City Council Agenda Packet 12-11-2000
AGENDA
REGtJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COlJNCIL
Monday, Oeccmber 11,2000 - 7 p.m.
.
Mayor:
Roger Bclsaas
Council Members:
Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen
I. Call to Order
2A. ^pprove minutes of November 27. 2000 regular council meeting.
B. Approve minutes of December 6, 2000 special council meeting.
"
_L
Consideration of adding items to the agenda. ~ 7
f
f II
4. Citizen comments/petitions. request and complaints.
5. Consent agenda.
^. C onsiderati on of approvi ng Land S nrveyor' s Certi flCati on 0 f Correcti on tor the
plat of Klein Farms Sixth Addition.
Consideration of approving neW hires and departures for Community Center.
B.
(~
~ 6(.v..) .f,l..
(S;
Consideration of salary schedule adjustment for 200 I.
.
D.
Consideration of fund transfers for 2000.
F Consideration of adopting increases to the development fee structure.
F. Co nsi derati on of accepti n g and petition and calling for heari n g on bal anee 0 f
vacation of utility easernents for Lots 1,2 and 3. Block I. 90th Street Addition.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. I'u b Ii c J leari ng _ Consi der; n g the vaeat i on of casements Lot 2. HI oek ] 90'" Street Addi ti on.
s. ^doption Hearing _ Consideration of adoption of 200 I Budget and Tax Levy.
9. Consideration of award Heartland \Jus Contract. 00,,1 t
10. Consideration of agreement with Sunny Fresh Foods for wastewater discharge pcrmit
increase and cost sharing agreement for expansion of wastewater treatment plant.
11.
Consideration of an amendment to the zoning map to establish a Planned Unit
Development District and consideration of an application tor a concept stage planned
unit development to expand business. ^pplicant: Hoglund Bus C:ompany.
~\~\
.
Agenda
Monticello City council
December 11, 2000
.- Page Two
.....
] 2. C onsi derati on of an 0 rd inancc amending the M ontice 110 Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
3. Section 3-5. [D]7, by adding subscetions (a) and (b), cstablishing rcgnlations for
eommcrcial vehicles in residcntial districts. Applicant: City of Monticello.
13. Consideration of granting tinancial assistance to the Mielkc eommcreial development.
14. Approve payment of bills for December.
15. Adjourn.
.
.
..
.,
MINllTES
REGllLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COllNCIL
Mond~lY, November 27, 2000 -7 p.m.
Members Present:
Roger Belsaas, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf and
Bruce Thielen
Members Absent:
None
Mayor Belsaas ca\1ed the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2A. A rove the minutes of the Novemher 13 200n re ular conncil meetin .
RO(iER CARLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES Of THE NOVEMBER 13.2000
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AS PRESENTED. CLlNT HERBST SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH BRIAN STUMPF ABSTAINING
2B. A rove the minutes of the worksho on November 16 2000.
BRIAN STUMPf MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 1'1 IE WORKSI lOP MEETING
01' NOVEMBER 16.2000 AS PRESENTED. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THF
MOTION. M<.JrION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
3.
Consideration of addin J items to the a Jend~l.
None.
4. Citizen comments/ 1Ctitions re uests ~lOd com taints.
None.
5. Consent Alrenda
A. Consideration to approvc amendments to EDA-GMEF Business Sohsidy Criteria.
Recommendation: Move to approve the proposed amcndmcots to the EllA-GMEF
Business Subsidy Criteria.
B.
Consideration of approving final payment on Bridge Park Improvements, Lift Station,
Sani tary Sewer and A pp urten ant Work Project No. 98- I 5C - Barharossa & Sons.
Recommendation: Approve the final payment in the amount of $13,568.67 to
Barharossa & Sons for completion of the Bridge Park Lift Station Proiect No. 98-15C.
.
~A
.
.
.
Council Meeting - 11/27/00
C Consideration to approve the appoiotmeot of a nominee for DA T membership.
Recommendation: Approve oomince Carl '.Skip: Sorenson as a member of the Design
Advisory Team with his term expiring in January 2002.
D. Consideration to approve the ra,ilication of the amendment to EDA-CiMEF Loan No. 010
(Blue Chip Development Company). Recommendation: Approve the ra,ilication of the
amendment to EDA-GMEF Loan No. 010 for Blue Chip Development Company.
E. Cunsideration ofaecepting River Forest Improvements - Phase 1. Recommendation:
Adopt a resolu,ion aecepting publie improvements in the River Forest Subdivision
Phase 1. Res. No. 2000-85.
F. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for the Community Center
Recommcndation: Ratify the hiring of the employees as identified.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. CLINT HERBST
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6.
Consideration of items removed from thc consent a Jenda for discussion.
None.
7.
Consideration of rcview of
Ci'y Administrator. Riek Wolfsteller, presented the baekgroond information on the pawn shop
ordinance noting it was the ques'ion of who would pay the fees for hooking into the AI'S
(Automated Pawn System) that brooght ,his item back before the Cooncil.
Temple Barsness, owner of Walt's Pawn Shop. was present at the meeting and sopplied
inl(nmation to the Couneil on what it would eost Walt's Pawn Shop to eomply with the
provisions of ,he ordinance. She noted tha' other businesses in Montieello are not licensed and
she di d no' feel i' was fair lha' the pawn shop had to pay the cost lor the Sheri n- s Department
eonneeting to AI'S. pay a'ransaction fee. invest in the equipment '0 comply with the ordinance
provisions and pay a Jieense fee. She also questioned whether second hand stores and jewelers
which both deal in used merchandise would be reqoired to eomply with the provisions of this
ordinance. Temple Barsness also referenced a newspaper artiele that indica'ed that the courts in
the state of Florida found the transae'ion fees charged to pawn shops to be oneons'itutional.
Paul.lohnson from the Wright County Sheritrs Department was also present. He indicated that
if there were no pawn shops in the Coonty, the Sheriffs Department would not be looking at
connecting into the APS.
2
~A
Council Meeting - 11/27/00
.
The Council discussed who should pick up the cost of hooking into APS. The Council did not
feel that the City should incur this eost but fclt that the license fec should cover the cost. The
Council also discussed increasing thc transaction fee as a method ofrecouping the cost of the
hook up to the systcm.
BRL1CE THIELEN MOVED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY
THAT SECTION 3- 1 5-17 UNDER LICENSE FEES BF AMFNDED TO READ TI-lA T THERE
WILL BI': AN ANNUAL FEE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT TI IE
CITY WILL SET TIlE LICENSE FEE AT $25/ANNlJALL Y AND TI IE BILLABLE
TRANSACTION I:EE WILL BE SET AT $ 1.50 PER TRANSACTION. CLINT HERBST
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
S. Consideration of ado tion of assessment roll for CSAH 75 Pro' ect No. 9S-17C.
The Council eonducted a public hearing on the proposed assessment of Project No. 98-17C at
their October 23rd meeting. I Iowever, they delayed acting on the adoption of the assessment roll
to allow the Council time to formulate a policy for assessing reconstruction projects and to allow
the engineer time to review those parcels tbat had questioned the assessments. Mike Nielson of
WSB & Associates reviewed the changes in the proposed assessment roll. The changes ineluded
the following:
.
a.
155_015-016010.155-015-01601 L 155_015-016090.155-015-025010 and
155-015-025030 _ Thc assessment originally proposed for curb and gutter was removed
sincc it was determined not to assess those parcels that had curb and gutter originally. The
Council agreed with this reduction.
Mike Nielson noted that the Council needed to make a determination whether commercial
and tax exenlpt properties would be handled in the samc manner as other properties for
the samc benefit. If so, therc would need to be a reduction madc to the school district and
hospital property retlecting that portion of the curb and gutter assessmcnt that was for
replacement curb and guttcr.
b. 155-011-000061 _ This is the parcel that thc City is paying $17.000 to the school district
for an casement for ponding purposes. It was originally proposcd to be assessed
$7.662.10 fl:Jr curb and gutter.
(;. 155-011-000062 _ (School District) No change to the proposed assessment of $1,138.64.
d.
155-011-00172 _ (School District) Originally was proposed to be assessed $59.688.25.
There was a revision to the water main assessment that reduced this amount by
$4,722.57. Ifthc Council determined not to assess for replacement curb and gutter it
would eliminate 770 feet of the curb and gutter assessment ($10,006.30) from the
assessment for this parcel making the total proposed assessment $44.959.38. With the
.
.,
-)
dA
Council Meeting - 11/27/00
.
changes noted the total assessment for thc three parcels owned by the School District
would be $37.297.28.
On the School District property the Council agreed to the removal of the $7,662.10
asscssment on the parcel proposed for ponding use. The Council determined. howevcr,
to assess the School District llw thc curb and gutter. The revisions made by the Council
changed the proposed assessment to a total of $56,1 04.32 for the threc parcels.
e. No change was proposed to the hospital property. The assessment amount remained at
$205.267.18.
f.
115-011-000060 and \ 15-011-000031 (Bondhus Property) Mikc Nielson noted that the
original assessment roll ineloded parcel 115-011-000030 which was eliminated from the
revised roll. Parcel 115-011-000060 was the triangular parcel which Mr. Bondhus
questioned whether it could be considered a buildable parcel. It was proposed that the
parcel receive a curb and gutter assessment based on 300 feet in the amount of$3,898.56.
Mike Nielson noted that the storm sewcr assessment was also dropped from this parcel.
Several adjustments were made to thc assessment for parcc\ 11 5-011-00031. Thcrc were
changes in the front footage and area of the parcel used in ealeulating the assessment and
there was a reduction of $5.458.86 in the water main assessment. The proposcd revised
assessment for this parcel is $52.484.63.
.
g. I 55-01 1-0000 I 0 (H ogl und) I t was proposed to defer the water main assessment in the
amount 01'$7,356.31 until such time as the property actually connects to the water line.
Thc remainder of thc assessment in the amount of $6.775.31 would be levied at this time.
h. I 55 -037 _00 I 0 I 0 (K ean) I n rev i ew i ng th is property, the engineer determined that the li'ont
footage was different which reduced the curh and gutter assessment by $4.211. It was
pointed out that the property owners appealed their assessment stating they did not feel
thc property increased in valne hy thc amount ofthe proposed assessment. The Council
discussed having an appraisal of the property done. The City Administrator was directed
to make arrangements for the appraisal.
^t this timc Mike Nielson addressed issues that were raised in a letter submitted to the Mayor at
the meeting. These items rc\ated to the relocation of mailboxes for the properties at Dayton
Street and CSMI 75, a complaint about a cracked pipe at one of the residences and a question on
the amount of casement.
Mayor Belsaas then entertained comments from those present concerning the proposed
assessments. John Bondhos spoke challenging the amount proposed to be assessed for the
water main for his property. He stated he was in opposition to curb and gutter being installed
along CSM,I 75 and didn't feel the storm sewer was necessary. He qoestioned the assessment
of the 300' on parcel 155-011-000060. I le stated that there is not the value there as a parking lot
.
4
dR
.
.
.
Council Meeting - 11/27/00
or lilf any other use to offset the proposed assessment. Hrian Stumpf pointed out that the
property owner does have the right to appeal the assessment to district court.
Hilary Hoglund representing Gladys Hoglund questioned the water main assessment. Mayor
Belsaas emphasized that the assessment did not kick until the property actually connected to the
wa ter main. t f there is no con nectio n, there is nn asscssmen t. lliIary II og I und al so stated that
the access to the Gladys Hoglund property as a result of this project was hanrdous. She felt it
was hard to justify accepting a street assessment that le1\ the access to the property worse than
the original condition.
On the property owned hy Kean of Monti ee II 0 (I 55 -037 -001 0 I 0 ) it was determ i ned that the C it Y
vvill have an appraisal done with the City picking up the cost of the appraisal. Ken Schwartz
askcd how his parcel would be handled. He was informed that the assessment of his parecl
would be deferred until the appraisal was done. Clint Herbst asked about having an appraisal
done on the triangular piece owned by John Bondhus. Mr. Bondhus indicated that he felt an
appraisal should be done and stated he would be willing to split tbe cost of the appraisal ifhe had
input on the selection of an appraiser.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ^DOPT THE ^SSESSMENT ROLL FOR TIlE CSAH 75
PROJECT NO. 98-17C ^S MO\)\F1ED BY TilE EN(iINEER WITH THE CURB ^ND
Gt!TITR ^SSESSMENT TO REMMN ^G^INST TAX EXEMPT PROPERTIES. l.E.
SCHOOL DISTRICT ^ND Il0SPITAL DISTRICT WITH TIlE ^SSESSMENT FOR THE
PROPERTIES OWNED HY JOliN BONDHt!S ^ND KEAN OF MONTICELLO TO BE
DEFERRED UNTtL AN ^PPRAISAL CAN llE COMPLETED AND TO DIRECT THE CITY
ST^FF TO CONT ^Cr ^N INDEPEN1WNT APPRMSER FOR THIS WORK ^ND BRING
TIlE APPRMSAL RI'SULTS BACK TO THE COUNCIL BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED
THE MOTlON. MOTION CARRIED UNANiMOUSLY.
9.
