In later years the Fourth Street right of way would also revert back to the city of Monticello after the Oakwood School saw its last students. It is unclear as to when the construction ofthe new parking lot was actually completed, but it is assumed that it was in the late 1950's or early 1960's. In the early 70's, 1974 specifically, a major downtown parking lot improvement project began. It included new parking lots by the old water tower and the area east of Walnut Street and just south of River Street. The general improvements done in 1974 were assessed to a six -block downtown area through a complex formula regarding building size, building uses, required parking and existing parking for each one of the buildings in the area. This assessment was supposed to be reviewed every three years and adjustments made, and also some type of program for charging the six -block area for maintenance was also discussed. The next work done on the parking lot was in 1978 when it received a 1 1/2" overlay and re -striping. About the same time the city acquired another small piece of property north of Johnson's store near the alley behind the Kjellberg building and also expanded that parking lot area in the late 70's. We come to a point today where the parking lot is in extremely poor condition. The pavement has settled in many areas and is alligatored and needs replacement. We have budgeted for this for a couple of years and held off late last year when improvements to the alley were suggested to increase and improve drainage from the rear ofthe stores abutting Broadway (budget totals $30,000). It is possible that such a project may get put together in the future but it does not appear to be in the plans for this year. It is my understanding the EDA is still working with a few business people to improve the backs ofthe stores and improve the alley and possible the parking adjoining them. The City Engineer has developed plans and specifications for this project and is obtaining quotes for this project at the same time as the liquor store parking lot improvements. The actual prices will be available at Monday evening's meeting. However, the feasibility study points out a cost of just under $50,000. While this is not an assessment hearing, some ofthe concerned business people in the six -block downtown area may wish to get some feeling as to whether or not the council wants to assess this project. It is possible that the EDA could fund some ofthe improvement costs ofthe parking lot and the city council Council Agenda - 08/12/2002 could cover the remaining portion from our budget which is from ad valorem taxes and not assess the downtown area. B. ALTERNATI`'E ACTIONS: The first alternative would be to open the public hearing, take input from the citizens and then close the public hearing and move on to the next item, review of the quotes on the parking lot improvement project and consideration of award of contract for the improvements. 2. Since the first alternative really is opening and closing the public hearing, that's all that is necessary for this agenda item. There are no other alternatives. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is a staff recommendation that the city council open the public hearing, take testimony and close the public hearing as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. City Council Agenda - 8/12/02 8. Pub➢ic Dearing - Consideration to approve a resolution adopting the modified, Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No. 1; and establishing within Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No. 1 TIF District No. 1-31 and adoptinL the related TIF Plan therefor., (O.K.) A. Reference and Backiiround: OPEN PUBLIC HEARING The City Council is requested to hold a public hearing and approve a resolution modifying Project No. 1 Plan and establishing TIF District No. 1-31 for Ultra Machining Company (UMC). The taxing jurisdictions received a copy of the proposed TIF Plan on July 12, 2002, thirty days prior to the public hearing, and a public hearing notice appeared in the local newspaper on August 1, 2002, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing, for compliance with Minnesota Statutes. Please open the public hearing for comments and questions. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION Attached you will find an overview of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-31 as prepared by Ehlers & Associates. You will note the overview outlines the project description and required findings of the Council. The district is located along East Chelsea Road in the Monticello Commerce Center. The project is expected to increase the local tax base by $70,012 annually upon completion of the 60,000 sq ft facility. TIF District No. 1-31 is a Economic District and the maximum life duration of the district will be a maximum of 8 years from date of receipt the first tax increment. The project is consistent with the objectives of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Plan and is established for the purpose to facilitate construction of a manufacturing facility. A copy of the entire TIF District No. 1-31 Plan and modified Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Plan are available at City Hall for your review. On August 7, 2002, the HRA adopted a resolution approving the establishment of TIF District No. 1-31. On August 6, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution stating the TIF Plan was consistent with the Comp Plan. The preliminary plat approval by the City Council appears elsewhere on the agenda. One of the required findings by the Council is the "but for" test finding. It is important that the Council feels comfortable with these findings as this is one of the State Auditor's main issues on the TIF Reporting Forms: Insufficient "but for findings" at time of creation of TIF District. Attached is a letter from the developer's lender addressing the "but for" issue. 1 City Council Agenda - 8112/02 No site or building plans have been submitted to the City as of August 9, 2002. The Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA, the City, and Terrace & Mary Tomann Limited Family Partnership describes the level of TIF assistance and the terms and conditions of the contract. Approval of the contract appears as a separate agenda item. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING After closing the public hearing, please consider the following alternative actions relating to the establishment of TIF District No. 1-31. B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve a resolution adopting the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 TIF District No. 1-31 and adopting the related TIF Plan therefor. 2. A motion to deny approval of a resolution adopting the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 TIF District No. 1 -3 1 and adopting the related TIF Plan therefor. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: As the proposed project meets the requirements of the local TIF policies and Minnesota Statutes, the City Administrator and Economic Development Director recommend alternative no. 1. D. Supporting Data: Overview of TIF District No. 1-31, public hearing notice, "but for" test findings, and copy of the resolution for approval. 2 Ehlers & Associates, inc. Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Monticello - Tax 0ncrement Fonancong Dlstftt No. 1-311 The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the tax increment 1~ financing Plan for TIF District No. I-31. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. Redevelopment Project: Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. (Tile Modification is to include the project activities anticipated in Tax Increment District No. 1-31.) Type of TIF District: An Economic Development District Parcel Number: A portion of 155-011-000 171 Proposed Development: The District is being created to facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f. office/manufacturing facility for Ultra Machining Company. MaxilnUlll duration: The duration of District No. 1-31 will be 8 years from the date of receipt of the first increment (9 years of increment). The date of receipt of the first tax increment will be approximately 2004. Thus, it is estimated that District No. 1-31, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2012, or when the Plan is satisfied. Estimated annual tax increment: Proposed uses: Up to $70,012 The "IIF Plan contains the folio\\ Ing, budget: Land/Building Acquisition ................ $395,000 ............................... Site Improvements/Preparation ............ $5,000 Public Utilities....................................................................$50,000 Parking Facilities................................................................ $50,000 interest.............................................................................. $1751000 Adm in istrative Costs (up to 10%) ...................................... $75,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ..........................................$750,000 See Subsection 2-10, page 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized which include inter -fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness. TIF District Overview Form of financing: Financing will be primarily through a $395,000 pay-as-you-go note. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. LGA/HACA- penalty: The 2001 Legislature eliminated the provisions for a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) or the alternative qualifying local contribution. Interf ind Loan Requirement: If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax increment fund, a resolution authorizing a loan from another fund must be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check. 3 Year Activity Rule At least one of the following activities must take place in the District (¢=169.176 SuM. 1q) within 3 years from the date of certification: • Bonds have been issued • The authority has acquired property within the district • The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district • The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is August, 2005. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (§ 469.176 Subcl 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: • Demolition • Rehabilitation • Renovation • Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) • if the activity has not been started by the approximately August, 2006, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. Page 2 TIF District Overview 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments (§ 469.1763 Subcl3) must be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if one of the following occurs: • The revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity • Bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under §. 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund • Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation • Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are spent to reimburse for payment of the costs, including interest Oil unreimbursed costs. • Anv obligations in the Tax Increment District made after approximately August, 2007, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. Page 3 TIF District Overview The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.173, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Tax I17crement Financing District No. 1-31 Is 0117 econon7ic development district as defined in NLS., Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 is a contiguous geographic area within the City's Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated in the Plan, for the purpose of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District consists of a portion of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, which is in the public interest because it will facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f. office/manufacturing facility for Ultra Machining Company which will increase employment in the state. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to ocean• solely Mroatgh private investment irithin the reasonably foreseeable future and that the Increased inarket value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing irould be less than the increase In the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after sub/rucling the present value of the projected tax increlnents for the ma_,diniun dUrution of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of*the City, mould not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investlnenl wilhin the rectvollcibjv f01"eseecible futan"e: This finding is supported by the fact that the development proposed in this plan is a manufacturing facility that meets the City's objectives for economic development. The cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities makes development of the facility infeasible without City assistance. The increased Inarket value of*the site that could reasonably be expected to ocean• without the use of tax Increlnent f nuncing irould be le's's than the Increase in /Market valite estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax Increments for the 177a.Yi17111n7 duration of the TIF District permitted bi• the Plan. The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities add to the total development cost. Historically, site development costs in this area have made development infeasible without tax increment assistance. This site has been marketed for several years without success. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $2,400,000. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to be $495,644. It is the C01111crI's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,904,356 would occur without tat increment assistance in this district within 9 years. This finding is based upon evidence from greneral past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public improvements in the general area of the District (set Casllflow in Appendix D). Page 4 TIF District Overview 3. Finding that the Ta -v Inclement Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 conforms to the general plan, for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the Plan and found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 will afford maxinmin opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and add a high quality development to the City. Page 5 TIF District Overview BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-31 Page 6 oz� � • u U r ij'{ H cj i rX I. - It - 7-- 40 eel in w I . � 111 ] � : ' ,�.: L' . •� r—out � r .. •-.. 'yam �� '' � , � . • i PI ► pr 00, LL .�r �/_� %''-"�`/�..L ► moi• /r? ^ , , , �...rz � , _ n�,��; ii � • • sem- � • 6 ,, _ � ', , � ' j,. �� / - lL'/' i _ i /SLS/ � •� V O`er /'^ '� +� � .• '� ' � r � ' . �� ,,`•�' '�'. vT ' - �� .. 'r' ' � . � ter. •`' 1 'rte ��. � S 110 �r '-{\��' ..�' =sir, � •_ • _ �.• 1. ' j � 1 � y .'� �".;''•:y � , '`� r� ape �K1 �a , ' r7• � • 7� ci R: CO At 71 \r- �.� • �... r� 1..r �'^n i \ [" X11% t ,•r r,./ � �`` � Det 1, 3 SZ ,9' 000 N ................ . ► i}; � .f!w_ 1 fc;s SECRETARY OF STATE •E OF ASSUMED NAME Statutes Chapter 333 'oes not provide a user +;, to r consumer protection in order to enablehts con - ,e owner of a business. e under which the business is or will be con- Acation): Precision Electrical Services . it place of business. A complete street address nber is required; the address cannot be a P.O. o, MN 55362. et address of all persons conducting business if the business is a corporation, provide the office address of the corporation. Attach addi- Boster, 8730 Giffort Ave NE, Monticello, MN Sign this certificate and I further certify that I cate, I am subject to thepenalties of perjury :tion 609.48 as if I had signed this certificate IC NOTICE 3sota Statutes 471.705, and in accordance inces, Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 1-5-1 (B) Y Councial is hereby scheduled for the fol-' ?Ilo City Hall I ounsel NOTICE OF CANDIDACY lust 27, 2002, is the first day for persons 'ember 10, 2002, is the last date for per- -he regular municipal election to be held on, November 5, 2002. Affidavits of the 15362, between thetor at hou s o g Hall, 05 and 2 regular municipal election are: year term) . s, elected at large for 4 -year terms) so f Candidacy is 4:30 p.m., September IC HEARING 4PROVEMENTS 3KING LOT "cil of the City of Monticello will meet it the Monticello City Hall to consider arking lot located on Lots 1,2 and 3, llo, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § assessed for such improvements ck containing Block 34, 35, 36, of ticello. The estimated cost of reference to the proposed improvp- Monticello (Minn.) Times—Thursday, AUg. 1, 200`2-1-, age 9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MONTICELLO STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Cit Wright County State of Minnesota, will hold public he�arings on City Of Monticello, at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Monticello City Council Chambers i 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, gust 12, 2002, HousingRedevelop Monticello, Minnesota, relating to the in City Modifictiontlo hRedevelopment Plan forhCeHRA Project No. 1 the `° ") Proposed adoption of a ( Redevelopment Plan"), the proposed Mont�establishment Redevelopmentcello Tax Increment Financing No. 1-31 and Tax Increment Financing No. 1_ nomic development tax increment financnd the ing districts) within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 32 (both eco - Financing Plans (the "TIF Plans")t therefor (the Redevelopment Plan heIF Plans are referred to collectively herein as he "Planadoption of Tax Increment Statutes, 469.001 through 469.047 and QarrF�,., ...�. . _„. and the TIF as amender+ ��_: spursuant to Minnth ^t_ e City l the Plans are on file and available for publi1/4 to 469 c�inspection at the office of the City Clerk at City Hall. The properties to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. Tax Increment Financing No. 1-32 are located within Central Redevelopment Project No, 1 1 31 and Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and TaOf x Increment Financin I Monticello 1-31 and Tax Increment Financingy Monticello. Maps of Central certain limitations, tax increment from Tax Increment Financing DistrriictD'strict N o. 1-32 therein are set forth below. Subject to and Tax Increment Financing No. 1-32 may be spent on eligible uses w' boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. No 1-31 within the i :dpi i4�ds i 4 C'Esal, mow.: + MAI, ft"Ak'' PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 471.705, a special meeting the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority is hereby sched following time, date, and place; dfot of e. TIME: 5:00 p l„ scheduled for the DATE: Wednesday, August 7, 2002 PLACE: 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, Bridge Room SUBJECT Workshop prior to regular meeting for input from financial ant relative to McComb Financial Analysis. (August 1, 20Q2) I consult - �.z' I I Cl� .+rr rr.+.m+•w 7 . , J. gg• All y interested persons may a ly or prior to the meeting in writing ear at the hearing and BYORDER OF THE Cl NESOTA TY COUNCIL present their views oral- OF THE CITY --City Clerk OF MONTICELL O, MIN - (August 1, 2002) PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 471.705, a special meeting the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority is hereby sched following time, date, and place; dfot of e. TIME: 5:00 p l„ scheduled for the DATE: Wednesday, August 7, 2002 PLACE: 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, Bridge Room SUBJECT Workshop prior to regular meeting for input from financial ant relative to McComb Financial Analysis. (August 1, 20Q2) I consult - TIF Contract 011ie Koropchak From: Dick Salonek [dicksalonek@ultramc.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:13 PM To: 011ie Koropchak Subject: "But For" Letter M. Page 1 of 1 Our hanker, Kurt Schrupp, sent me a draft of the "but for" letter. Would the following wording fit the bill? Re: Terrance & Mary Tomann Family Limited Partnership To whom it may concern: TCF National Bank is processing an application for construction and permanent mortgage financing for the above referenced partnership. This application is not acceptable without the support of the TIF agreement. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schrupp Senior Vice President Please let me know. Thanks. Dick Salonek UMC, Inc. PIS: 763-478-0609 FAX: 763-478-6483 dicksalonek@ultramc.com www.ultramc.com 8/8/2002 CITY OF MONTICE LLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-31 THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE 1T RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the HRA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the ''Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans. 1.03. The HRA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of Wright Countv and Independent School District No. 882 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by lave. 1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City or HRA files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the bases for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms. ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as frilly a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 but is, however, modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor. Section 2. Findim-)s for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans. 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.17.4, Subd. 12. 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment or development of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City, which is already built Lip. to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans. 5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the HRA. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 5.03 The Auditor of Wright County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased, and the HRA is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Dated: August 12, 2002 Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.173, Siibd. 3 are as follows: Finding that the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 is an economic development district cls defined in NLS., Section 469.174, Sitbd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 is a contiguous geographic area within the City's Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated in the Plan, for the purpose of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District consists of a portion of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, which is in the public interest because it will facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f. office/manufacturing facility for Ultra Machining Company which will increase employment in the state. 2. Finding that the proposed developinent, in the opinion of the City Colmcil, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable fiititre and that the increased inarket value of the site that coltld reasonably be expected to OCC117' without the rise of tax increlnellt.fllanCllig ivould be less than the Increase In the inarket value estimated to result fi"om the proposed development after subtracting the present valite of the projected tn_t increments for the Inaximulll duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would nOt reasonably be expected to occlir solely through private investment ivithin the rectsonablv.foi•eseeable fittitre: This finding is supported by the fact that the development proposed in this plan is a manufacturing facility that meets the City's objectives for economic development. The cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities makes development of the facility infeasible without City assistance. The increased inarket valise of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax incretnent financing ii,ould be less than the increase In inarket value estimated to result front the proposed development c fter slibtracting the present value Of the projected tax increments for the inaxilnitin ditratlon of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities add to the total development cost. Historically, site development costs in this area have made development infeasible without tax increment assistance. This site has been marketed for several years without success. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $?,400,000. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to be $495,644. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,904,356 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 9 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public improvements in the general area of the District (see Cashflow in Appendix D). Finding that the Tux Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 conforms to the general phin for the development or redevelopment of the mzrnicipality as a tii,hole. The Planning Commission reviewed the Plan and found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 1. Finding that the Tu_r Increment Financing Plan for Ta -c Increment Financing District No. 1-31 will afford maxunum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City cis a whole, for the development of Central Monticello Redevelopinent Project No. I by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and add a high quality development to the City. City Council Agenda - 8/12/02 9. Public Hearing - Consideration to approve a resolution adopting the modified, Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1: and establishing within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 TIF District, No. 1-32 and adopting the related TIF Plan therefor., (O.K.) A. Reference and Background: OPEN PUBLIC HEARING The City Council is requested to hold a public hearing and approve a resolution modifying Project No. 1 Plan and establishing TIF District No. 1-32 for Production Stamping, Inc. The taxing jurisdictions received a copy of the proposed TIF Plan on July 12, 2002, thirty days prior to the public hearing, and a public hearing notice appeared in the local newspaper on August 1, 2002, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing, for compliance with Minnesota Statutes. Please open the public hearing for comments and questions. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION Attached you will find an overview of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-32 as prepared by Ehlers & Associates. You will note the overview outlines the project description and required findings of the Council. The district is located along East Chelsea Road in the Monticello Commerce Center. The project is expected to increase the local tax base by $91,898 annually upon completion of the 60,000 sq ft facility and the addition of 40,000 sq ft. TIF District No. 1-32 is a Economic District and the maximum life duration of the district will be a maximum of 8 years from date of receipt the first tax increment. The project is consistent with the objectives of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Plan and is established for the purpose to facilitate construction of a manufacturing facility. A copy of the entire TIF District No. 1-32 Plan and modified Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Plan are available at City Hall for your review. On August 7, 2002, the HRA adopted a resolution approving the establishment of TIF District No. 1- 32. On August 6, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution stating the TIF Plan. The preliminary plat approval by the City Council appears elsewhere on the agenda. One of the required findings by the Council is the "but for" test finding. It is important that the Council feels comfortable with these findings as this is one of the State Auditor's main issues on the TIF Reporting Forms: Insufficient "but for findings" at time of creation of TIF District. Attached is a letter from the developer's lender addressing the "but for" issue. 1 City Council Agenda - 8/12/02 No site or building plans have been submitted to the City as of August 9, 2002. The Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA, the City, and Wurm Partnership L.L.P. describes the level of TIF assistance and the terms and conditions of the contract. Approval of the contract appears as a separate agenda item. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING After closing the public hearing, please consider the following alternative actions relating to the establishment of TIF District No. 1-32. B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve a resolution adopting the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 TIF District No. 1-32 and adopting the related TIF Plan therefor. 2. A motion to deny approval of a resolution adopting the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 TIF District No. 1-32 and adopting the related TIF Plan therefor. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: As the proposed project meets the requirements of the local TIF policies and Minnesota Statutes, the City Administrator and Economic Development Director recommend alternative no. 1. D. Supporting Data: Overview of TIF District No. 1-32, public hearing notice, "but for" test findings, and copy of the resolution for approval. 2 Ehlers & Associates, Inco Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Monticello - Tax Increment Financing Dastftt No. 1-3 The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. Redevelopment Project: Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. (The Modification is to include the project activities anticipated in Tax Increment District No. Type of TIF District: An Economic Development District Parcel Number: A portion of 15 5-0 1 1-0001 71 Proposed Development: The District is being created to facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f. office/manufacturing facility for Production Stamping. Inc. Maximum duration: The duration of District No. 1-32 will be 8 years from the date of receipt of the first increment (9 years of increment). The date of receipt of the first tax increment will be approximately 2004. Thus, it is estimated that District No. 1-32, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2012, or when the Plan is satisfied. Estimated annual tax Up to $91,898 increment: Proposed uses: The TIF Plan contains the following budget: Land/Building Acquisition ...............................................$295,000 Site Improvements/Preparation..........................................$50,000 Public Utilities...................................................................., - $�0 000 Parking Facilities................................................................- $�0,000 Interest............................................. ................................. _ x,000 $27- Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ......................................$80.000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS .......................................... See Subsection 2-10, page 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full buds(let authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized V� hich include inter -fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness. TIF District Overview Form of financing: Financing will be primarily through a $295,000 pay-as-you-go note. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. LGA/HACA penalty: The 2001 Legislature eliminated the provisions for a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) or the alternative qualifying local contribution. interfund Loan Requirement: If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax increment fund, a resolution authorizing a loan from another fund must be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check. 3 Year Activity Rule At least one of the following activities must take place in the District (§469.176 Subcl lu) within 3 years from the date of certification: • Bonds have been issued • The authority has acquired property within the district The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district ® The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is August, 2005. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (§ 469.176 Subd 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: Demolition • Rehabilitation • Renovation • Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) • If the activity has not been started by the approximately August, 2006, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. Page 2 TIF District Overview 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments (§ -169.1763 Sub(l3) must be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if one of the following occurs: • The revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity • Bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under §. 148(c)( I ) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement find • Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation • Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are spent to reimburse for payment of the costs, inClud►nQ interest on unreimbursed costs. • Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after approximately August, 2007, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. Page 3 TIF District Overview The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.173, Sutbd 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Tux Increment Financing District No. 1-32 is till economic development district as defined in ILLS., Section 469.174. Subd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 is a contiguous geographic area within the City's Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated in the Plan, for the purpose of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District consists of a portion of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, which is in the public interest because it will facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f. office/manufacturing facility for Production Stamping, Inc. which will increase employment in the state. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council would not reusollctbly be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reclsonably foreseeable fittithe and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tcix increment financing would be less Am the increctse in the market valute estimated to result,fi-0171 the proposed development c fter subtracting the present valute of the projected tax illcreinents for the lnaxinlun7 duration of Tctx Increment Fincncing District No. 1-32 permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investrllent within the recisorlctbly foreseeable fittitre: This finding is supported by the fact that the development proposed in this plan is a manufacturing facility that meets the City's objectives for economic development. The cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities makes development of the facility infeasible without City assistance. The increased market value of the site that could recisoncibly be expected to occur irithout the use of tctx lncrelnent final7cing would be less thein the Increase in nlCtl'ket vclllte estinwied to result fl'oln the proposed developinent after subtracting the present value of the projected tux increlnents for the n7ctxil)nun chtrcition of the TIF District permitted by the Plun: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities add to the total development cost. Historically, site development costs in this area have made development infeasible without tax increment assistance. This site has been marketed for several years without success. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $1.854,400. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to be $525,211. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,329,189 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 9 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public improvements in the general area of the District (see Cashflow in Appendix D). Page 4 TIF District Overview 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plannin(T Commission reviewed the Plan and found that the Plan conforms to the aerneral development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and add a high quality development to the City. Page 5 TIF District Overview BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. I-32 Page 6 a 6�� t JPU µ t >t t y � s3THrA rY F CL 6211YA Y IxCL A32US r� V a 6�� t JPU r f f• ,% , j Q A Z � �� •�i 1 ' E FEZ,........ 