Consideration of areels removed from assessment ro\ls for further review and ado tion of
supplemental assessments.
Mike Nielson reviewed with the Council the parcels that had been deferred for furthcr review.
Under Project No. 98-25C. Chelsea Road West, three properties had been tabled for further
review: 155-500-142203 (Jay Morrell) t 55-05 t -003050 (Mootieello Athletic Club) and
155-027-0020 1 0 (John Erlandson). There was an adjustment in acreage on the storm
sewer assessment for the Erlandson property which will reduce the amount of the assessment to
$1266.77. No other changes were made.
At the public hearing !(If Project 98-08C, Chelsea Road East, the property uwned by Lee Parks
( 15 5 _ 5 00-14240 1 ) was de fcrred for further review. The C i t Y En g i neer reviewed the costs for the
sanitary sewer extension. No change was proposed for this parcel.
5
(~~
Council Meeting - 11/27/00
.
Under the Project No. 96-04C, Tl-l 25 a number of parcels were reviewed:
1 55 _ 500- 142302 (posusta) M r. I' os usta 0 b j ected to the amount of the asscssment for tlte
ex tens i on 0 f Dundas Road. In review i ng the assessment, the engineer noted tltat there should be
a reduction in the storm sewer assessment since a portion of that was for trunk storm sewer. This
change amounted to a reduction of $4,648.04. No other change was rceommended and his
revised assessment amount is $50,182.20.
Darvl curdinal Property A\thongh the property lies outside the City limits and cannot he
asscsscd until suelt time as it is annexed, the property owner raised issues about drainage and
acceSS to his property. The City Engineer did review the drainage situation on the property as
well as accesS to the property.
1 55-094-00 I 020. \ 55 -036-00 I 03 1 (Mielke) Mike N i el son noted the footages were incorrect I Y
calculated on the parcels owned by Dan and Linda Miclke. The corrected calculations bring the
assessment for parcel 155-036-00 1031 to $ 11,642.50 and the assessment for parcel 155-094-
001020 is $2,684.58.
Kiellher" Property The property owner object stating tltat a digit in the parcel identification
n umber was ami lted in the noti ce of the assessment hearing. A corrected assessment no ti ee was
sent and no other change was made to the proposed assessment.
At this time tbe Council considered comments from thosc property owners affected by the
proposed. assessment.
Lee Parks stated he understood how the City Engineer arrived at the assessment for his propcrty
but questioned why it was not assessed based on footage like all the other parcels were. Mr.
Parks indicated that when he initially had requested the sewer he extended to his property several
ycars ago. the Council denied his request. At that timc he was required to upgrade Itis septic
system( $1 .2 00 in cost) and install a ho Idin g tank( $ 2,000 in cost). When thc sewer line was
extended to serve the purks property there was few other properties that received benefIt from the
line and could pick up sume of the cost 0 f the ex tensi 0 n. The c: 0 unci I disc ussed gi vi ng credit
equivalent to one connection fce ($3,000) on the Parks property. John Simola explained that if
the n umber 0 f co nnecti ons is based on usage. 1 f the use 0 f the property changes from what it is
noW there may he additional connections charges due. However, Ite would he given credit for
the connection charges paid when he hooks up.
ROGER CARLSON MOVED TO ADOPT '1'] IE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PROJECT
NO. 98-25('. AS PROPOSED WITH TilE ADJUSTMENT ASSESSMENT FOR PARCEL
155-027 -0020 10 SF:f AT $1,266.77. CLlNT HERBST SECONDED TH E MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UN^NIMOUSLY.
.
.
6
J,PI
.
.
.
Council Meeting - 11/27/00
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ADOPT TIlE ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 98-08C
AND MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT IN TilE ASSESSMENT FOR PARCEL 155-500-142401 TO
$13.422 .24. H R UCE '1'1 II 1'1. EN SECONIWD TilE MOTION. MOTION C ARRl EU
UNANIMOUSLY.
CLINT IIERBST MOVED TO ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT RO\.1. FOR PROJECT
NO. 96-04C WITH THE ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED fOR PARCELS 155-500-
154400.154403 AN D 154404 REMAIN ING UN CHA N G ED. TilE ASSESSMENT FOR
P ARC ELS 155-036-001031 ADJU STE D TO $11.642.50 AND PARCEL 155-094-00 I 020
ADJUSTED TO $2,684.58 AND PARCEL 155-500-142302 ADJUSTED TO $50.1 82.20.
BRUCE THIELEN SECONDEU THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
10.
Consideration of desi notions CSAH 75 Washin ton Street to Otter Creek.
The Council received information concerning the various design options that were being
considered for CSAH 75. Ron Bray from WSB & Associates reviewed the options looked at
with special attention given to the three options that most c10scly met the project goals. Thc
design option that met all the project goals aod had minimal impact on the residents would
require a variance Irom MnDOT State Aid Standards. A variance would be required to change
the parking lane width from 10' to 8 V,' and to change the mcdian width at the turn lane Irom 4' to
3'. The Council was being asked to support the rcquest for a variance Irom the State Aid
Standards from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Wright County
Commissioners will consider a similar request at their November 28'" mecting and the request
will go before the State 00 December 20"'. Once the State has made a determination on whether
[0 grant a variance, the City and County can then proceed with further study on the design
options. It is anticipated that the City will conduct an inJ'ormational meeting on the CSAH 75
project sometime in January. 2001.
Ron Bray summarized some of the issues that remain to be addressed even after a design option
has been sclected. Brian Stumpf asked iJ'the design option the City was requesting a variance
on would require the bloeking oJ'f of street intersections. Ron Bray indicated that it would
although at this point it has not been determined what intersections would he closed off. Brian
Stumpf stated he was uncomfortable with any proposal that would block off street intersections.
Ron Bray reiterated that the Council was not being asked to aceept any design options at this
time but were only pursuing the option of a variance from MnDot for a design option.
BRUCE TH1El.EN MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION REQUESTING TWO
VARIANCES FROM THE MNDOT STATE AID ST ANDARDS FOR DES I GN OPTION # 1.
LEAVING THE CURB CONFIGURATION IN PLACE AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
MEETING AT 5:30 P.M. ON MONDAY, JANUARY 8,2001. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDEO
TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOLJSL Y.
7
;;,A
.
.
.
Council Meeting - 11/27/00
11.
~pprove navment of bills for November.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT Of BILLS. ROGER CARLSON
SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12.
Closed Session - Discussion of settlement 0
issues.
25 land eondemnation
The Council recessed for ten minutes bdore entering into a closed session at R:55 p.m. to discuss
sett\crnent issues relating to a litigation matter on land condemnation for the 'I'll 25 project.
BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO REOPEN THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AT 9:05
P.M. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
13. Adiourn.
BRIAN STUMPf MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:05 P.M. CUNT HERBST SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
--. -'- -,.'- - .-'-. -'- -..---.--'-.--' - .-. -'--- -,-
Recording Secretary
8
d-!i
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
TRlJTH IN TAXATION IH~ARING
Wednesday, December 6, 2000 - 5 p.m.
Members Present:
Roger Helsaas, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf and
Bruce Thielen.
Members Absent:
None
Mayor Helsaas called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
City Administrator. Rick Wo]fsteller. stated that this meeting is the Truth in Taxation hearing which
provides the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2001.
Rick Wolfsteller explained that the proposed final budget for 2001 is essential1y the same as the
preliminary budget certified to the County in September with only some minor revisions, such as
funding for Community Education, the YMCA Detached Worker Program, and a proposed bike park.
In budgeting for Community Education and the YMCA, city staff determined that 72.80;;) of the school
tax value comes from the City of Monticello so 72.8% ofthc amount requested was budgeted. The
same formula was used for the YMCA request. However. it was noted that if funding was not received
from the other entities that comprise the school district and the YMCA service area, the City would
fund only 501/ll of the requested amount.
.
Rick Wolfsteller explained that the proposed budget shows expenditures in excess of revenues but
there are some expenditures that are being funded from reserves. The proposed 2001 levy is set at
$5'<)67.342 which would be a 6.9% increase in dollars collected over the 2000 levy but just a 2.4%
increase in tax rate. The City's 2001 tax capacity rate would be 37.146 if the budget is left as it is.
The Council reviewed the ini'onnation submitted with the proposed budget relating to market values
and tax capacity values. Rick Wolfsteller also informed the Council that the City's levy for bonded
indebtedness would average about 2.2 million per year for the next 13 years. The council also
discussed the impact that the depreciation of the NSP facility had on the City's tax values.
Mayor Belsaas opened the public hearing.
Patricia Schmitz, 30 I Washington Street stated she lives on a fixed income and the increases in her
taxes have put her in a position of deciding whether she can keep her home or give it up. She asked that
when the Council considers the hudget that they keep in mind how the tax increases, even if they are
small increases, impact those people on fixed incomes. She also stated that she believed having NSP
in the area should reduce the tax burden for the city residents.
Mayor Belsaas responded stating that the City's budget was set looking carefully at keeping spending
under control. Bruce Thielen added that as Monticello's valuation continues to grow the tax burden is
shared by more people.
.
Arnold Dehn, who lives in Rogers but has two rental properties in Monticello located at 625 and 705
.
.
Council Minutes - 12/6/00
East Third Street also voiced his objection to the tax levy. I-Ie stated that the valuation on his property
has jumped dramatically so the tax impact of this budget is significant. He owns property in both
Monticello and Rogers and he compared the two communities noting that in Rogers he wasn't picking
up the cost of a new city hal1 Cacility. He suggested that if the private sector had built the swimming
pool and community center, the City would be collecting taxes from it, instead, he as a property owner
in Monticel1o is paying taxes to support it.
Clint Herbst stated that he had also received a cal1 Crom a property owner in Meadows Oaks 4th Addition
who could not be present at the meeting but did have questions regarding the taxes. Clint Herbst
suggested that in future years the Truth in Taxation meeting be held later in the evening. It was notcd to
thosc prcsent that the City of Monticello does not receive LGA (Local Government Aid) which other
communities do receive. The Council also indicated that if the property owners had questions about the
valuation on their property that is an item that would need to be discussed with the assessor or at the
Hoard of Review meeting which is held in the spring.
Mayor Belsaas closed the public hearing. The Truth in Taxation meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
_.,.__._..'_ _0--- .-....--.--..-...-.----...-
Recording Secretary
.
2
.
.
.
City Council ^genda - 12/11/00
SA. Consideration of a Land Survc or's Certification of Correction for the lat
of Klein Farms Sixth Addition. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
City Council is asked to approve a minor correction to the plat of the Klein farms Sixth
Addition. The original drawing correctly shows the side, ii'ont and back yard easements,
however in the key identifying easement dimensions, the side yard was incorrectly
identified at 5 feet when it should be 6 feet, and the rear and front yards were incorrectly
identified at 10 feet when they should have been 12 feet.
B. ALTERNATIVES
1. Motion adopting resolution correcting easement dimensions identifled in the key
of the Klein Farms Sixth Addition.
2. Motion to deny approval of proposed corrections.
C. S1' AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative 1. The correction as proposed will result in the key
tnatehing the plat drawing, and will bring the plat in compliance with residential
subdivision easement requirements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None
-1-
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 12/11/00
SB.
Consideration of approvin!! new hires and departures for the Communi1\' Center. (R W)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND:
The Council is asked to ratify the hiring of new employees that have occurred reccntly. ^s you
recalL it is recommendcd that the Council officially ratify thc hiring of all newemployces
including part-time and seasonal workcrs.
n. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the hiring of the employees for the Community Center as
idcntified on the attached list.
C. SlJPPORTING DATA:
List of new employees.
NEW EMPLOYEES
. Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Kenndy Bade Youth Activity Dir MCC 11/21/00 PT
Kristen Gordon Lifeguard MCC 11/22/00 PT
Name
Shmuel Kotljar
Dan Sieg
Peter Thielen
.
.
employee cc list.xls: 12/05/2000
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
Reason
voluntary
voluntary
voluntary
Department
MCC
MCC
MCC
Last Day
9/30/00
10/31/00
9/30/00
Class
PT
PT
PT
5B
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 12/11/00
sc.
Consideration of salarv schedule adiustment for 2()() I. (R W)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to consider an adjustrnent to the salary schedule for al] non-union employees
j()f' the year 200 I to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Council has annually
reviewed the salary schedule and made adjustments in order to help retain the City's pay
relationship to the rnarket and with Monday nights meeting being the last rneeting scheduled
for this year. an increase should be approved at this meeting to allow for irnplenlentation of the
new sehedu]e hy the first payroll period in January.
As part of the 200 I budget, I had included an additional WYo in the salary categories for each
department to allow fi)r potential cost of living adjustments. step increases and to allow room for
additional salary adjustments to our pay system to keep us cornpetitive with other communities.
It is my intention to have the Personnel Committee and ultimately the City Council to review a
number of issues related to personncl items such as personnel policy amendments, vacation
accruals, employee henefit plans such as health insurance and other cafeteria benefit options in
January or February of next year. What the Council is being asked to consider tonight concerns
a hasic adjustment of the dollar schedule to reflect current increases in the Consumer Price Index
fiJr our area.
In the past the Council has used the Minneapolis/St. Paul Consumer Price Indexes as the current
inflationary rate for the metro area. The current CPlli, ConsLHner Price Index for IJrban
Consumers, is at 4.2% on an annual basis. The Minneapolis/St. Paul indexes arc only calculated
twice a year for annual purposes. and this 4.2% increase covers the time period from June 1999 to
June 2000. Likewise, the US CPIU as of Oetoher 2000 shows a 3.4% increase on an annual hasis.
I am not sure why there is a .8o/cl diJlcrence between these two indexes, although the
Minneapolis/St. Paul index would seem to be more appropriate l<.n the Council's use.
In addition to the CPI inJ<'JrI11<:ltion, we have also conducted a brief survey again of various
surrounding communities including the cities of Big I,ake, Bulhllo, Elk River, Maple Grove and
Plymouth to determine what increases they had granted last year and arc proposing or have
approved for next year. These arc the same communities that we have surveyed in the past, and
this infonnation can be helpful f()r the Council to see what is happening in other communities
around us. As additional information, I have also enclosed a history of recent years salary
adjustments adopted by the Council cOIn pared to the reported ePI increases for those particular
years.
Any adjustments to the current salary schcdule adopted by the Council will only affect non-union
employces as of 1/1/2001. Language that has been included in our past union contract renewals
indicates that adjustnlents to the union's pay schedule is based on the same percentage increase
as granted to non-union cmployees except that the union is granted a minimum of one-half percent
annually. Any adjustment would not take place until the annual renewal date of their contract
which is April I sl of each year. This language has been heneficial to the City in one rcspect in that
it allows us to make sure that our comparable worth law is not violated by insuring that one
.
.
.
D.
Counc i I Agenda - 1211 1/00
bargaining group doesn't receive increases that may put the comparable worth plan out of
compliance.
H.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. The Council could establish a cost ofliving adjustment for the wage scales that would
apply l()r non-union employees that is in line with Minneapolis/St. Paul CPT.
According to the latest inf(JrIl1ation, this would result in an increase of 4.2%.
c.
2. The Council could establish a cost ofliving adjustment for the wage scale somewhere
hetween the US CPI index of 3.40;;) and the Minneapolis/St. Paul index of 4.2%.
~ .ft ~%
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: f3 / C 0
Because the Minneapolis/Sl. Paul CPI index would seem to he the appropriate cost of Jiving
indicator for our area, it is the eity Administrator's reconlmendation that the salary schedule be
adjusted by 4.2% for all non-union employees.
In addition to this adjustnlenL it is anticipated that \\henthe Personnel Committec and ultimately
the rull Council gets a chance to reviev, the City.s salary structure in comparison to surrounding
cOll1munities. additional adjustrnents may be 'vvarranted to keep the City in a competitive position
in the coming years. With the 2001 hudget containing 8% allowance ('or salary adjustments. the
4.1(X) recOIn mended would still allow the Council the ability to make further adjustments to the
salary structure after reviewing market comparisons with other cOll1munities.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Salary Survey of Surrounding Communities
Prior Years Salary Schedule Adjustments
.
SURVEY OF SlJRROlJNDING CITIES
2000 PROPOSED SALARY AD.HJSTMENTS
Big Lake
2000:
2001 :
3%
/~
3.50;()
Buthlo
2000: 4.7%
2001: 3.5% l
Elk River
2000: 3(1<) - May increase benefits
2001: 3% - Increase health insurance
Maple Grove 2000: 3 (Yo
/
2001 : 3% ./
Plymouth 2000: 3%
. 2001 : 3% /
t\.-tJ.
f"
( ~,Cc~ .~
\ QP ~Q}l (
~
.
WORD/DA WN/SALARY.SUR: 1\/22/99
5C
.
.
.
PRRVIOlJS YEARS' SALARY SCHEDULE
ADJUSTMENTS
For Year: Reported cPt Increase Council Adjustments
1993 3.2% 2.5%
1994 3.7 to 3.8% 3.5%
1995 2.9t03.1% 2.5%
1996 2.7% 2.7%
1997 3.] to 3.3% 3.1%
1998 2.7% 3%
]999 1.5% 2.5%
2000 2.6% to 2.7% 3.0%
200] 3.4% to 4.2% 'l
KARENIOFFICEIRICKIPRIORYR.ADJ: 12/8/98
5~
Counci 1 Agenda - 12/1 1/00
.
50. Consideration of Fund Transfers for 2000. (RW)
A. REFERENCE ANn BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to approve various fund transfers for the year 2000 to cover
deficiencies in various construction funds, transCcr of balances remaining from various
construction funds to debt service funds that finance projects, along with miscellaneous
transfers to correspond with our budget for the year 2000.
Most of the transfers arc self-explanatory and are necessary to eliminate deficiencies in
various construction funds or temporarily provide financing until a future general
obligation bond or revenue source can be arranged. Other major transfers from sewer
access funds or water access funds are to cover the City's share of various projects that
we had planned on paying for by using of these trunk fees.
A listing ofthe individual transfers recommended for approval is included with the
agenda that outlines each proposed transfer, dollar amount, and the purpose of the
transfer.
.
B.
ALTE,RNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Approve the transfers as recommended.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator that for accounting purposes, the
transfers be approved prior to the end of 2000.
D. SUPPORTING OAT A:
List of proposed transfers.
.
2000
RECOMMENDED FUND TRANSFERS
.
i. ~ "-'~ 0
FROM TO $ .' PUF!POSE; .......
.... .
98-25C Canst - Chelsea Rd
Sewer Access Fund West #476 $48,970.00 To cover part of City costs for projects
98-17C Canst - CSAH 75
Sewer Access Fund #467 $137,91800 To cover part of City costs for projects
98-25C Canst - Chelsea Rd
Water Access Fund West #476 $51,10300 To cover part of City costs for projects
98-17C Canst - CSAH 75
Water Access Fund #467 $67,72100 To cover part of City costs for projects
98-08C Canst - Chelsea Rd
Water Access Fund E #468 $50,67500 To cover part of City costs for projects
98-25C Canst - Chelsea Rd
Storm Sewer Access Fund West #476 $141,48900 To cover part of City costs for projects
98-17C Canst - CSAH 75
Storm Sewer Access Fund #467 $2800 To cover part of City costs for projects
98-08C Canst - Chelsea Rd
Storm Sewer Access Fund E #468 $39,38400 To cover part of City costs for projects
Storm Sewer Access Fund 96-04C Canst TH 25 #450 $5,00000 To cover part of City costs for projects
Debt Service 2000 Public
HRA Revenue Bond #365 $11,25000 To transfer funds for partial payment of Comm Ctr bond
Storm Sewer Access Fund Debt Service 99 G,O #363 $26,10500 To cover part of City share of canst. Cost
To transfer part of City share of canst cost to debt service that
96-04C Construction Debt Service 99 G.O, #363 $100,00000 was originally transferred from Storm Sewer Access Fund
Debt Service 97A G.O,
97-04C Klein Farms 4th Canst #332 $1,212,57600 To transfer assessments collected to Debt Service Fund
92 Fire Hall Bond #355 96C Sewer GO #360 $12,033,23 To close out and transfer balance to similar debt fund
To transfer back funds to close out 88-1 Bond that were
94A G,O Bond #328 88B G,O #322 $1,276,58 transferred in error 12-31-99
90B G.O Bond #324 96(A) G,O Bond #330 $8,42750 To close out balance to refunded bond issue 96A
To transfer funds from SCERG & UDAG to cover Twin City
SCERG EDA $25,698,02 Die Castings Loan #17
To transfer funds from SCERG & UDAG to cover Twin City
UDAG EDA $74,301,98 Die Castings Loan #17
To transfer funds from UDAG & SCERG for Mainline Loan
UDAG EDA $39,54638 #15
To transfer funds from UDAG & SCERG for Mainline Loan
SCERG EDA $60,45362 #15
Liquor Comm. Ctr #461 $224,00000 Transfer per fin. Plan from liquor
General Comm Ctr #461 $395,126,30 Transfer per fin. Plan from sale of City Hall
Capital Outlay Comm, Ctr, #461 $40,00000 Transfer per fin plat - Capital Outlay Reserves
Pathway Canst 93-08C
Pathway Canst 97-08C #456 #435 $2,436.42 To close out pathway canst funds no longer needed
Pathway Canst 93-08C
Park Dedication #229 #435 $1,74083 To close out pathway canst funds no longer needed
HS, Storm Sewer Canst To close out by transfer of funds from another similar project
Klein 4th 97-04C Canst Fund Fund $34,84875 financed by 97A Bond
Klein 3rd 97-03P Canst Fund 97A GO Bond #332 $45,613.41 To close out completed Const Fund
1988(B) G.O Water Bond 1998 (B) Refunding Bond To transfer remaining funds to new bond fund and close out
#354 #361 $3,257,90 old bond
To transfer TIF Revenue from HRA to Debt Service Funds for
HRA VariOUS debt service funds $91,90000 bond payments
.
.
DAWNIEXCELIRICK2000 Fund Transfers 12/8/00
50
.
To transfer funds from Sewer Access for partial payment on
Sewer Access Fund #262 WNTP Note $500,00000 debt per 2000 Budget
98-24C Const Fund
(Booster Pump Station)
Water Access Fund #265 #464 $117,09380 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
Storm Sewer Access Fund 99-09C Canst Fund (Hart
#263 Blvd Storm Pond) #471 $3,59100 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
99-10C Canst fund (Comm.
Water Access Fund #265 Meth Church) #472 $1,711.44 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
2000-03C Canst Fund
(Tower Drive watermain)
Water Access Fund #265 #475 $18,625,00 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
2000-03C Canst Fund
(Tower Drive watermain)
Capital Outlay Reserves #475 $36,875,00 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
98-13C Canst Fund (Walnut
General Fund St Canst) #470 $65,000,00 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
98-13C Canst Fund (Walnut
7th St Canst Fund (#462) St Canst) #470 $120,000,00 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
2000-01C Canst Fund (NSP
Capital Outlay Fund Ballfield Lights) $40,00000 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
2000-01 C Canst Fund (NSP
Park Funds Ballfield Lights) $32,307,71 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
2000-02C Canst Fund
Capital Outlay Fund (Walnut St Parking) $46,644.40 To eliminate deficit in Canst Fund
98-16 Canst Fund (Bridge
Capital Outlay Fund Park St Impr) #463 $2,036,50000 To close out deficit in Canst Fund
98-02C Canst Fund (Cty Rd
Capital Outlay Fund 18/Ped Bridge) #460 $90,00000 To transfer money budgeted in previous years to Canst Fund
98-02C Canst Fund (Cty Rd
Park Funds 18/Ped Bridge) #460 $90,000,00 To transfer money budgeted in previous years to Canst Fund
98-03C Canst Fund Transfer of general fund reserves to cover estimated canst.
General Fund (Community Ctr) #461 $150,00000 Deficiency at 12-31-00
.
.
so
DAWNIEXCELIRICK2000 Fund Transfers 12/8/00
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 12/l1l00
5E. Consideration of adootin1! increases to the develooment fee structure. (R W)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to make its second annual across the board adjustment to all
development and hookup fees to be effective January 1.2001. In previous years, fees have been
allowed to remain constant with relatively large periodic increases. Last year we began the
process of adopting annual increases that were much smaller each year to avoid complications
that came with large increases. The increases were projected to be in line with cost of living
adj ustments.
The fees that are proposed are related to various development fees such as park dedication, trail
fund. sewer and water hookup fees along with the various trunk utility charges. The finance
plan prepared by the consulting engineer had estimated a 4% intlation factor each year. It is
recommended that the development fees be increased by approximately 4% effective January 1 ,to
It is hoped that making these annual increases to the fees we charge will enable us to maintain a
fee structure that is comparable to fees charged by other cities and to keep pace with the
increases in utility and construction cost that we experience.
H.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to adopt proposed changes to development fees as recommended on l~xhibit A.
Except for a few cases where some or the fees have just been recently increased by the
Council. increases are approximately 4% across the board.
2. Motion to deny adoption of proposed changes to development fees.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recol1l1nends alternative #1. Based on input from the City Engineer and projections we
have been using in projecting revenue from our trunk funds_ a 4(% escalator has been anticipated.
Smaller annual increases should be more acceptable to the development community rather than
periodic larger increases.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List or development fees proposed to be increased.
LISTING OF DEVELOPMENT ~'EES
* * $1,500 per acr\ ,~~ " : \
_, '~~. .~~ d'/}o'>'
'**$625 + matenals ~
~9- I
***$1130 + materials ~,~tl'~
** * $1450 +- materials l).., ~
'\)
i)'V
***$1 S50 +- materials I)'
.
FEE
2000 AMOlJN'I
Park Dedication (residential)
Dedication of 1 O(Yo of land
area or $775 per lot in cash
Trail Fund
$200 - no change
Parking Fund (CCD District)
*$1,400 per stall
Sewer Access Charge:
Residential - single family $3,000
All others per unit equivalent $3,000 per unit
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
$1,825
.