9000 N ........... If V"f-v- ?7 1 01 / It If fill / ! / .�� Irr Its �'/T I►t! !fit ! 1111 �Itl l rl�l if 11 ? �i.......�...•....,,. ....... l l 1 Z t 3 „CZ ,9P000 .Q, .... i Es rig vo µ t >t t y � s3THrA F 6211YA A32US r f f• ,% , j Q A Z � �� •�i 1 ' E FEZ,........ 9000 N ........... If V"f-v- ?7 1 01 / It If fill / ! / .�� Irr Its �'/T I►t! !fit ! 1111 �Itl l rl�l if 11 ? �i.......�...•....,,. ....... l l 1 Z t 3 „CZ ,9P000 .Q, .... i Es rig vo �I 1� i V. _r - ' '�_'1 � 1' � ..�� r �- 1. �, •� � :, , i;� !;ti r k 956 ell 11 rl 41 / .'t �'• ~ � fir. - _.- .I �� .>> /,.C'r" ' � -. �':. ,nom •'.: ,� \. � �/ - s r �• ,0,, ' ��04-1 } t ., �� f fC >> , _ ice. ! �-►`• S ► �� 'r ! ' r. -o ff j' r� P ; ► •� r► �m sir �� r om►� mob Mo. ' - 4 r 10 IP /. 1 f i•.oe,Ott U. ,; vf.� s .. �._,� 777 ,+ , t • • \� . i' ' CA ev �I 1� i V. _r - ' '�_'1 � 1' � ..�� r �- 1. �, •� � :, , i;� !;ti r k 956 ell 11 rl 41 / .'t �'• ~ � fir. - _.- .I �� .>> /,.C'r" ' � -. �':. ,nom •'.: ,� \. � �/ - s r �• ,0,, ' ��04-1 } t ., �� f fC >> , _ ice. ! �-►`• S ► �� 'r ! ' r. -o ff j' r� P ; ► •� r► �m sir �� r om►� mob Mo. ' - 4 r 10 IP /. 1 f i•.oe,Ott U. ,; vf.� s .. �._,� 777 ,+ , t • • \� . i' ' CA Iblic :es SECRETARY OF STATE E OF ASSUMED NAME Statutes Chapter 333 ,es not provide a user with exclusi„^ r��- cS to onsumer protection in order to enable co- owner of a business. under which the business is or will be con- lication): Precision Electrical Services. I place of business. A complete street address iber is required; the address cannot be a P.O. >, MN 55362. �t address of all persons conducting bu if the business is siness a corporation, provide the )ffice address of the corporation. Attach addi- 30ster, 8730 Giffort Ave NE, Monticello, MN ign this certificate and I further certify that I gate, I am subject to the penalties of perjury Cion 609.48 as if I had signed this certificate NOTICE - sota Statutes 471.705, and in accordance ices, Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 1-5-1 (B), C' ,ial is hereby scheduled for the fol - 10 City Hall ounsel NOTICE >F CANDIDACY est 27, 2002, is the first day for persons ?tuber 10, 2002, is the last date for per - ie regular municipal election to be held >n, November 5, 2002. Affidavits of je City 5362, betweeAdministrator Hall505 thehours o 8 a.m. and regular municipal election are ear term) - - - elected at large for 4 of -year terms) Candidacy is 4:30 p.m., September C HEARING PROVEMENTS KING LOT cil of the City of Monticello will meet the Monticello City Hall to consider rking lot located on Lots 1,2 and 3, 0, P(Irsuant to Minnesota Statutes § aF 9d for such improvements )f 35, 36 Mont cello. Thcontainine estimatedslock cost Of efc;rence to the proposed improvp- Monticello (Minn.) Times—Thursday, Hug. 1, 2002—Hage 9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MONTICELLO NOTICESTATE OT IS HEREBY GIVEN that Othel�C;ECounAcil of the Ci Wright County, State of Minnesota, wilt hold public hearings on Au at approximately 7:00 m �' of Monticello, R at the Monticello CityCouncil Chambers Cf' 2002' 505 Walnut Street, Suite i, Monticello, Minneota, rcil C to r Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (the sots h' Halt, Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello R e Monticello Project No. 1 the 'Redevelopment ") Proposed adoption of a Increment Financing Plan"), th nt Redevelopment Increment development tax incremand ent ax financing the proposed establishment of Tax Redevelopment Project inc 1 Financing No. Central (both eco - Financing Plans (the "TIF Plans") therthe efor Proposed a within Central Monticello Plans are referred e collectively herein a the "Plans"),adoption of Tax Increment Statutes, 46 fern through collectively 7 and n as the e Puss Pian and the TIF pursuant to Minnesota the amended, C°nio� "" � . � + LO 4by.179, all inclusive, Nit, l rk runs are on file and available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk at City Hall. The properties to be included in Tax -Increment Financing District N Tax Increment Financing No. 1-32 are located within Cent Redevelopment Project No. 1 °• 1-31 and Monticello Rent Pr and the City of Monticello. Maps Of Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District NCentral 1-31 and Tax Increment Financing No. 1-32 therein are set forth below. Subject to certain limitations, tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District and Tax Increment Financing No. 1-32 may be spent on eligible uses e boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 No. 1-31 within the 1tC'N'I:1C �iwl� �� flX't#t Ati interested persons may a x•. � �� • ly or prior to the meeting in waiting ear at the hearing andPresenttheir views oral- lyBy OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOIVTICE —City Clerk LLO, MIN - (August 1, 2002) Pursuant to the provisiPUBLIC NOTICE ons of Minnesota Statutes 471.705, a special the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority is hereby scheduled following time, date, and place: n meeting of TIME: 5:00 Y duffed for the DATE: Wednesda PLACE: 505 Walnut Street, MonOtiicello Bridge Room SUBJECT Workshop prior to regular meeting for input from financial consult- ant relative to McComb Financial Analysis. (August 1, 2002) CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 19 AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-32 THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the „City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Monticello 1-10using and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. it has been proposed by the HRA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, 111CIllding Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans. 1.03. The FiRA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of Wright County and Independent School District No. 882 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City or HRA files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation C011stitllt111y(y or relating to the bases for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The City Is not modifying the boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I but is, however. nlodifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor. Section 2. Findin,us for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans. 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic development district" under Minnesota Stcalites, Section 469.174, Sarbd. 12. 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment or development of the District by Private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City, which is already built up, to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans. 5.01. The Plans. as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the HRA. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to ne(yotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, docLIments and contracts necessary for this purpose. 5.03 The Auditor of Wright County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the HRA is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The Cite Clerk is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by COUncil member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Dated: August 12, 2002 Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 as required pursuant to M.S., Section X169.173, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that the Ta_y Increlnent Filh-InCina District No. 1-32 is an eCO1701111c development district as de fi11ea1 in M.S., Section 469.17-1, Subd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 is a contiguous geographic area within the City's Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated in the Plan, for the purpose of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District consists of a portion of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, which is in the public interest because it will facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f. office/manufacturing facility for Production Stamping, Inc. which will increase employment in the state. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion Of ' the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to octan' soleli, through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable filtUre and that the increased market value of the site that could reusonably be expected to octan' without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the Inarket value estimated to result fi'oll the proposed development Clfter SUbtractillg the present value of the projected tax increments for the 1770.Yi/7?1[1l? duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 permitted by the Plan. The proposed developlzent, in the OpiliOn Of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private 1111'estment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the development proposed in this plan is a manufacturing facility that meets the Citv's objectives for economic development. The cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities makes development of the facility infeasible without City assistance. The increased market value Of the site that could reasonably be expected to octal' tii ithout the use of tux increllent f ntllcing 1i,ould be less than the increase in market value estimated to result f1'oin the proposed deVC10p177e17t after subtl'aCting the present Value of the projected tax increlnent.S' for the ina_yin711117 duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of land acquisition, site and public improvements and utilities add to the total development cost. Historically, site development costs in this area have made development infeasible without tax increment assistance. This site has been marketed for several years without success. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted xvith tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $1,854.400. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to be $525,21 1. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1.329,189 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 9 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public improvements in the general area of the District (see Casil low in Appendix D). 3. Finding thut the Tux Increment Finuncing Plan for Tclx Increment Financing District No. 1-32 confor111S 10 the general plum for the development or redevelopment of the lnunicipulity us a tivhole. The Plannin(Y Commission reviewed the Plan and foUnd that the Plan conforms to the szeneral development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 hill afford maximum opportunity, consistent lvith the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and add a high quality development to the City. City Council Agenda - 8/12/02 11. Public Hearing - Consideration to approve the business subsidv for Production Stamping, Inc. and to authorize entering into a Contract for Private Development. among the HRA, the Citv, and Wurm Partnership L.L.P. (O.K.) A. Reference and backer -round: PUBLIC HEARING The business subsidy notice appeared in the local newspaper August 8, 2002, for compliance of the Minnesota Statutes 2000, 116J.994: Before granting a business subsidy that exceeds $100,000 for a local government grantor, the grantor must provide public notice and a hearing on the subsidy. Please open the public hearing for comments. CONTRACT INCLUDING THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT The Contract for Private Development outlines the terms and conditions of TIF assistance to the developer, Wurm Partnership L.L.P. dba Production Stamping, Inc. The Contract was drafted by Dan Greensweig, Kennedy & Graven, and a copy provided to the developer. Generally, the Contract is executed or agreed upon between the parties, prior to the City Council approving the establishment of the TIF District. The HRA agreed to reimburse the developer up to $295,000 of the $473,584 land cost. Interest rate of 7.25%. The City agreed to waive or forgive $41,670, a portion of the $67,116 trunk fees. The developer agreed to construct a 60,000 sq ft office/ manufacturing facility on 7 acres of land located along East Chelsea Road. The Business Subsidy Agreement, Section 3.5, includes the general terms, job and wage goals, remedies, reports, and audits for the purpose of the Business Subsidy Act. The construction commencement date is this fall with completion by July 1, 2003 . The developer must provide a copy of the purchase agreement, evidence of short and long term financing, evidence for "but for" test, and proof of insurances prior to issuance of the building permit. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING Prior to closing the public hearing, please publicly identify and summary the terms of the business subsidy to Production Stamping, Inc. by the Authority: $295,000 pay-as-you-go TIF note at an interest rate of 7.25% over 8 years for land write-down. City Council Agenda - 8/12/02 13. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve the business subsidy for Production Stamping, Inc. and to authorize entering into the Contract for Private Development among the HRA, the City, and Wurm Partnership L.L.P.. 2. A motion to deny approval of the business subsidy to Production Stamping, Inc. and to deny authorization to enter into the Contract ............................. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: Recommendation is Alternative No. 1. D. Supportine Data. Excerpts of the Contract including the Business Subsidy Agreement. 2 Qt tvvel. Shadow and Bakeberg were fire alarm call carne at 8 p.m. Su[ called in to search along the river Ambulance runs to the Terrace View Apartments:a banks for the two young men, and Big Lake -Monticello Ambulance Area Public ■ Notices PUBLIC NOTICE -- - - - ---- City Tax lnpTIF TIF District Name: Financing (Official' Publication) I -I (Lincoie Notice of Inspection of Annual Report------------- Current net tax capacity NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the annual report (IRS Form 990PF) for —Original net tax ca put;ry V.O.S.H. MN is available for public inspection at 225 Mississippi Drive, Monticello, Capturednet net tax capacity � MN 55362. Persons wishing to review the report should contact Robert Rolling at Principal and interest payments due auring the above address or phone 763-295-4028. current year (August 8, 2002) Tax increment received Tax increment expended NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Month and vear of first tax increment receipt CITY OF MONTICELLO Date ofrequireddecertification e NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, Increased property tax imposed on other will hold a public hearing on Monday, Aug. 12, 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, properties as a result of fiscal disparities 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, Minnesota, regarding a proposed business subsidy contribution " to be granted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of - ----- Monticello, Minnesota, to Production Stamping, Inc. (the "Recipient") under Tar Increment: TIF District Name: Financing Duni Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.994. The proposed subsidy 1-06 [Raindani involves a tax increment finance pay-as-you-go note to assist with land acquisition costs as part of the development of a manufacturing facility by the Recipient of the Current net tax capacity City. Or.iginal net tax capacity- - Information about the proposed business subsidy and a copy of the draft busi- cap�a��d net tax capacity - ness subsidy are available for inspection at City Hall during regular business Priv ipal?ndinterestpay[nentsdueda�ing current year hours. All interested persons may appear and be heard orally and in writing. rax_incremant�eca;yea Tax increment expended -Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Monih and veer of first iaz increment -receipt Ju6 (August 8, 2002) Date of required decertification 12-31 Increased _PlopTri,7 tax imposed on other PUBLIC NOTICE properties as a result of fiscal disparities Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 471.705, a special meeting of contribution ' the MCC Advisory Board is hereby scheduled for the following time, date, and The fiscal disparity property tax law provides that the growth in place: throughout the area. In a tax increment financing district. this va4 TIME: 4:30 p.m. other properties in the municipality or result in a decrease in tar in the tax increment financing district is established. DATE: Thursday, August 8, 2002 PLACE: Monticello City Hall The districts noted by " above do not share growth in commercial SUBJECT: 2003 Budget increase ;n property taxes for other properties located in that munie (August 8, 2002) taxes on other properties amounted to the values listed above. Additional information rt_arding each district may be obtained froj PUBLIC NOTICE AFFIDAVITS OF CANDIDACY _ - Tar Increment NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that August 27, 2002, is the first da for TIF District Name: Financing District Ni ' g y persons F to file an Affidavit of Candidacy, and September 10, 2002, is the last date for per- I-li [Custom Canog t' sons to file an Affidavit of Candidacy for the regular municipal "election to be held Current net tax capacity I?3 in conjunction with the General Election, November 5, 2002. Affidavits -of Original net tax capacity i Candidacy may be filed at the office of the City Administrator at City Hall, 505 Captured net tax capacity Walnut Street, Suite # 1, Monticello, MN 55362, between the hours of 8 a.m. and Principal and interest payments due during — - — 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. `°`�`°`yC1f 7r Municipal offices to be filled in the 2002 regular municipal election are: rax increment received 13.11 Mayor: (elected at large for a 2 -year term) Tax increment expended 7.d: Councilmembers: (two vacancies, elected at large for 4 -year terms) Month and ytaroffirst tax increment receipt July 199 The closing time for the filing of Affidavits of Candidacy is 4:30 p.m., September Date ofrequired decertification 04-IZ•300 10, 2002. A filing fee of $2 is required. ' -Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator (August 1, 8, 2002) Tax Increment TIF District Name; Financing District Na. " 1-18 (River Mill] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS Current net tax capacity DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT ori -incl net tax capacity — i? TO WHOM -IT MAY CONCERN: -captured net tax capacity 2.10 Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Monticello will meet Principal and interest payments due during ----- current year � at 7 p.m. on the 12th day of August, 2002 at the Monticello City Hall to consider - -Ta mercer;eni«tied—_.__—___-._._—_—_._.-_ 10.416the making of improvements to the public parking lot located on Lots 1,2 and 3, Tax increment expended 20.406 Block 35, Original Plat of the City of Monticello, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § - -;Month ahayear or rest pax tax receipt - -- - Ju,v1999 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvements ----------- Date of required decertification 11-28-2006 are the properties located with in the six block area containing Block 34, 35, 36, --- 51, - -,-- - 51, 52 and 53 of the Original Plat of the City of Monticello. The estimated cost of the improvement is $48,529. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improve- ment will be heard at this meeting. -Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Additional information regarding each district may be obtained from: (August 1, 8, 2002) i ARTCLE III Acquisition of Property; Financial Assistance Section 3.1. Status of the Development Property. As of the date of this Agreement, the Developer has entered into a purchase agreement with a third party for the Development Property. The Authority shall have no obligation to purchase the Development Property or any portion thereof. Section 3.2. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that neither the Authority nor the City makes any representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Development Property or its fitness for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority. the City, and their governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the Development Property. The Developers obligations under this Section 3.2 shall survive termination of this Agreement. Section 3.3. Payment of Administrative Costs. The Developer agrees that it will pay upon demand by the Authority, Administrative Costs (as hereafter defined). For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Administrative Costs" means out-of-pocket costs incurred by the Authority and attributable to or incurred in connection with the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and other documents and agreements in connection with the development contemplated hereunder. Out-of-pocket Administrative Costs shall be evidenced by invoices, statements, or other reasonable written evidence of the costs incurred by the Authority. As of the date of this Agreement, the Developer has deposited $5,000 with the Authority to be applied toward Administrative Costs. The amount by which this deposit exceeds the Authority*s actual Administrative Costs, if any, shall, upon demand by the Developer, be returned to the Developer, but no earlier than the date on which the Developer receives a Certificate of Completion pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement. Section 3.4. Financing of Land Acquisition Costs. In order to make development of the Minimum Improvements economically feasible, the Authority will reimburse the Developer for the Land Acquisition Costs in accordance with the following terms and conditions: (a) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Land Acquisition Costs will be reimbursed to the Developer with simple interest thereon at 7.25% per annum, interest commencing to accrue on the date that the Developer complies with the cost certification requirement described in paragraph (f) of this Section. The Land Acquisition Costs will be reimbursed by the Authority to the Developer in semi-annual installments payable on each February 1 and Au ust 1 ("Payment Dates") commencing? August 1, 2004 and concluding no later than the Termination Date. These payments will be made from Available Tax Increment as defined in this Section 3.4 and from no other source. (b) The term "Available Tax Increment" means 90% of the Tax Increment with respect to the Development Property as calculated by the County and paid to the Authority durina the six WG -2W140 7 MN 190-103 months preceding any Payment Date. (c) If on any Payment Date there is available to the Authority insufficient Available Tax Increment to pay the amounts due on such date, the amount of such deficiency shall be deferred and shall be paid, without interest thereon, on the next Payment Date on which the Authority has available to it Available Tax Increment in excess of the amount necessary to pay the amount due on such Payment Date. (d) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any portion of the Land Acquisition Costs that remains unpaid after the Termination Date. The Authority may prepay all or a portion of the Land Acquisition Costs at any time. (e) The Authority shall not be obligated to make any payment under this Section if: (i) there is an Event of Default on the Developer's part under this Agreement that has not been cured; or (ii) the Developer has failed to comply with the payment procedures described herein. (f) At least 30 days before becoming entitled to receive any payment hereunder, the Developer must submit to the Authority a payment request certificate signed by its duly authorized representative stating: (i) that the Developer has paid Land Acquisition Costs in at least the amount of $295,000; (ii) that no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing under this Agreement, and (iii) that the Developer has received a Certificate of Completion pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement. The payment request certificate must be accompanied by evidence satisfactory to the Authority that the Land Acquisition Costs have been incurred and paid by the Developer, and without limitation of the foregoing. must include a copy of the purchase agreement, a certificate of real estate value evidencing the purchase price paid by the Developer for the Development Property. and evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Authority that the purchase price did not exceed the fair market value of the Development Property at the time of the Developer's acquisition of it. (g) The Authority makes no warranties or representations that Available Tax Increment will be sufficient to pay the Land Acquisition Costs. The Developer agrees and understands that Available Tax Increment is subject to calculation by the County and change in State law, and that a significant portion of Land Acquisition Costs may remain unpaid after the Termination Date. The Developer further agrees and understands that estimates of Available Tax Increment provided by the Authority and its agents, officers, or employees are estimates only and not intended for the Developer's reliance. Section 3.5. Business Subsidv Agreement. The provisions of this Section constitute the "business subsidy agreement- between the Developer and the Authority and between the Developer L- and the City, for the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act. (a) Genet -al Tei-irs. The parties a�cyree and represent to each other as follows: (1) The subsidy provided to the Developer by the Authority consists of payments to the Developer for Land Acquisition Costs pursuant to this Agreement and the waiver by the City of certain sewer and water trunk fees. These payments and waivers represent a forgivable loan that is repayable by the Developer in accordance with this Section. The o.lc-218114v 1 g MN 190-103 payments under Section 3.4 are payable from a portion of the Tax Increments from the TIF District" an economic development tax increment financing district. (2) The public purposes of the subsidy are to promote development of a manufacturing facility in the City, increase manufacturing jobs in the City and the State, and increase the tax base of the City and the State. These public purposes predominate over any incidental benefit received by the Developer as the subsidy is provided solely to induce the Developer to construct the manufacturing improvements. (3) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure development of the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property; to maintain such improvements as a manufacturing facility for at least five years as described in clause (6) below; and to create the jobs and wage levels in accordance with Section -3. 5(b) hereof. (4) If the goals described in clause (3) are not met, the Developer must make the payments to the Authority and City described in Section 3.5(c). (5) The subsidy is needed because land acquisition costs make development of the Minimum Improvements infeasible without public assistance, all as determined by the City upon approval of the TIF Plan. (6) The Developer must continue operation of the Minimum Improvements as a manufacturing facility for at least five years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion. (7) The Developer does not have a parent corporation. (8) The Developer expects to receive the following additional public assistance in connection with the Minimum Improvements: (b) Job uncl P 'ugc Goul s. Within two years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion of the Minimum Improvements (the "Compliance Date"), the Developer shall cause to be created at least 35 new ftill-time equivalent jobs on the Development Property (the "New Jobs") and shall cause the wages for the New Jobs to be as follows: (i) at least 11 New Jobs shall pay no less than $10.00 per hour" exclusive of benefits; (ii) at least 5 New Jobs shall pay no less than $12.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits; (iii) at least 8 New Jobs shall pay no less than $14.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits; (iv) at least 5 New Jobs shall pay no less than $16.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits; (v) at least 1 New Job shall pay no less than $18.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits; (vi) and at least 5 New Jobs shall pay no less than $22.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein. if the wage and job goals described in this paragraph are met by the Compliance Date. those goals are deemed satisfied despite the Developer's continuing obligations under Sections 3.5(a)(6) and 3.5(d). (c) Retneclies. If the Developer fails to meet the goals described in Section 3.5(a)(3), the Developer shall repay (1) to the Authority upon written demand from the Authority a "pro rata share" of the amount of any payments made to the Developer under Section 3.4 hereof, (2) to the MN 190- 103 City upon written demand from the City a "pro rata share" of the amount of any fee waivers granted by the City under Section 3.7, and (3) to the Authority and City, respectively, interest on the amounts in clauses (1) and (2) at the implicit price deflator as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J994, subd. 6, accrued from the date of issuance of the certificate of completion to the date of payment. The term "pro rata share" means percentages calculated as follows: (i) if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required less the New Jobs created, divided by the jobs required; (ii) if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; (iii) if the failure relates to maintenance of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with Section 3.5(a)(6), 60 less the number of months of operation as a metals recycling facility (where any month in which the facility is in operation for at least 15 days constitutes a month of operation), commencing on the date of the certificate of completion and ending with the date the facility ceases operation as determined by the Authority, divided by 60; and (iv) if more than one of clauses (i) through (iii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages, not to exceed 100%. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the Authority's or City's remedies under Article IX hereof. In addition to the remedy described in this Section and any other remedy available to the Authority or City for failure to meet the goals stated in Section 3.5(a)(3), the Developer agrees and understands that it may not receive a business subsidy from the Authority, the City, or any other "grantor' (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Developer satisfies its repayment obligation under this Section, whichever occurs first. (d) Reports. The Developer must submit to the Authority a written reportregarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March of each year, commencing March 1, 2003 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated Section -3 .5(a)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five-year period described in Section 3.5(a)(6); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section 3.5(c). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The Authority will provide information to the Developer regarding the required forms. If the Developer fails to timely file any report required under this Section, the Authority will mail the Developer a warning within one week after the required filing, date. If. after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Developer fails to provide a report, the Developer must pay to the Authority a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is tiled. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section $1,000. (e) Aut its. Upon written request of the Authority or City in any year, the Developer shall retain at its expense an independent, third party accountant to audit any job and wage report nuc; I si 14v 1 10 1V1 N 190-10-11 submitted by the Developer under paragraphs (d) or (f) of this Section. The Developer must deliver to the Authority a written report from the accountant promptly upon completion of such audit. Section 3.6. Use of Tax Increment. Except as set forth herein, the Authority shall have no obligation to the Developer with regard to its use of Tax Increment and may use Tax Increment for any lawful purposes, whether set forth herein or otherwise. Section 3.7. Fee Waivers for Water and Sewer. The Developer acknowledges that sewer and water trunk fees (the "Trunk Fees") imposed by the City on a development the size of the Minimum Improvements would normally total $67,116. The City hereby agrees to waive $41,670 of these Trunk Fees. The Developer shall, at its option, pay the remaining $25,446 of Trunk Fees upon: (i) issuance of a building permit for the Minimum Improvements; or (ii) as assessed against the Minimum Improvements over a period of 10 years, with 6.5% interest accruing on such assessments; provided that the Developer will provide the City with written confirmation of which of these two Trunk Fee payment options it has selected and shall take such actions as are necessary to effect its selected payment option prior to issuance of a building permit for the Minimum Improvements. o.ic-? 1 xi 14v 1 11 MN 190-103 Construction Plans, the Authority shall approve the proposed change and notify the Developer in writing of its approval. Such change in the Construction Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the Authority unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice by the Authority to the Developer, setting forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of such change. The Authority's approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably withheld. Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by , 200_. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall complete the construction of Minimum Improvements by , 200 All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Developer on the Development Property shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Developer and approved by the Authority. The Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer, and such successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the development of the Development Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. The obligation to construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with this Section touches and concerns the land, and shall run with the property and be binding upon all successors and assigns to the Development Property. After the date of this Agreement and until construction of the Minimum Improvements has been completed, the Developer shall make reports. in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, as to the actual progress of the Developer with respect to such construction. Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the Developer to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for beginning and completion thereof, the Authority will furnish the Developer with a Certificate shown as Exhibit B. Such certification and such determination shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Developer to any Holder of a Mortgage, or any insurer of a Mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the Minimum Improvements, or any part thereof. (b) If the Authority shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Developer, provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default. and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Developer to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. (c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City for. and the opening for business of.. the N/linimum Improvements. DJG-213514v l 1 3 NiN 190-103 Council Agenda - 08/12/2002 12. Consideration of review of q notes for reconstruction of the liquor store parking_ lot and the public parking lot at block 35.. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Engineer is obtaining quotes for the reconstruction of the liquor store parking lot and the downtown parking lot at block' 5. The quotes for both projects, which will be obtained together but are independent of each other, will be supplied at Monday evening's meeting. Consequently, there is no further information supplied for this agenda item. Council Agenda - 8/12/02 13. Consideration of resolution accepting Cedar Street and Dundas Road Street and Utilities feasibility studv, authorizing preparation of plans and specifications and calling for a public hearing on the improvement project. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to review a feasibility study outlining utility and road improvements along the Cedar Street corridor between Kjellberg Park and Chelsea Road. The feasibility study was requested and funded by Shawn Weinand and is intended to start the process of building road and utility systems necessary to support impending development projects at the intersection of School Boulevard and Highway 25. The scope of the feasibility study was expanded to include Dundas Road in the likely eventuality that a major retailer initiates a development project in the area in the near future. Please note that major sections of the road alignment are not currently under control by the city. Staff suggests that the City obtain plan preparation funds from developer (s) interested in obtaining the improvements. Council will need to determine the portion to be deposited at the front end by developers. On one extreme, Council may wish to consider requiring the full cost to be funded by developer's even though the benefit of the project extends to other property owners. On the other side, the developer could provide a pro -rated share of the plans and specs based on benefitted property frontage. As a third alternative, Council could table the decision to proceed on preparation of plans and specifications until after the public hearing is held. It is proposed that the project be funded via use of assessment and trunk fee revenue. This will requirement completion of the project via the public improvement process. I believe that Shawn Weinand prefers that the plans and specification be ordered prior to the public hearing in order to keep construction time frame that would enable construction of Cedar Street improvements this year. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt resolution accepting feasibility study, call for a public hearing and authorize preparation of plans and specifications with developer (s) paying the full cost of the plans and specifications. Said cost to be reimbursed at such time that the project is ordered and then included in the assessment roll for the project. 2. Motion to adopt resolution accepting feasibility study, call for a public hearing and authorize preparation of plans and specifications with developer (s) paying the pro- rated share of the plans and specifications. City to fund the cost of plans and Council Agenda - 8/12/02 specifications for the balance. Developer's up front share to be reimbursed at such time that the project is ordered and then included in the assessment roll for the project. Under alternatives 1 and 2, the project will proceed at such time that funds necessary to complete plan preparation are provided as required by Council. Staff will schedule the public hearing at the earliest available City Council meeting date thereafter. Even if the full project is not completed, the City will benefit from having the complete plans in place therefore a city investment in a portion of the cost of the plans would not be wasted. 3. Motion to table or deny adoption of resolution as requested. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1 or 2 above. Development of plans and specification prior to completion of the public hearing will expedite the project thus making it more likely that it can be completed in this fall as requested. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of feasibility study. Council Agenda - 8/12/02 14. Consideration to pass a resolution requesting the Commissioner of Transportation to schedule a public hearing for the proposed at grade railroad crossing for the extension of 7t' Street to Countv State Aid Highway 75. (WSB) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello has been working with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to establish an at grade railroad crossing for the proposed extension of 7t" Street to County State Aid Highway 75 since February of 1999 when a formal request was first filed. Additional information was requested from the railway and was provided in February of 2000. No response was received, so another request was filed in March of 2000. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway informally indicated that they would not approve the crossing location; therefore, the Mn/DOT Railroad Administration was contacted. A meeting was held in April of 2001 with Mn/DOT, BNSF, the City of Monticello and WSB & Associates, Inc. At this meeting, it was decided that a Railroad Crossing Study Report was to be submitted to BNSF clarifying the crossing request. This report was submitted in November of 2001. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway formally denied the request in May of 2002. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to pass the resolution requesting the Commissioner of Transportation to schedule a public hearing for the proposed at grade railroad crossing for the extension of 7t" Street to County State Aid Highway 75. 2. The second alternative would be to amend the resolution requesting the Commissioner of Transportation to schedule a public hearing for the proposed at grade railroad crossing for the extension of 7t" Street to County State Aid Highway 75. 3. The third alternative would be to deny the resolution requesting the Commissioner of Transportation to schedule a public hearing for the proposed at grade railroad crossing for the extension of 7 t Street to County State Aid Highway 75. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and City Engineer that the City Council approve the resolution, as attached. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Project Location Map from the Railroad Crossing Study Report F:\dawng\avordproc\AGENDAS\monticello cncil agenda item.wpd 0 ,\ '3'No '3AV Oabll]O w c 3 J � A• V i' D1, U Q W °Q w r2i3A RJ10 0 M�0 V3 Q WLO ' 0 o pia � r bi neo O S a> SO d V / a 'ala a jr OOOMISV3 dm 03 J i J m Qft I CL g as.�3A ONfN \�( d�� 310 VI Vl 0 0 ( Q a tll N0: d h 1S / v NaV9S VA NV) 'aIa £ o o c� N a O NO11p,, d �N _ tJ '3AV o NOIIVd o -VI )l30y CD CDo \c p� o I Np L5 '''Pa z 0b�1S�y V oI 901aY3pR Y r� a� ---- W r S Nig f y�• Q:o 3A V Nr W� O CI)�P aIa o M,U J 3N01S1380 < !g bd a + SVONfIO w �� m la a � uwi C] N N � N a �LNf10a , M 1 7-)' SVWOHl LL QI 'VI w� ls� 'ala z b,00�3Ljo ■� ywr 'ao 1 00oMNvo ' o I —140 � tii `�� — ° O i V L_ cu L U O o 4 l !os cn -08 NIAabw L N I_N 11� _ 1v. J W / oP� spyo {aa�� /^ LL. (� ° > / i, � v �• v SIM v o Oa I� x3 x3110 do 813 dV81ONVS N3 3r ♦� dam' o c�a r I �OV3 'aIa a31N33 i rd2 � Q I. Q 1�r = U erv4' o�rq m I � 1�r' � �� L tib•` ` u Lr- \13NN3NANV 0 ,y r 1 Council Agenda - 8/12/02 15. Review of six month Liquor Store financial report. (RW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Liquor Store Manager, Joe Hartman will be at the Council meeting to review the six month financial report for the recently expanded liquor store operation and answer any questions the Council may have on the new operation. The financial report indicates that total gross sales for the first six months are up approximately 8.8% or $112,000 over the first six months of last year and the resulting gross profit is also up a little over 8% to $329,190. Although sales and gross profit are higher, so is our operating expenses which results in an overall net income of $125,000 compared to $145,000 last year. The operating income at 9% of sales is still very respectable, but we believe that we can actually get this percentage higher in the next quarter or second half of the year. As you may note, the main reason our operating income is lower than the same time period last year is that our expenses are higher in a number of categories, including labor costs, advertising expenditures and miscellaneous service charges. Advertising expenditures are $6,000 more than last year primarily due to our promotional efforts relating to the grand opening of the remodeled liquor store. This should be a temporary increase in our advertising budget and it will revert to normal levels from now on. As far as miscellaneous service charges are concerned, this is the fee charged to us by purchases made on credit cards, which continues to be a larger part of our sales activity. It is a service that is necessary to be competitive but it does show as a cost of doing business in our expense categories. Finally, labor costs are somewhat higher than in the past not only because it continues to cost us more to have good employees but also because of the construction activities that the store had to work around for part of the year. Many times liquor store staff was relocating merchandise on weekends and during the night to allow for construction activities to take place which resulted in overtime and additional labor costs. These additional costs should not be incurred in the future and hopefully our labor costs will not continue to see the types of increases we had over the last year. Overall, I believe the liquor store staff is very happy with the new expanded facility and has high expectations for increased sales growth and profits in the fixture. For example, sales for the Saturday before Memorial Day increased this year by over $7,000 or 32% more than last year with our customer count also increasing by 196 people or 18 more than last year. From this you can see that even though our customer count is increasing, our sales per customer seem to be more than previous years also, which is a good sign for the future. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. After reviewing the financial report with the Liquor Store Manager, the Council can accept the report as presented. C. SUPPORTING DATA: Six month financial report. Liquor Sales Discounts Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR Beer Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - BEER Wine Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - WINE Misc Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE Misc Non-taxable Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAXA TOTAL SALES TOTAL COST OF SALES TOTAL FREIGHT COST TOTAL GROSS PROFIT MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING MAR 31, 2001 AND 2002 2001 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 158,297 127,796 30,501 19.3% 319,570 217,273 102,297 32.0% 53,472 30,981 22,491 42.1% 17,188 11,704 5,484 31.9% 498 (428) 926 -- 549,025 387,325 1,663 160,037 29.1% 2002 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 171,197 114,818 56,379 32.9% 352,824 267,721 85,103 24.1% 56,805 42,744 14,061 24.8% 15,431 12,721 2,710 17.6% 907 307 600 66.2% 597,164 438,311 2,357 156,496 26.2% MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING MAR 31, 2001 AND 2002 2001 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT SALES Liquor 158,297 Beer 319,570 Wine 53,472 Other Merchandise 17,188 Misc Non -Taxable Sales 498 Discounts TOTAL SALES 549,025 COST OF GOODS SOLD (388,988) GROSS PROFIT 160,037 GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE Personal Services Salaries 40,205 PERA 1,961 FICA 3,062 Insurance 4,218 Unemployment Benefits Severance Pay 29.1% 2002 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 171,197 352,824 56,805 15,431 907 597,164 (440, 668) 156,496 57,503 2,946 4,348 5,357 TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 49,447 9.0% 70,153 Supplies Office Supplies 151 93 General Operating Supplie 3,037 3,412 Other Supplies 455 ---------- ---------- TOTAL SUPPLIES 3,188 .6% 3,959 26.2% 11.7% .7% i �J MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING MAR 31, 2001 AND 2002 2001. 