Trunk Storm Sewer Fees:
Business
Industrial
Residential
$5,600 per acre
$5.275 per acre
$4,800 per acre
Trunk Water Charge
Water Access Charge: 1" line
1-1/4"
1 - 1 12"
2"
~"
.J
4"
***$2450 + materials
6"
***$3075 +- materials
8"
* * * $4075 -+ materials
.
>\< 1 ncrease 10/9/200
* * Increased 11/13/2000
***lncreased 9/25/2000 (All classes +- 19%)
2001 AMOlJNT
(4% & Rounded)
Dedication of 1001) or land
area or $800 per lot in cash
$210
$1,425
(2% - changed late fall)
$3.125
$3,125
$1,900
$5,825 per acre
$5.500 per acre
$5,000 per acre
'. a'^ i.-
$1,500 (no change - ~. \} ,~
just modified) t"'; I RoP~l.jJ/
..c 7t..( $ (P ~~
$635 +- materials(2% increase
changed in fall)
$950 +- materials(20;() increase
changed in fall)
$1150 +- materials(2% increase
changed in fall)
$1475 +- materials(2IYr) increase
changed in h111)
$1900 +- materials(2% increase
changed in fall)
$2500 +- materials(2lYo increase
changed in fall)
$3150 -+- materials(2% increase
changed in fall)
$4150 +- materials(2% increase
changed in fall)
EXHIBIT A
5E
.
.
.
SF.
City COLlnci I ^gencla - 12/1 1/00
Consideration of accepting petition for vacation of 90th Street Addition casements
and call for a public hearing for vacation of utilities easements associated with the
.Jacob HoldiD1!s portion of the orig:inal 9ij1h Street Addition. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As you know the original 90lh Street Addition needs to be re-platted to accommodate the
revised Dodge dealership site plan recently approved by the City Council. In order ror
the re-platting to occur. the original casements that were contained along the perimeter
lots identified on the 90th Street Addition plat need to be vacated. This is a housekeeping
matter that was not known to be a requirement at the time that the original action was
taken on approval of the Jacob l-loldings final plat.
In summary. City Council is simply asked to accept the petition and call fl)r a public
hearing on vacation on the casements contained with the original 90th Street Addition that
interfere with the estahlishment of the new plat. The proposed puhlic hearing is set J()r
the first meeting in January which is January gth. Once the action is taken to vacate these
easements on January 8th, the re-plat can then be recorded.
B. ALTERNATIVES
I. Motion to accept petition and call1c1r a puhlic hearing on vacation of said
eaSClnents.
2. Motion to deny petition Cor vacation or said easements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Administrator recommends Alternative I.
D. SlWPORTING DATA
Copy of petition for the vacation.
-1-
_,~ ....tIt.....-
.
.
.
Date:
PETITION FOR VACATION OF EASEMENTS
I hereby petition the City of Monticello to vacate the utility easement in the 90th Street
Addition described as follows:
The Northwesterly 20.00 feet. the Northeasterly 20.00 feet and the East 6.00 feet of said
Lot I, Block I, 90th Street Addition, according to the recorded plat, thereoL on file in
Wright County. Minnesota; and
The East 6.00 feet and the Southwesterly 12.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, 90th Street
Addition according to the recorded plat thereof on file in Wright County, Minnesota; and
The East 6.00 feet, the Southerly] 2.00 feet and the Westerly 12.00 feet of said Lot 3.
Block I, 90th Street Addition according to the recorded plat thereof on file in Wright
County, Minnesota.
Jacob Holdings of Montiecllo LLC
."-.'."-.".-."--.".--'.-'...-"'-
Bill Rambow
s~
L~".
.
.
.
City COllnci I Agenda - 12/11/00
7.
Public Hearin J _ Consideration of a roval of the vacation of utili casements
within Lot 2. Block 1 of the 90th Street Addition. (.10)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Jacob Iloldings group is requesting t!lat the City consider vacating an easement identified
within Lot 2, Block 1 of the 90th Street Addition. Vacation of this easement is requested
becausc it interfercs with the building footprint. According to Bill Rambow, the only
utility company that uses this easement is the cable company and they will relocate the
line. When the revised final plat is complcted, it will contain easements that will replace
the casement proposed for vacation, thereforc thcre is no reason for the City to retain it.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I.
Motion approving the vacation of utility easements within Lot 2, Block 1 of the
90th Street Addition. Motion to include granting a lieense to construct a building
on the easement.
Due to thc f~lCt that the date of the hearing and final decision will occur after
construction commences, it is suggestcd that the City Council allow the
construction to occur over the easement area via 1 icense agreement.
2.
Motion to deny vacation of utility easements within Lot 2, Block 1 of the 90th
Street Addition.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative I.
D. SUPPORfING DATA
None
- 1-
Council Agenda - 12/11/00
.
s.
Ado tion Hcarino - Considcration of resolution ado
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROllND:
As part of the Truth in Taxation requirements. the City Council is required to hold this second
adoption hearing on the adoption of the 2001 budget and the resulting tax levy. While this
second meeting will technically be another public hearing, the purpose of the requirement
delaying the actual adoption of the budget and tax levy at this meeting is to provide the Council
and the public \vith suflicient time to digest the budget requirernel1ts proposed at our last
Wednesday night meeting. in case additional changes were warranted.
At the initial public hearing Wednesday night. no additional changes were proposed by the
Counci I to the proposed budget or tax levy, and as a result. the total tax levy proposed is the
same as our preliminary budget amount. $5,067.342. This will result in our tax levy going up
hy 6.9% in dollars. or $328,c)17 above the 2000 levy, but it should only result in a 2.411'0
increase in our tax capacity rate.
.
As you will recall, comments from the two individuals who attended the original Truth in
Taxation hearing Wednesday night related more to the increases in their property values that
may have been occurring, rather than specifically targeting the City's proposed budget 1~1r next
year. Although the two certainly go hand in hand, it appears that jf individual prorcrty taxes
are rising dramatically, it is probahly relatcd to increases in thcir market values hecause of
intlation or new construction and not necessarily because of our proposed hudgct levy. Our
proposed levy should only raise the City portion ofthe taxes by 2.4%, if the value or the
property remains thc same ii'om one year to the next. With an assumed 511'0 increase in market
value l'or a typical home, increases should still only be 7.50jo for the City's share of the taxes.
An increase along these lines still seems reasonabJcwhen you consider inflation is 40!cl or lllore
and home values are rising at a higher rate than this.
Although we are not sure what the final tax lcvies are from other taxing jurisdictions such as
Wright County or the school district. my calculations arc that an average homeowner will not
see their property taxes change fi'om what they paid in 2000, unless their market values
increased dramatically.
lhe Council should open the public hearing for any additional comments the public may have
regarding the proposed budget and tax levy.
Please relCr to the agenda packet summary provided f~)r last Wednesday night for additional
details on the proposed budget.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
1.
After the close of the adoption hearing, the Council could adopt a resolution setting the
tax levy rcquirements for next year at the proposed amount or $5,067,342, which is the
amount discussed at our last publ ic hearing Wednesday night.
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 12/11/00
J
Co unci I could adopt a linaJ levy amount that is Jess than the amount proposed. but
not more than $5,067,342.
c STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation that the resolution be adopted as proposed setting the levy at
$5Jl67.342.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Resolution
'fax Levy Summary Sheet
Property Tax COlnparison Sheets
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-90
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000 BUDGET AND
SETTING THE TAX LEVY
.
WHEREAS. the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget setting forth
therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operation and the debt service for the fiscal
year commencing January 1, 2001; and
WIIEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same and has made such changes therein as appear to be
in the best interest of the City of Monticello;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVl~D BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that
the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes made therein by the City
Council, be and same hereby is adopted as a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1,2001; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City ol'Monticello that there be and hereby is
levied for the fiscal year commencing January 1,2001, the following sums for the respective purposes
indicated therein upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello, to wit:
I REVENUE
I LEVY
I HACA
I NET CERTIFIED LEVY
.
General $2,632,289 $283,426 $2,348,863
Community Center $589Jl I 0 $589,010
Parks $387.165 $387.165
Lihrary $33290 $33.290
Transportation $22.740 $22.740
HRA $17,570 $17.570
OAA $5,200 $5.200
DEBT RETIREMENT
Dcht Service Fund $1,335,304 $1,335.304
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Capital Improvement Revolving $32S.200 $328200
TOTAL TAX LEVY $5.350,768 $283,426 $5,067,342
The above resolution was introduce by Councilmember R C-./ ,was duly seconded by Councilmember
----b:-t__ with the following voting in LIVor thereof:
The following voted in opposition: None
The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County
Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota.
. Adopted this 11th day of December, 2000.
- ATTEST:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
Rick Wolf<>teller. City Administrator
ij
C.
Revision #2
.
TAX LEVY SUMMARY
2001 Budget
All Funds
~" .,
'. N,el ~~rablt):3001
!,dju~t~~Le,,>,
~1'ter DE1~ucting
+/"" ", HA€~
$387,165
$2,348,863
$33,290
$22,740
$0
$5,200
$17,570
$1,335,304
$328,200
$589,010
$5;067,342
Parks
General
library
Transportation
Shade Tree
OAA
HRA
Debt SeNice
Capital Imp. Revolving
Community Center
Net Payable 2000:
Adjusted Levy
After Deducting
HACA
$458,171
$2,266,639
$32,790
$21,722
$0
$4,425
$15,790
$1,264,135
$130,000
$545,653
$4,739:;325
Le"'t",Befor~:/,
H~€Ai,~djust,~,
~ayable 2001'
$387,165
$2,632,289
$33,290
$22,740
$0
$5,200
$17,570
$1,335,304
$328,200
$589,010
TOTAL
.
Net Levy Increase to Cover Debt
Net Levy Increase for Non-debt Portion of Budget
Net Certified Levy Decrease/I ncrease
Maximum Levy Allowed
$33,419
$294,598
$328,017
NA
6.9%
Payable 1995 Tax Capacity Rate
Payable 1996 Tax Capacity Rate
Payable 1997 Tax Capacity Rate
Payable 1998 Tax Capacity Rate
Payable 1999 Tax Capacity Rate
Payable 2000 Tax Capacity Rate
Paybable 2001 Tax Capacity Rate
18228
18509
19.136
27001
35_186
36_272
37. 146
'94/Payable 1995
'95/Payable 1996
'96/Payable 1997
'97/Payable 1998
'98/Payable 1999
99/Payable 2000
2000/Payable 2001
Tax Capacity
Value
$15,586,930
$15,792,922
$15,993,989
$14,413,597
$13,123,681
$13,066,057
$13,641,431
Tax Capacity
Rate
18228
18.509
1 9 1 36
27.001
35.186
36272
37146
$2,841,185
$2,922,800
$3,059,880
$3,883,013
$4,617,725
$4,739,325
$5,067,342
.
COMME.NTS:
*Community Center budget levy includes $525,000 for debt service and $64,010 for operations
with a transfer from Liquor Fund of $240,000.
(Net Levy Required = $589,010)
DAWN BUDWKSPREV:Tax Levy summary.ReV#211/29/00
-1-
~
Revision #3
.
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
2001 Budget
.
...,.,.- C,,' C. -', -'i .,...,. c', -c --c;"i 2000 -, -: -"~I .. ..'" F:, -:, --- -;" -2001.. ,., '.',.. ..."""..'. -\,-"
{; .,.. ,...,... FUND .;;.; 2 REVENUE: EXPENDITURES F REVENUE--:- EXPENDITURES
General $3,518,508 $3,515,770 $3,737,095 $3,737,095
Parks $468,171 $468,171 $400,265 $400,265
Park Dedication $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000
Library $34,290 $34,290 $34,790 $34,790
Transportation $89,300 $89,300 $91.675 $91,675
Shade Tree $3,665 $43,120 $4,800 $44,560
Community Center $1,216,710 $1.216,710 $1,339,905 $1,339,905
UDAG $10,130 $0 $8,500 $0
OM $5,700 $5,700 $7,100 $7,100
HRA $732,480 $411,630 $766,105 $430,440
Minn. Investment Fund $0 $0 $17,590 $0
EDA $37,960 $7,000 $51,915 $8,000
SCERG $6,805 $0 $9,030 $0
CMIF $145 $0 $160 $0
Debt Service $3,222,970 $3,852,318 $3,505,271 $3,972.918
Liquor $2,531,225 $2,345,440 $2,575,000 $2,481,380
Water $306,875 $539,935 $334,900 $509,820
Sewer $737,080 $1,804,475 $761,840 $1,880,995
Cemetery $23,090 $31,290 $30,350 $31.500
Capital Improvements $242,030 $130,000 $401,500 $531,500
Water Access $146,000 $25,000 $116,795 $860,000
Storm Sewer Access $174,760 $0 $124,520 $0
Sanitary Sewer Access $698,100 $535,000 $671,050 $633,000
1"7 .... -, .., , [.;.. ..
TOTAL . $14,205,994 $15,055,149 $15,020,156 $17 ,024,943
.
COMMENTS:
"includes $1,147,600 Depreciation ~- contributed assets sewer
""includes $269,395 Depreciation -~ contributed assets water
2001 BUDWKSPREV/Rev&Exp Summary-#3' 11/29/00
o
-2-
Revision #3
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED REVENUES,
EXPENDITURES AND FUND BALANCES
(Cash & Investments)
.
.
.,.., PROJECTED .... 2001 2001
I : BALANCE P~OJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
,',"" ....FUND ..... .,.. i/. 12/31/00 ..,. ,". . .....,....REVENUE ,. EXPENDITURES BALANCE 12/31101
Parks Fund $178,700 $400,265 $430,265 $148.700
Park Dedication fund $40,195 $30,000 $30,000 $40,195
General $3,155,000 $3.737,095 $4,344,095 $2,548,000
Library $1,575 $34,790 $34,790 $1,575
Tree $70,650 $4,800 $44,560 $30,890
OM $7,325 $7,100 $7,100 $7,325
Water $615,650 $334,900 $240,425 $710,125
Water Access $329,150 $116,795 $860,000 ($414,055)
Sewer $657,200 $761,840 $733,395 $685,645
Sewer Access $1,674,200 $671,050 $633,000 $1.712,250
Transportation $1,200 $91,675 $91,675 $1,200
Liquor $1,065,675 $2,575,000 $2,481,380 $1,159,295
Capital Outlay Revolving $1,305,000 $401,500 $531,500 $1,175,000
HRA $646,450 $766,105 $430,440 $982,115
-
Minn. Investment Fund $100 $17,590 $0 $17,690
UDAG $56,200 $8,500 $0 $64,700
EDA $610,000 $51,915 $8,000 $653,915
SCERG $86,725 $9,030 $0 $95,755
CMIF $800 $160 $0 5960
Storm Sewer Access $116,050 $124,520 $0 $240,570
Cemetery $16,000 $30,350 $31,500 $14,850
Community Center Fund ($192.750) $1,339,905 $1,339,905 ($192,750)
-:
SUBTOTALS ... / $10,441,095 ..',...'... $11,514,885 $12,272,030 $9,683,950
Debt Service
General Obligation Bonds $1,339,725 $1,753,040 $1,878,740 $1,214,025
Special Assessment Bonds $5,213.700 $1,659,215 $1,978,555 $4,894,360
Tax Increment Bonds $141,575 $83.765 $106,375 $118,965
...... ..,.... --c.. .....
DEBT SE~VICE SUBTOTAL.S . $6,695,000 I"'", $3;496,020 $3,963,670 // .... $6,227,350
TOTALS
$17,136,095
$15,010,905
$16,235,700
$15,911,300
.
2001 BUDWKSPREV:Sum of Projected Revenues-#3:11/29/00
5
-3-
.
.
.
Q)
E
0 -
::r: en
.!2 Q)
.-
- >
Q) 0 Q)
0 0 ...J
~ N c::
c:: 0 0
0 - ~
~ 0 CU
0 0 ><
0 0 CU
ON I-
- Q) c::
l()_
-..0
- cu;
fRo >-::::J
CU CU '-
'- ~I-
.E en c::
Q) 0
c:: ><-c
Q) CU Q)
-c I- en
'-
::::J CU
OJ OJ
-
><
CU
I-
<.0
0>
'<:t
.,...
tA-
'<:t
0>
'<:t
.,...
tA-
.,...
o
L{)
tA-
.,...
N
L{)
tA-
o
o
(!)
..--
o
o
v
o
o
N
.,....
o
o
o
o
o
OJ
o
o
(!)
o
o
v
o
o
N
ctI
......
o
I-
~
o
o
Cl
Cl
Cl
N
II
.,....
o
Cl
N
o
o
2
E!
..-
..-
t::
'"
.c
U
o
o
N
c':
(])
-e
:::J
CD
><
'"
f-
.:-:
LU
(')
o
=>
(D
z
~
o
8'
.
1II
Z
0
j::: "'
U .>>
is :>
1II QI
1'i ...J
::l E
..., :I
...J E
...J .;(
<C '"
;; :i
1II c:
W c 0
N
. >< .. ..
<C '"
I- :> ><
c '"
...J c I-
<C c .E
l- N
0 .<:
I- '5
u.. ~
0
z c:
0
0 -0
1II Q)
1'i ..
<C '"
c. !!:!..
:i:
0
U
.
x
'"
f-
a
0
N
Q)
Z
Ol
:::J
Cij
>
~..-
'00
",0
o..N
'"
U
><
'"
f-
Ol
E W-
0 ..
:I: '"
'0 Ol
<3
Ol ..- .C;
:::J 0
Cij 0 <f!.
> N '"
Q) .c
.>< ~
Cij
~
x
'"
f-
..-
0
0
N
a3
z
Ol
.2
'"
>
>-
- ..-
00
",0
o..N
'"
U
><
'"
f-
x
'"
f-
0
0
0
N
a3
z
Ol
:::J
<Ii
>
~O
00
",0
o..N
'"
U
x
'"
I-
Ol
E
0
I
a
Ol 0
:::J 0
<Ii 0
..J > N
<{ a3
i= -'"
z Cij
W :2
0
(f)
w
0:::
COMC"':IC'f".)(.C
("'"J-.;-f"'-C'>tO
't"'"""illOOlLO
"":~NN('I")
W{flbf)W~
'" 0 <Xl <Xl 0
N 0 <Xl <Xl 0
..-; <Xl ... ,...: ..-
<0 '" .... ""' r--
o. ....- co_ "'. '"
..- ~ ;;; N N
~ U7 ~
00000
OI.OLnIJ".>O
U'"}f""-.r-t--O
"';ci~~ci
<:nNVtO~
tA-1""'"~.,.....N
~f;A-WtA-
"I""""....,.c.o'r'"f'-
c,Oa>NO",,"
O"'l;f-O}i;O("'")
~~"";N~
f;l>W-WEA-fR-
0 0 0 0 0
0 '" '" '" 0
..- o-i ""' o-i <ri
'" 0 ""' '" 0
'" ..... ,..., ""' <Xl.
W ..- ..- N N
'" '" <n W
o:>tOc,Ol.O'V
~O)("j~(,O
0_ "I:t_m~ co, C?
~'I"""~N(f)
~w~<.rtY)
0 0 0 0 0
"" '" '" '" 0
o-i o-i ""' <ri
'" 0 ""' is> 0
'" v_I'--: ""' co_
<n ..- .,... '" N
.,. '" '" w
00000
00000
00000
OI,(')~~O
m_Mt-O
W__~'r"""N
tA-(hb')rfl
x
'"
f-
;;
0
N
a3
z
Ol
-'2
'"
>
""
~ 1""'"
00
",0
o..N
'"
U
x
'"
I-
a;-
Ol ..
'"
:::J Ol
<Ii <3
> ..- ,C;
0
Q) 0 <f!.
-t N '"
'" .c
:2 ~
x
"'
f-
;;
0
N
a3
z
Ol
:::J
<Ii
>
~.,...
'u 0
",0
o..N
'"
U
X
'"
f-
><
'"
f-
0
0
0
N
a3
z
(])
:::J
<Ii
>
~o
00
'" 0
o..N
'"
U
X
'"
I-
..J
<{
~
I-
(f) Ol
~ :::J
0 <Ii
Z > 0
0
5 0; 0
-t N
::f '"
u ~
0:::
W
~
~
0
u
c:otOC'f'"JCO
oOJ:t(OU'"J
C"':!Oc,ON
""C'i";~
EA-_vc.f}
'" ~ w
0000
0000
0000
N"'-OO
LONNa>
",,,,..rei
<FI~,,",<O
fI'>~
0000
0000
0000
u1~cici
o~'-Oc
"I""""("'"Jo~
w ~ "r"*"~ N
Ifl W
...--MO".I/X)
IJ".)OOVN
_("'")-.;;I-CO
",,~c;--.iui
EA-_~a)
"'<FI~
0000
ooo~
6660
0000
"I:t"t-I.()I.O
N"o:iN"<o
WWMtD
<F> W
-.:t'_<-oO
f'--("/";)NO".l
..,-~c.o"-
~":Nr--:
~.,...-..q-CO
U7 '" <F>
0000
0000
otnt.no
U1NNO
'<I: "'_ ....- "'-
NC:OMill
f:AV}(""')(,O
fI'>~
0000
0000
0000
cicici6
0000
.,-("'100
WW~N
U7 U7
~
o
('
'"
~
;;:
6.
~
o
'-'
'"
>--
(/)
z
o
o
<>:
0.
o
>--
U.J
<:)
o
:::J
c>
g
.
VI
Ol
.2
'"
>
.~
c:
'" Ol
c: :g
0 ..
,!!! <l.l
:u 0::
0.. ,C;
E ;;
0 0
U 0
>>---1 x N
i: ---1 '" .8
0 UJ I- 0
.. U m 0
0 0
QI a; <; N
x l- E
'" E 0
.... Z E N ,g
. a 0 0 '" Ol
c: ::2: u ::- ::l
0 06 0 <Ii
0
i: l.1.. -0 0 >
0 0 '" N 03
ll.. <l.l
<Ii -'"
1='>- <l.l m
U l- E :2
0 S
U :c
~ Ol
..
'E '"
Ol
Ol <3
-0
'<ij S
OJ t!-
o:: '"
'"
(/)
Ol
E
::l
'"
'"
'.5-
.
x
os
....
0
0
N
03
z
Ol
::l
m
>
.?: 0
0
",0
0.. N
'"
U
X
os
I-
Ol
E Cii
0 '"
:c '"
'0 Q)
<3
Q) ;; S
::l
m 0 ::R
N 0
> '"
Qj -5
"'" ~
:u
:2
x
'"
l-
e;
0
N
03
z
Q)
::l
m
>
.?: ;;
0
'" 0
o..N
'"
U
X
'"
l-
x
'"
I-
0
0
0
N
03
z
Q)
::l
m
>
,~o
0 0
'" 0
0.. N
'"
U
x
'"
I-
OJ
E
0
:c
'0
<l.l 0
::l 0
m 0
..J N
<{ >
i= v
""
z m
w :2
c
en
w
0:::
"'<0"'''''''
m"'<O~O
C'"1U'"J(Qc:n~
tA-lot'l~t\A-or-"'"
~
"'0<0<00
NOCO<OO
t.nai-.:tr--.:'t"'"""
IOO'>~"'I'--
o~<o..,.,m
__~~~NN-
~f04tR-EA-~
00000
0",,,,"'0
"'..........,.....0
.jci..;rici
mN'l:ta)........
~____~N
""<F>~'"
CO_~O')N
ION~<O~
",,,,<O<XlO
~~IiR-tA-~
W
00000
0",,,,""'0
"'''''''';10
0'> OMO'> 0
O'>~""''''<O
fflo~~~C'iN-
....<F>~~
0'> 0'>0'> co I'--
1.(')0 N (.0 'I!""'"
M "'<0<0 0
~WtA-{;,.4"""'"
~
00000
0"",""''''0
a;8~&1~
O')"I;fl"--nco
W";";NN
fI'>~IflW
00000
00000
00000
c;io.rio.ri.oci
a>-.r-M,.....O
foA>_"I"""".,...-.N
tltrF>....1fl
x
'"
I-
0
0
N
Qj
Z
Q)
;:l
<ii
>
>>
~ ...
'00
"'0
o..N
'"
U
x
'"
I-
Cii
Q) '"
'"
::l <l>
m <3
> 0 ,S;;
Qj 0 t!-
-c N
'"
'" -5
:2 ~
x
'"
l-
e;
0
N
03
z
Q)
::l
m
>
>-
~ ...
<.>0
",0
o..N
'"
U
x
'"
l-
x
'"
....
0
0
0
N
Q)
Z
Q)
::l
m
>
.f;' 0
UO
",0
o..N
'"
U
X
os
....
..J
<{
ii:
I-
(f) Q)
::l ::l
C m
Z > 0
0
::J OJ 0
-'" N
::f m
u ~
a:::
w
:E
~
0
u
IO"'~"'"
"'NOlO
m~l'--O'>
~ - - -
"'N'"
.... ~ N
~ <F>
0000
0000
6060
N"""'OO
"'NNO'>
Nai....'"
1fl1fl"'1O
~ Ifl
0000
0000
0000
o.rio.ricici
0~""'0
"r""""~O"l""""
1;;1}fA-....-~N
.... tit
"I""""~NN
0'>"'1'--0
<ONOI'--
.... . - 0
"'N....
....... N
tit ....
0000
0000
...........,.,'"
NcONcD
........"'<0
.... <F>
01000
r-U""J!Xl:N
aJ-CO-
.... - " .
"'.....~
....~N
... ....
....
0000
0000
0666
0000
~....."''''
NcONcD
tIt<,4"'<O
'" v>
c
o
n
;::0
0000
0000
0000
ci6cici
0000
~MOO
.... tit - .
~ N
~ ....