2002 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Other Services & Charges Professional Services 4,493 Maintenance Agreements Communication 355 468 Travel -Conference -Schools 79 102 Advertising 1,361 957 Insurance & Tax 1,901 3,139 Utilities 2,729 3,249 Maintenance, Equipment 239 472 Maintenance, Building 346 958 Maintenance, Other Depreciation --Acquired As 3,280 3,446 Misc Svc & Chgs 3,120 ---------- 6,578 ---------- TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH 17,903 3.3% 19,369 3.2% TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS 70,538 12.8% ---------- 93,481 15.7% ---------- TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 89,499 16.3% 63,015 10.6% Other Income (Expense) Interest Income Cash Long/Short (28) (176) Sale of Property Misc Income (207) 11 ---------- ---------- TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) (235) -- (165) -- NET INCOME (EXPENSE) 89,264 16.3% 62,850 10.5% --------- Transfers In/Out ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE 89,264 16.3% 62,850 10.5% 15 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 31Mar2002 Current Assets: Cash Change Fund Investments Accounts Receivable A/R - NSF Checks Inventory Prepaid Insurance TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS Fixed Assets Land & Parking Lot Buildings Furniture & Equipment less: Accumulated Depreciation TOTAL FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to EDA Fund Sales Tax Payable Salaries Payable Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave Other Accrued Expenses TOTAL LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE (74,305.03) 2,000.00 959,047.89 (3,338-34) 416,515.34 918.96 ------------ 1,300,396.77 64,587.06 245,694.19 92,402.78 (288,699.52) ------------ 113,984.51 ------------ 1,414,381.28 188,509.25 19,834.11 20,151.30 43,390.00 4,917.88 ------------ 493,763.54 920,617.74 ------------ 1,414,381.28 k 5 Liquor Sales Discounts Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR Beer Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - BEER Wine Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - WINE Misc Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE Misc Non-taxable Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAXA TOTAL SALES TOTAL COST OF SALES TOTAL FREIGHT COST TOTAL GROSS PROFIT MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 2001 AND 2002 2001 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 345,774 264,078 81,696 23.6% 784,150 600,908 183,241 23.4% 109,734 77,953 31,781 29.0% 44,209 33,377 10,832 24.5% 828 395 433 52.3% 1,284,695 976,712 4,341 303,642 23.6% 2002 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 369,089 260,904 108,185 29.3% 869,375 665,621 203,754 23.4% 114,269 97,736 16,532 14.5% 42,792 38,204 4,588 10.7% 2,011 36 1,976 98.3% 1,397,536 1,062,501 5,845 329,190 23.6% MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 2001 AND 2002 2001 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT SALES 151 Liquor 345,774 Beer 784,150 Wine 109,734 Other Merchandise 44,209 Misc Non -Taxable Sales 828 Discounts TOTAL SALES 1,284,695 COST OF GOODS SOLD (981,053) GROSS PROFIT 303,642 GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE Personal Services Salaries 91,200 PERA 4,414 FICA 6,934 Insurance 9,505 Unemployment Benefits Severance Pay TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 112,052 Supplies Office Supplies 151 General Operating Supplie 6,020 Other Supplies 70 TOTAL SUPPLIES 6,241 23.6% 8.7% .5% 2002 YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT 369,089 869,375 114,269 42,792 2,011 1,397,536 (1,068,346) 329,190 23.6% 117,658 6,008 8,919 10,799 316 295 143,996 10.3% 372 7,740 455 8,567 .6% 15 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUN 30, 2001 AND 2002 2001 2002 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Other Services & Charges Professional Services 5,942 804 Maintenance Agreements 1,300 1,670 Communication 637 1,622 Travel -Conference -Schools 131 244 Advertising 3,165 9,128 Insurance & Tax 5,203 6,118 Utilities 6,211 8,915 Maintenance, Equipment 2,688 940 Maintenance, Building 1,125 1,789 Maintenance, Other Depreciation --Acquired As 6,601 6,891 Misc Svc & Chgs 7,029 ---------- 12,667 ---------- TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH 40,030 3.1% 50,788 TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS 158,324 ---------- 12.3% 203,350 ---------- TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 145,318 11.3% 125,839 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income Cash Long/Short (439) Sale of Property 500 Misc Income (149) ---------- 3 ---------- TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) (149) __ 64 NET INCOME (EXPENSE) 145,169 11.3% 125,903 Transfers In/Out ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE 145,169 11.3% 125,903 3.6% 14.6% 9.0% 9.0% MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 30Jun2002 Current Assets: Cash Change Fund Investments Accounts Receivable A/R - NSF Checks Inventory Prepaid Insurance TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS Fixed Assets Land & Parking Lot Buildings Furniture & Equipment less: Accumulated Depreciation TOTAL FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to EDA Fund Sales Tax Payable Salaries Payable Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave Other Accrued Expenses TOTAL LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE (279,824.07) 2,800.00 959,047.89 (2,846.49) 436,220.59 6,636.96 ------------ 1,121,812.83 64,587.06 245,694.19 92,402.78 (292,145.14) ------------ 110,538.89 ------------ 1,232,351.72 127,572.55 26,201.68 25,104.00 43,390.00 5,619.32 ------------ 444,848.55 787,503.17 ------------ 1,232,351.72 W.J Council Agenda - 8/12/02 16. Discussion on feasibility of converting Broadway overhead power to underground., (RW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the recent awarding of a contract for reconstruction of Broadway, a decision would have to be made soon as to whether there is any interest by the City Council in seeing the overhead power lines buried as part of the project. Council members expressed interest in investigating whether Xcel Energy could make a conversion from overhead to underground and what would the cost be. Representatives of Xcel Energy provided the Public Works Director with a cost estimate for removal of existing facilities and replacement with an underground system at approximately three quarters of a million dollars. In addition to this cost, there would also be additional expenditures needed for the rewiring of houses that need to be converted from overhead to underground, which include such items as new meters, which the homeowner usually is required to have completed by their own licensed electrician. It is very likely that total cost for conversion along the entire length of Broadway could reach one million dollars. I have asked Darrin Lahr, Community Services Manager for Xcel Energy, to review with the City Council Monday night any options that would be available for financing this conversion and whether it could be accomplished by placing a surcharge on all of the electrical users in Monticello as one method of paying for the improvement. Although the conversion would not have to take place immediately, cross connections on Broadway would have to be constructed by Xcel Energy soon as part of the Broadway improvement project, while the balance of the work could take place next year or whenever. At the time this item is being prepared, I have not had an opportunity to discuss financing options with Darrin Lahr, but we are hopeful that more information will be available for the Council Monday night to discuss. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Depending on additional information that is available regarding the cost estimate and financing options for conversion from overhead to underground, the Council could provide direction to staff and Xcel Energy. C. SUPPORTING DATA: Rough cost estimate for conversion. City of Monticello Broadway Overhead to Underground Conversion Estimate In order to facilitate the decision concerning overhead to underground conversion on Broadway Street in Monticello, a rough cost estimate has been compiled. The estimate is a lowest possible cost figure, and includes only the basics. Unfortunately a more accurate estimate is not available without numerous engineering and design hour charges. Included in the basic costs are cable, transformers and switchgear. Cost Estimate for removal of existing facilities and replacement with underground system: $772,892.44 In addition to this cost, consideration should be made for the rewiring of the houses that will be converted from overhead to underground service. These costs are not available to Xcel, as the end users must furnish 200A bypass meter sockets, and have them wired by licensed electricians. The cost of such conversions should be estimated by the city, and will be borne by the city. 9 Update on Central Minnesota Partnership Affordable Housing Project. This note is written to inform Council that the Central Minnesota Housing Project is approximately $66,000 over budget and that the City Administrator is suggesting that the HRA provide an additional $33,000 in TIF assistance. Attached you will find the revised budget for the project which shows that the per sales price limit of $126,000 has been exceeded. In order to save the project, CMHP is seeking additional revenue and or budget cuts necessary to get the per unit cost back to the $120-121,000 range. The infusion of additional TIF along would bring the per unit cost to the $123,000 range. Staff did not encourage a reduction in site amenities to reduce cost because the restrictive covenants requirement/association, landscaping and architectural detail are necessary components of a successful housing development. Currently, the finance plan shows CMHP paying the city $95,000 for City land. Under Rick's proposal, CMHP would. pay $62,000 and TIF would cover the remaining $33,000. It appears that CMHP is supportive of continuing with this project under Rick's proposal. The HRA will be presented this request at their next meeting. Staff is confident that the HRA will accept this proposal. However, in. the event the HRA does not want to employ additional TIF, then the City will need to reduce the price of the land to make the project work. Unless staff hears otherwise from Council, it is assumed that the City Council will reduce the land price in the event that the HRA does not approve additional TIF funds for the project. Home cost 126,128 Buyer pays 2 points on price 2,500 128,628 (Over guidelines) Program Sales Price limits $126,000 Revised Monticello Numbers Acquisition/Demolition 8/2/02 5 Properties Legal at $500 ea. Total cost 357,520 4A— 'TA: s to of v a e e, 000 Title Insurance 13,500 (J Filing Fees 1,750 Demolition 750 Platting & abstracts 12,375 Site Preparation 10,000 Fees and Permits — 77,000 meal Estate Taxes +2,750 Financing 2,750 Insurance 6,000 Contingency 500 seller closing costs 25,000 Developer Fee 6,600 Subtotal 25,000 581,495 New Construction 11 homes Subtotal Total cost Acquisition/new 1,033,659 (Price includes base bid, 2,000 landscaping 1,033,659 2,000 construction Sprinklers) 1,615,154 Sources Tax Increment Financing Employer 125,000 Permits & Fees $60,000 $42.750 $227,750 Deferred Developer Fee $25,000 Home cost 126,128 Buyer pays 2 points on price 2,500 128,628 (Over guidelines) Program Sales Price limits $126,000 .1 NATIONAL U.-IT18 RANK August 7, 2002 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Terrance & Mary Tomann Family Limited Partnership To whom it may concern. TCF National Bank is processing an application for construction and permanent mortgage financing for the above referenced partnership. This application is not acceptable without the support of the TIF agreement. Sincerely, Kurt A. Schrupp Senior Vice President AUG - 9 2002 i J Member FDIC 801 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 f2� .11AI MOUSING LENDER