'"
Z
o
(/)
5'
0:
"-
~
l;;
x
~
""
w
(:J
c
::>
:Il
2
(
z
s:
0:
o
g
-
COMPARISONS
MARKET VALUES AND TAX CAPACITY VALUES
2000 TO 2001
(INCLUDES NSP)
(W/O NSP)
Total Market Values - 2001
Total Market Values - 2000
$600,486,300
$554,857,100
$45,629,200
$347,517,900
$293,922,800
$53,595,100
Amount of Increase
+8,2%
+18.23%
Market Value Increase - New Construction
Market Value Increse - New Inflation Value
$26,638,400
$18,990,800
$45,629,200
+4,8%
+3.4%
8.2%
Before NSP Depreciation
+9.1%
+6.4%
15,5%
(INCLUDES NSP) (W/O NSP) (NSP)
Total Tax Capacity Values - 2001 $13,641,431 $5,008,872 $8,632,559
Total Tax Capacity Values - 2000 $13,085,763 $4,186,983 $8,898,780
Increase (Decrease) $555,668 $821,889 ($266,221)
+4.25% +19,62% (-3,0%)
~
" Tax Capacity Value Comparisons 2000 to 2001 + (-)
Residential (H.S) $2,200,000 $2,700,000 + $500,000
Commercial $1,330,000 $1,560,000 +$230,000
Industrial $530,000 $648,000 +$148,000
Apts (4+ units) $251,000 $361,000 +$110,000
NSP- Utility $8,898,000 $8,632,000 (-$266,000)
Net Income +$692,000
Less: Additional TIF -($137,000)
Final Tax Capacity Increase +$555,000
2000 2001
NSP - Utility Share ofTax Capacity (Taxes) 68% 63%
,I
DAWN/BUDGET MktValue- TaxCapValue: 11/29/00
g
r"
~'
.-..-.-. .--" ..,,-_._,. ._~~~. ..-- ---- .-".-
.
.
U)
en
w
z
o
W
I-
CD
W
o
Oz
...J
...JO
ww
UO
i=z
zO
om
~w
u.0::
01-
>-w
1-0::
-0
ul-
en
w
>
W
...J
><
<C
....
.
o
o
o
N
'" '" ... ;; .... '" '" "" "" ... "" '" "" ... '" '" "" ....
.... '" .... '" "" .... .... 0::> "" .... '" 0::> '" '" '" '" ....
"', "" <'l "'- <1J "'. .... ...- "" .... 0::>. ....- '" "'. '" '" '" ....
'" iii' ... ... (f) co al ... 0::> ",- 0 "" .; co '" ",- ",k i
"" ... '" co .... ~ .... co co ~ .... .... 0 "" 0::> co co
"" '" .... '" '" N N '" "" '" "" '" '" 0_ 0,
N N N N N ",- N' N N ",- ",- N N ",- ... ... ~ ...
... ... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... ... ... .... .... ...
0 0::> 0 0 0::> 0 0::> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 <:> 0 0 0 0 0::> 0 <:> 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
.... '" .... "', '" .... N 0 .... <'1.
'" ....' ",' N N ,..,- ..,,: u; u; ""
;;> ;;> ;;; N N N N N N
... ... ... ... <f> ... ...
::,':
..,.
'" '" '" '" '" '" 0 0 <'1 '" 0 0::> <'1 '" 0 0 0 0
.... <D N 0 N .... '" '" <'1 '" 0 ~ ... <J> ... ...
<D. '" '" "'- .... .... .... ~ <D <'1 O. ro ,,'
.... 6 .,.; ;;; ....' N .-: ",' :;=; 6 ,..: ;;; N .-:
"" '" .... .... ,., '" '" "" '" '" '" .....
'" .... '" <D to co ro co '" ~, ,..., ~, ~ 0,
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ;;; ;;> ;;; ;;> ~
...
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0::> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<'1 <:> 0 ~ 0 0 "" <:> ~ 0 0 0 "" 0 <~ ... ... ...
to a. .... .... <'1 <'1 .... N .... N .... ro ""
",,' ~ 0:> <d '" <d ,..,- (f)' r--: ",,' d ~' Of>' ro ....'
"" ,., <'1 ,., <'1 ,., <'1 "" ,., <'1 N N '"
;;; ... ;;; ;;> ;;; ;;; ;;; ~ ... ;;; ;;; ... ~ ;;> ;;;
... ...
..
0 a. 0 0 a. '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 (:> 0 0 <:> 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ...
..... "" "" "" Of> '" N ('"). ~
('") <D' ei 0:> 00 d N' ('") ....'
.... .... .... .... .... ro co '" ro
;;; ;;> ~ ;;> ~ ;;; ~ ;;; ;;;
... ... ...
<:> 0 <:> 0 <:> 0 <:> "" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:> 0::> 0
<:> 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... '" ... ...
'" D. ....
N' Of> u;
N ~ '"
~ ;;; ;;>
'"
('") ,., <'1 ('") "" ('") "" <'1 ('") "" <'1 ('") <'1 ('") ('") "" <'1 ....
Of> Of> '" Of> '" Of> '" '" Of> '" Of> Of> '" Of> Of> Of> Of> ....
N, '" N '" '" N '" N N N N '" N N '" '" N ~,
N N N N N ",' N N N N' N N N N ",' N N ::;:
'" '" '" ro '" '" ro '" '" ro '" <to '" <to ro '" '"
o. 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, "", o. 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0 "', ~. '"
;;; ;;; ~ ;;; ;;; <Ii ;;; ~ ;;; ;;; ~ ;;; ;;> ~ ;;> ~ ~ ...
... ... ... ... ... ...
N '" '" ('") '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 "" 0 0 0 0 <::> 0
'" 0 '" '" 0 ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... .., ... ... ... ...
'" N ('") '" N
..,,: ....' <d d u;
to '" '" to '"
;;> ;;> ;;; ;;> ;;;
<0 0 <to <::> 0::> 0 <:> 0 0 "" 0 0 "" 0 0 0::> 0::> 0
('") '" '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
0::> .... ",
N ....' .-:
('") '" N
;;; ;;> <Ii
<'1 '" '" 0::> 0 <:> 0::> 0 <:> 0::> 0 '" 0::> 0 0 0 0 0
'" 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... .... ... ... ... ...
"', '"
ro 0:>
... ...
0 <:> <:> <:> <:> 0 0::> 0 <:> 0::> <:> <:> <:> 0 <:> 0 <:> 0
<:> 0 0 0::> 0 <:> "" ... .... "" "" en "" ... ... "" ... ...
'" .... .... co to ....
.... <0' N ,..,- a; '"
... ~ .... '"
"" '" ""
0 '" "" ~ '" "" .... '" '" 0 N "" .... '" "" .... '"
co 0::> 0::> 0::> 0::> 0::> 0::> ... 0 ... ... 0 ... 0 0 0
0 <:> 0::> 0::> '" 0::> 0::> '" 0::> 0::> 0::> '" 0::>
N '" N N '" '" N N N N N N N N '" N N N
0::> <; N '" .... on "" .... co '" 0::> ... N ,., .... '" "" ....
'" 0::> 0::> ~ 0::> '" 0 0::> 0::> <; <; ... <; <; ... <; <;
0::> 0::> 0::> 0::> 0::> ~ '" 0::> 0::> 0 0
N N '" N N N '" N N N N N N N N N
~
(J
t
.g
o
~
"i
on
'"
~
--'
'"
'"
f-
~
><
>-'
UJ
(9
o
::J
CD
~
'l""
M
...
Q)
.0
E
Q)
o
Q)
o
6
.
-
m
.....
0
I- ro N
:!::::=
~ 'N 0- M
00 (/)
0 0 0 (Q
N I
0 .
N CO
N
-C ~
Q) ..... . .
en .- 0 (1)
0
0 cO 0
..S! 1.0 ..c +-t
u
C. Q)~ (f) CO
0 .....:.:: ~
m5
'- et:~
a.. ><
. >-
- CO
Q) ><U 1.0
m.s 1.0 I-
J: .....
I'-
I-~ M >-
+-' :!::::=
0 ~
..... 0
0
0
C N
0 '<t
00 -
M
.- ..... CO
+-' M
.- >- +-t
en -
c 0
:::l
0 0 I-
0
c.
E -"~--"_.~.,'._~,.._. ,,,._.,,.,.._-,,,~_._,._-- ,.--.-,--.,.'-.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U
c.o L() ~ r0 N "'t"'"'""
.
2S
.
.
.
City Council Agenda - 12/11/00
9.
Consideration of award of Hcartland Bus contract. (.lO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2000 the City received bids on the contract to provide l-leartland Express
service. ^ single bid was submitted by Hoglund Transportation. The bid amount by
Hoglund is $26/hour in 2001 and $28/hour in 2002. Bid amounts for 2003 and 2004
were set at the CPI index for these years. The bid also provided an option for paying a
higher rate if the City desires to have Hoglund operate a new bus option. The cost per
hour goes up $3/hour f()r a new bus.
As noted above. the base bid by Hoglund without a new bus in 2001 is $26/hour which is
great as compared to the current rate of $29/hr. According to Hoglund, the 1999 bus noW
in operation is in good shape and does not need replacement. Next year it might make
more sense to budget for the higher hourly rate and bring on a new bus.
B. ALTERNATIVES
1.
Motion to accept bid and award contract to Hoglund Transportation as described
in the attached bid form. Motion includes base bid option of $26/hour for 2000.
")
Motion to deny acceptance of bid and deny award of contract to Hoglund
'rransportation.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Administrator recommends Alternative 1. The cost per hour is $3/hr less than
the current rate and therefore well within the 200 I operation budget. It is suggested that
we opt for the higher rate for year 2002 when it will be time to replace the existing bus.
The decision regarding the 2002 rate need not be formalized at this time.
D. StJPPORTING DATA
Copy of bid form.
-1-
b
. '"
V
~I
~
(:...
IJ] rf]
~ ~ -:::l
~ .....
~ ~
--t ~ O':l
'tl Q Q C
':.lJ
c: - - 'Vi ..J
:::l ::: ~ ~ 1)
'-
.-4 Q '- Q "0 :)
J1 :::l :::l 'f1 t)
\-.:J 0 ~ 0
0 ..c. 0 It) ..c. c ,2
;:r: 0 ~ 0 co ~ 0
\....0 '-
0 ~ v ~ V H ~ 1.>
..c
c: .......... ~ 0.. co 0 ~ 0.. 0... u
0 \D t? N <"1 t? u '''::
- -
'0 .......... ~ 0 -b'l- -b'l- ~ 0 u ::-:
l<-l N IJ] U rf] U + 1)
0 ,...-4 ~ \-.:J 0.. ~
r..!) en C
N ..,. ~ :::l
0 0 0
..,. 0 0 E
0 c S N t'\ 1) c::
0 0 O':l '1J
N V1 0 E w
13 Z
- c..... rJ1 --' -:::l
0 ..... ~ 0 c
0 u ~ >-> O':l
N ~ ::-:
c --t ~
IJ] 0 'J
IJ] :) c. .- .-
\..) rJ1 ~) .g
~ ~ -
0::: '- :::
..... --' :::l - '-'
=- i!: 0 Q ;2 c c....
X --t ...c 0 0 H Y- 00
~ 1J
~ Q I- 0 (jI ~ 0 0... c- L() III
~ 1) u .- '<f M
. Q - c.... ~ c.. Y- ~
::::: ::: \.0 (jI '-' I I
U; U; :..>
--, Z N N ~ + ~ 'lJ ~ ~
'-' < C -b'l- -b'l- - 0
~ U ~ U '.J c: C
- :::::::
C ~ t'l (/j 'u 0 0
- ~ 'J .~ .~
:::: c
..-r: ,.r, '.J '/J a. 0..
(f! <: '- 1J S S
~ 'J
(]) <: 'lJ c t13 t13
:: :r. (fJ ("'I c.. u .c .c
y.
~ If.J '- U U
,..... '1J .U
'-' - :::l .....
....J ~ '/J co C u '0 '0
'-
....J - '- ." l<-l \...l
...c >
-..;; ~ ~ H '\) 'f] 0 0
U Z S2 C 0... ~ .- tI.< tI.<
- --t '---' (l) \...l U -
r-
~ ~ ("',I l<-l t13 ~p (jI o.D
Z \...l (]) II '.J ,.Ii (jIO"
-. :::l '>; '.J J) (jI (jI
c '-
'-' C) ~ .- '.J .-1 ,...-4
.... -' 'J
~ .-4 (l) -' ?
--' ::J
'/J '\) (l) 'tl 0 :s c.. (])
'- .~
::J '0 C ::J .- \...l
..c > 0 H ;;- C ro
'<f E '- v ;:E: ~
1) 'J -'
0 :::l en (l) (fJ
>- '-'
l.O .- '\) '- I U 1J 'J. (])
<"1 Z -:::l '-' ,...-4 .~ - CfJ '.J {/)
C en .- .-
I I"'" 0 \...l ~ CfJ (fJ
I c:
'0 Ii) CfJ '-' c:l 0 0.. :.J :: :::l
u -:::l -
C (jI t I C N p::\
'J --:J
:::l N - O':l 1) ::, \...l > ~ == '-'
.-4 I c.. --:J ..c .~ {/) (l) 2 .j.)
;:J'I M :::::: '- O':l ::l E c.. c: ~"
'.J 'J c:::::
0 o.D c U .:::: 'J ''':: !Xl :::l '.J ~ (l) -
J)
;:r: r- ::; en CfJ ~
:.r. ;> ~ U '.J \...l
'J ~ c: ."
.- ~ ? 1) ~ ~! \...l
'- C ~ J) 0.. (l) 0 c :::l
--' .::::
u ," .J) z C) C) W
-:::l '- -
u ~ L;.;
. > .c --
0 .... J) "*' r.r.
.-
I.- --' '-' r.r.
,.. --' .- Z
Z c:: -'
:.J l- e:::
'J ::J ....
C '.J ~
>- ::2 ~ rl
'- '..., ..J
V .- ~
if; - c:: -
-~._....... ~
Counci I Agenda - 12/11/2000
.
10.
Consideration of a~reement with Sunny Fresh Foods for wastewater dischar!!e permit
increase and cost sharin!! a!!reement for expansion of the Monticello Wastewater
Treatment Facility. (J.S.)
A. REFl~RENCI'~ AND BACKGROlJND:
This issue was last before the City Council February 14,2000. Sunny Fresh Foods found thetnselves
in a situation where they could not adequately control the discharge of their wastewater to the City
in regard to strength of the sewage (i.e.. HOD and TSS), At that date, studies indicated that granting
Sunny Fresh a 25% permit increase in BOD and TSS would require us to build a new sludge storage
tank immediately at an estimated cost of $928,000. Sunny Fresh was to have paid for 50% of the
cost of the sludge storage tank ($464,000) and up-fronted the cost of interest to build this facility
sooner than the five to eight years most recently projected.
In addition, giving Sunny Fresh Foods a permit increase 01'25% would also require us to build an
additional SBR tank sooner than needed. We did not expect to build another SBR tank f()r at least
15 to 20 years. A 25% permit increase to Sunny Fresh would require us to build the tank within the
next 8 years rather than 15 to 20 years as originally projected. The tank is estimated to cost $1.6
million, and Sunny Fresh's share of that would be 18S1u of the project ($296,000) costs plus the cost
of accelerating the tank tt-om the 1 yh or 20th year to 20mL
. At the Council Meeting of February 14,2000, the Council discussed all of this int()I"mation and was
favored working out some type of agreement with Sunny Fresh Foods. However- since the Sunny
Fresh corporate office had not responded and did not decide to go ahead with the project, the City
Council tabled action at that time,
With several wastewater discharge permit violations occurring over the summer and fall, Sunny
Fresh Foods is once again requesting that we look at expanding the wastewater treatment plant
processes to handle additional sewage of higher strength from them, Attached is a revised draft
agreement requesting increased now and BOD.
As you may recalL a month and a half ago I presented the City Council a report from U .S, Filter
(PSG) in regard to sludge storage problems at the wastewater treatment plant so that we may begin
a plan to build additional storage or thicken our sludge. U,S. Filter has put together a proposal that
makes thickening our sludge a better alternative than building sludge storage at this time. Ifwe
could thicken the sludge then it takes less room to store the sludge. The latest estimate on the
thickening of sludge is around $650.000 versus the almost $1 million fi)r storage. A thickening
operation does not totally remove sludge storage from the construction picture but delays it. U .S,
Filter is putting together information for Monday evening's meeting in regards to the sludge storage
thickening issue, If it arrives in time it will be delivered with your packet, otherwise it will be
presented at Monday evening"s meeting.
.
Sunny Fresh's request involves providing additional capacity for t1ow, BOD and TSS and.
Council Agenda - 12/11/2000
.
u I ti ma tel y , all three processes, sludge thicken in g, s Iud ge storage and S B R processing faei Ii ti es will
need to be increased to handle the loads. Sunny Fresh will have to agree to pay for their share of the
i mprovcmeo ts, as we II as up-Iron ti ng the enst of the acce !crating those projects lrom the years in
which they were to he done to the current years, The question is would the City agree to do so'?
Additionally, Sunny Fresh Foods needs an interim permit increase as soon as possible or the Ilnal
permit increase as soon as possible, so how soon would we have interim capacity?
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. After review of this information, as well as the report provided by U.S. Filter on the
proposed thickener construction, the City Council could conceptually agree to enter into an
agreenlent with Sunny Fresh Foods to expand the wastewatertreatmentplant provided Sunny
Fresh pays their share of the proposed inerease and up-fronts the costs of the various pieces
of construction (i.e., thickeneL storage and S8R), until the City's original needs date had
arrived. This alternative would include granting Sunny Fresh Foods and interim permit
capacity upon approval of an agreement between Sunny fresh foods and the City for cost
sharing an construction, and a fmal permit increase at the completion of construction.
2. The second alternative would he to not increase Sunny Fresh's capacity heyond the 50%
previously given them when the new plant was completed.
.
"
-) .
The third alternative would be to allow some change in permit for Sunny Fresh, an increase
of some sort. without expansion or the plant.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation ofthe City Administrator. Public Works Director and Chuck Keyes, Project
Manager, WWTP, UX hlter, that the City enter into an agreement for cost sharing with Sunny
Fresh to increase their permit capacity, provided it has no long term effect on the city's wastewater
treatment capabilities and we are able to have the capacity planned for the future growth of our
com 111 un i l Y , and that there are no ne gati ve impacts to the City, We waul d favor 1110 v in g ahead with
alternative # 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy 0 fthe COline i I Agenda Packet and Mi n utes from Fe hruary f 4, 2000, Copy of a report from
U . S. Filter if it arri yes inti me regardi ng construction 0 f gravit y helt thi ekener for thicken i n g sl udge
at the wastewater treatment plant. Copy of proposed agreement.
.
.
~ A CARGILL FOODS company
December 8, 2000
Mr. John Simola, Public Works Director
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN" 55362
RE: SU1UlY Fresh WasteWater Permit
Dear Mr. Simola:
This letter states the intent of Sunny Fresh Foods to enter into an agreement with the City of Monticello
whereby the municipal waste water treatment plant will gain capacity and SU1UlY Fresh will be granted a
peak discharge permit increase. The total number of pounds of BOD would be increased from 3,000
pounds per day to 4,500 pounds per day. Total suspended solids limit would be raised from 1,500\pounds
per day to a level to be determined. ,-
SU1UlY Fresh agrees to pay sixty percent (60%) to one hundred percent (100%) of the total cost of the
sludge thickening process proposed. Preliminary estimates are in the range of $660,000 total cost. The
City would arrange project financing and provide a rate adjustment which allows Sunny Fresh to pay their
share over a mutually agreed upon time. Permit adjustments would be made immediately.
Additionally, SU1UlY Fresh recognizes that further capacity expansions will be required in order to meet
future municipal needs, perhaps in as little as three years. First, sludge storage tanks would be required.
SU1UlY Fresh would be accountable for sixty percent (60%) to one hundred percent (100%) of these costs,
plus an undetermined interest expense up front.
Last, it is expected that additional Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) capacity would be required in the
future. The cost could approach $1.7 million. Preliminary discussions have set thirty-seven and one~half
percent (37'12 %) accountability to Sunny Fresh. Again. there would be some preliminary interest costs for
this plan, which would be the responsibility of SU1UlY Fresh.
While the details of this arrangement have not been completely worked out, SU1UlY Fresh will offer a
guarantee that they will accept financing and project costs for their fair share of these expenses. Certainly,
the City of Monticello will benefit from the added capacities implied above and all support for the solutions
described will be greatly appreciated.
.
.
Sincerely,
0\ ,\ \\ r,(\
W__iV\"C\J.-><L/ ~iCL~\;~~__)
Dennis Darnell
Asst. v.P./Dir. Mfr.
206 West Fourth Street. Monticello, Minnesota. 55362-8524
P:612/271-5600. 1-800IUSA-EGGS (872-3447) · F: 612/271-5711 · wwwusaeggs.com
,"_......
Na~l
QualIt:Y
Award
."""A....d
~~ipirnt
.
.
.
9.
*
Council Agenda - 2/14/2000
Fresh Foods for interim wastewater
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Prior to the construction of the city's current wastewater treatment plant expansion, we
discussed with the management staff of Sunny Fresh Foods their future needs for wastewater
discharge. This was important to us as we needed to provide for growth of existing industry
but yet allow for new industry and growth of the community. Sunny Fresh's permit
regulates their flow of water, the amount of BOD and the total suspended solids in the
wastewater. Of primary concern is the amount of BOD. During design meetings for our new
plant they indicated they would like a 50% increase in BOD and total suspended solids.
Their BOD would go from an existing 2,000 pounds per day to 3,000 pounds per day over
the life of the new plant. We suggested that they pay for additional capacity beyond the
3,000 pounds per day at the wastewater treatment plant, the cost of which would be
estimated around $300,000 at that time. In turn we would add additional aeration equipment
and expand tankage at the new facility. Sunny Fresh chose to stay at the lifetime limit of
3,000 pounds per day over the design life of our plant and spend their dollars internally in
their plant rather than provide for additional capacity. The city of Monticello chose to over
size its SBR tanks slightly and we have a capacity when running two SBR tanks of 8,102
pounds per day, and if necessary we can go beyond the design capacity by using the third
tank on a regular basis when conditions allow.
Sunny Fresh has recently found itself in a dilemma as their recent growth and projected
growth demonstrates that a permit of 3,000 pounds per day of BOD is not enough to meet
their needs. They have again requested a permit increase.
City Staffhas had several meetings with representatives of Sunny Fresh over the past year
and we have informed Sunny Fresh that we are not willing to give up the existing capacity
at the wastewater treatment plant as it is reserved for the growth of the community, and
additional capacity given to Sunny Fresh at this time on a permanent basis would shorten the
useful life of our existing treatment plant and put an unnecessary burden on the tax payers
of the community. We, therefore, asked Sunny Fresh if they would be willing to pay for the
cost of adding capacity to the wastewater treatment plant. They indicated a willingness to
do so and together with Sunny Fresh we commissioned two studies by North American
Wetland Engineering whose principals are Scott Wallace, Curt Sparks and Rick Wagner.
All of these individuals were on the original design team for the wastewater treatment plant
and previously with HDR. Sunny Fresh agreed to pay for the cost ofthese studies.
The wastewater treatment plant staff and City staff were concerned about sludge storage at
the wastewater treatment plant. We need 180 days of storage to meet spring and fall field
application requirements. Some time during the design life of the new plant we knew we
would have to add additional sludge storage and possibly thickening of the sludge as the
10
.1
Council Agenda - 2/14/2000
.
design showed that we would only have 56 days of storage by the time the plant reached its
capacity (15 to 20 years ). We assumed with the operations of the plant we could thicken the
sludge and reduce the volume by decanting or removing clear water through a settling
process and probably delay the need for sludge storage additions at least 8 to 10 years in the
future. With the explosive growth of the community, our population base is estimated at
almost 8,000. Our design data assumed that we would meet this population in approximately
2004, this moves our sludge storage needs up to about five years from now, or by the end of
2004. The design life of the current treatment plant then would look closer to a 15 year
design life than a 20 year design life. This of course depends upon the case of the future
growth in Monticello.
The two studies performed by North American Wetland Engineering looked at both a 25%
permit increase for BOD and total suspended solids (TSS), this would be 3,750 pounds of
BOD per day and 1,700 of TSS per day. The final flow would remain the same at a
maximum of 183,000 gallons per day. The other parameter studied was a 50% increase in
their permit, going to 4,500 pounds of BOD per day and 2,250 pounds ofTSS, with a flow
of220,000 gallons per day.
The studies revealed that under either one of the above permit increases, we would need to
begin construction of an additional sludge storage tank immediately rather than waiting five
years. The estimated cost of the sludge storage tank is $928,000. Additionally, under the .
25% permit increase, we may need to add an additional SBR tank in eight years rather than
IS to 20 years at a cost in today's dollars of$1.6 million. If the 50% permit increase was
granted the additional SBR tank would be needed in five years.
We have informed Sunny Fresh that they would have to pay the cost of accelerating the
sludge holding tank and SBR tank and also pay their fair share of the capacity of those two
systems. With this information in hand they chose the 25% increase in permit and are
putting together a financial guarantee acceptable to the city so that the construction of the
sludge storage tank can begin immediately and that money is available for their share of the
additional SBR tank at the time of construction.
Under the 25% permit increase the last study by North American Wetland Engineering
shows that 50% of the new sludge storage tank would be needed for the increase in discharge
from Sunny Fresh. Consequently, their share or cost for the sludge storage tank would be
$464,000 plus acceleration costs. For the SBR tank the study shows that 18.5% of the tank
would be dedicated to the permit increase. Consequently, their share of the construction
would be $296,000 plus the cost of accelerating the tank from the 15th or 20th year to 2008.
Copies of the studies are included as supporting data.
Sunny Fresh Foods wishes to have an interim permit increase immediately to the 3,750
pounds of BOD and 1,700 pounds ofTSS per day. We have drafted a conceptual interim
permit increase agreement that would allow spikes to OCCur once or twice a week to the 3,750
.
.1
)0
.
Council Agenda - 2/14/2000
pounds of BOD and the 1,700 pounds ofTSS yet keep the five day averages to the current
permit. The following are the existing permit limitations, the proposed interim permit
limitations, and a proposed final permit limitation which would be granted upon completion
ofthe sludge storage tank:
THE EXlSTlNG PERAfIT:
A.
Flow
1.
2.
,..,
.Y.
B.
BODs
1.
c.
TSS
1.
.
The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed 300 gallons per minute.
The maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed 156,000 gallons based
on a consecutive 7 day average.
The ma..-ximum total discharge in any 24 hour period shall not exceed 183,000
gallons.
The total number of pounds of BODs discharges in a 24 hour period shall not
exceed 3000 pounds.
The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in any 24
hour period shall not exceed 1500 pounds.
THE PROPOSED INTERl"',! PER.'vfJT*:
A.
Flow
1.
2.
,..,
.Y.
B.
BODs
1.
2.
c.
TSS
1.
2.
.
The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed 300 gallons per minute.
The maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed 141,000 gallons based
on a consecutive 7 day average.
The maximum total discharge in any 24 hour period shall not exceed 165,000
gallons.
The total number of pounds of BODs discharges in a 24 hour period shall not
exceed 3,750 pounds.
The total number of pounds of BODs discharged in any consecutive 4-day
period shall not exceed an average of 3,000 pounds per day.
The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in any 24
hour period shall not exceed 1,700 pounds.
The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in any
consecutive 4-day period shall not exceed an average of 1,500 pounds per
day.
.1
)0
Council Agenda - 2/14/2000
.
*To remain in effect until expansion of the treatment plant allows capacity specifically for
Sunny Fresh Foods.
F1NAL PER,VfANENT PER,\;f1T LIMITA.TlONS**:
A.
Flow
1.
2.
The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed 300 gallons per minute.
The maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed 156,000 gallons based
on a consecutive 7 day average.
The maximum total discharge in any given 24 hour period shall not exceed
183,000 gallons.
,..,
.Y.
B.
BODs
1.
The total number of pounds ofBOD5 discharges in a 24 hour period shall not
exceed 3,750 pounds.
c.
TSS
1.
The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in any 24
hour period shall not exceed 1, 700 pounds.
**Effective at the completion of the expansion.
.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve an agreement to grant an interim permit
increase to Sunny Fresh Foods immediately upon the financial guarantees being in
place and the agreement being approved by Sunny Fresh and their attorneys and City
staff and the City Attorney.
2. The second alternative would be not to grant an interim permit increase.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the City
Council authorize the interim permit increase as outlined in alternative #1, upon approval by
all parties and delivery of the financial guarantees from Sunny Fresh.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of draft conceptual interim permit agreement and copies of the studies performed by
North American Wetland Engineering. .
.,
/0
.
DRAFT AGREEMENT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INTERIM W A STEW A TER DISCHARGE PERMIT INCREASE
FOR
SUNNY FRESH FOODS, INC.
s
This agreement elated February --.-J 2000, between the City of Monticello ("City") and Sunny Fresh Foods,
Inc. ("Sunny Fresh"), is for an increase in the wastewater discharge pennit for Sunny Fresh and funding of
wastewater treatment plant expansion to acconunodate a pennit increase.
WHEREAS, Swmy Fresh has requested a permit increase for discharge of additional wastewater to the City
of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the City has detennined that the wastewater treatment plant has temporary or intermediate
capacity in the SBR tanks, but very limited intermediate capacity for sludge storage; and
WHEREAS, the City had not planned an expansion of the wastewater treatment plant for the next fifteen (15)
to twenty (20) years based upon proposed allocations to Sunny Fresh and the expected growth of the community;
and
WHEREBY, only additional sludge storage was expected to be needed around the year 2005; and would now
be needed inunediately; and
WHEREAS, the City does not wish to re-allocate the existing capacity at the wastewater treatment plant
Ahich is intended for planned and expected growth of the conununity nor does the City wish to tax the current
~operty owners and residents of Monticello unnecessarily for unneeded capacity. The City would, therefore, only
grant an interim wastewater discharge pennit with conditions and limitations to Sunny Fresh as follows:
The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in any 24 hour period shall
not exceed 1,700 pounds.
The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in any consecutive 5-day
period shall not exceed an average of 1,500 pounds per day.
. All other sections ofPennit #002-C shall remain in effect.
A.
Flow
1.
2.
3.
B.
BODs
1.
2.
c.
TSS
1.
2.
The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed 300 gallons per minute.
The maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed 141,000 gallons based on a
consecutive 7 day average.
The maximum total discharge in any 24 hour period shall not exceed 165,000 gallons.
The total number of pounds of BODs discharges in a 24 hour period shall not exceed 3,750
pounds.
The total number of pounds of BODs discharged in any consecutive 5-day period shall not
exceed an average of3,000 pounds per day.
- PAGE 1. I a
C:\OFFICElJOHN\SUNNYFRSlPERMIT20.00: 1J:31'2OOO .,
FURTHERMORE, the funding for the interim permit capacity in addition to the normal charges for flow,
BOD and total suspended solids, shall be as follows:
The estimated costs are the acceleration costs for the sludge storage tank going from Year 5 to Year 1 .
500ilJ of the finaI project costs estimated at $928,000, and the acceleration costs for SBR tank # 4 going from Year
17 to Year 8 and 18.5% of the final project cost estimated at $1,600,000.
Cost to be adjusted at completion offeasibiIity study phase and again at conclusion of sludge storage project
and SBR tank #4 project.
The final permit limitations as follows shall be granted upon completion of the sludge storage tank:
A.
Flow
1.
2.
The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed 300 gallons per minute.
The maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed 156,000 gallons based on a
consecutive 7 day average.
The maximum total discharge in any given 24 hour period shall not exceed 183,000 gallons.
3.
B.
BODs
1.
The total number of pounds of BODS discharges in a 24 hour period shall not exceed 3,750
pounds.
C. TSS
1. The total number of pounds of total suspended solids discharged in any 24 hour period shall
not exceed 1, 700 pounds.
Any discharges above and beyond this interim permit shall be handled in accordance with the City Ordinan.
Title 14 "Sanitary Sewer Discharge Controls", with the exception that the percentages over permit used to calculate
fines for BODs and TSS shall be computed from the values for daily limits in original Permit #002-C.
This intermediate increase in wastewater discharge shall remain in effect until 1) The increase in permit
discharge threatens the daily operations of the wastewater treatment plant, and in the opinion of the chief operator
of the wastewater treatment plant may cause the City to violate its own permit with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. In such case, the permit shall revert to the previous discharge numbers immediately upon written notice
to Sunny Fresh; or 2) when additional capacity is constructed at the wastewater treatment plant to allow for the
interim permit levels to be fixed or increased depending upon the additional capacity at the wastewater treatment
facility and the allocation to Sunny Fresh thereof; or 3) When Permit #002-C fails to be recertified.
SUNNY FRESH FOODS, INC.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
by:
by:
Roger BeIsaas
The Honorable Mayor
by:
John Simola
Public Works Director
.
C:\OFFICElJOHN\SUNNYFRSlPERMrT2ll.00: 1l312OOO -I
-PAGE2- J Q
.
.
.
\I: ~. '.d H
J~.!!li.!"
~_ ... t".':, :-
==_.~
~-~' .
North Amedc311 Wetland Engineering, P.A.
20920 Keewahtin A venue
Forest Lake. MN 55025
Phone: (651)-433-2115
fa.-x: (65 ))-433-4280
e-mail: nawef~vjsi.com
February 10, 2000
Mr. John Simola, Public Works Director
City of Monticello
Office of Public Works
909 Golf Course Road
Monticello MN 55362
RE: Sludge Storage Tank Cost Allocation
Dear Mr. Simota,
Introduction
North American Wetland Engineering, P,A. (NA WE) is providing this letter report under
our professional services proposal dated February 3, 2000. The puxpose of this report is
to evaluate how WWTP operations are affected by Sunny Fresh Foods, and what the
impact will be of the proposed Interim Pennit, which will allow Sunny Fresh to'discharge
additional organic load (CBOD) to the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
The City recently completed a major upgrade and expansion of the WWTP which weot-
on line in January of 1998. The new WWTP uses sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) for
wastewater treatment. Solids (sludge) generated as a result of the CBOD load on the
SBRs is thiekened, anaerobically digested, and stored as a Class B liquid sludge. Class B
liquid sludge is hauled and land applied in the Spring and Fallon a farm site owned by
the City. TIle W\VTP also has a special pasteurization system to produce a pathogen-free
Class A sludge. However, final adjustments to the pasteurization system have not been
made and this system is not operating satisfactorily at this time.
Since the new WWTP went online, domestic growth has increased rapidly. The City
reported 180 housing starts in 1998 followed by 197 housing starts in 1999. The City's
wastewater facility plan completed in 1995 assluned 100 housing starts per year. Based
on this data, the City is growing almost twice as fast as assumed when the pl3IlJling for
the WW1P was completed.
Production at Sunny Fresh Foods has also expanded. Currently, Sunny Fresh is limited to
a CBOD discharge of 3,000 Ib/day. Under the proposed Interim Permit; this discharge
would be expanded to 3,750 lb/day. Under the proposed Final Permit, the S1UillY Fresh
discharge would be expanded to 4,500 Ib/day,
-I
~d88:l OOOl '01 'qej
g/ I . d 6900' 0 N
~Nl~33NI~N3 GN~113M ~ N
~
\~
City Qf Monticello
Sunny Fresh Interim Permil
February] 0, 2000
.
Operation uuder the Interim Permit
Under the Interim Permit, Sunny Fresh would be allowed to discharge up to 3,750 lbfday
of CBOD, 750 lb/day more than allowed under the current pennit. Because the WWTP
was designed around a Sunny Fresh qischarge of 3,000 Ib/day, expansion of the plant to
meet future needs is necessary.
Sludge Storage Tank
Due to expanded residential growth, the City would have to add a 650,000 gallon sludge
storage tank \\':ithin the next 5 years. However, due to the load increase in the Interim
Permit, tbis tank will be needed much sooner.
Under the Interim Permit, the Sunny Fresh's pennitted discharge would increase by 750
Ib/day of CBDD. This load .increase will generate an additional 325,000 gallons of
sludge every 6 months, consuming one-half of the new tank capacity.
Consequently, planning and design of the new tank should begin as soon as the Interim
Pennit is granted. A cost estimate for the new 650,000 gallon sludge storage tank is
detailed in Table I.
.......
As seen in Table l,.~o~ctionofth; new t~ new sl';"d~e'pulllpingbuildiDg and ne~
sludge loadout faclbtles would bave an antlClpated capItal cost of $928,000. ThIS
estimate assumes that the new tank is constructed as part of a "pod" of up to 4 tanks
located dOml the hill from the Administration Building and across the road from the
biofilter. 111is was the preferred location for the tanks identified during the site layout
process in 1996.
.
One-half of the tank volume is directly attributable to the load increase granted to Sunny
Fresh under the Interim Permit. Consequently, Sunny Fresh should pay 50% of the cost
of this tank.
Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs)
The City cwreutly has three SBR tanks. This design was based on a maximum permitted
discharge from Sunny Fresh of 3,000 Ib/day of CBOD. Allowing Sunny Fresh to
increase the discharge to 3,750 Ib/day consumes some of the capacity reserved for
residential growth.
Current residential growth is occ~ng twice as fast as predicted. This residential
growth, combined with an increased discharge from Swmy Fresh, accelerates the time
frame for adding the next SBR tank. CWTent estimates predict the fourth SBR tank
should be on line in 2008 based Oll the additional loading from the Inter;m Permit,
2
.
.1
9ll 'd S900'oN
~N[~33Nl~N3 aN~113M ~ N
Vid68:l OOOZ 'Q['qaj
jQ
.
.
.
city of Monticello
Sunny Fresh Interim Pennil
February J 0, :2000
.
The load increase granted rmder the Int:rim Permit represents 18_5 percent of the
capacity of this new SBR tank Consequently, SUlUlY Fresh should pay 18.5 percent of
these when the SBR tank is needed in the future. A detailed cost estimate for the SBR
tank bas not been completed, but costs based on preliminary estimates are about
$1,600,000.
Operation Under tbe Final Permit
Under the Final Permit, Sunny Fresh would be allowed to discharge up to 4,500 Ib/day of
CBOD, 1,500 lb/day more than allowed under the elUTent permit. Because the WWTP
was designed around a Swmy Fresh discharge of 3,000 Ibfday, expansion of the plant is
necessary.
Slud!2:e Storage Tank
Under the Final Permit, Sunny Fresh wo.uld be allowed an additional L500 Ib/day
compared to the original plant design. This additional 1.500 lbfday of CB0D will
generate about 650,000 gallons of sludge every 6 months_ This is the full capacity of the
sludge storage tank discussed under the Interim Permit. ~. ."
.
Consequently, Sunny Fresh should pay 100 percent of the cost of the sludge storage tank
when the Final Permit is issued. Costs for the sludge storage tank are summarized in
Table L The sludge storage tank must be operational before the Final Permit load
increase is granted.
The extra 1,500 Ib/day from Sunny Fresh, combined with continued residential growth,
win place a strain on the City's sludge storage capabilities. Alternative sludge
management strategies must be addressed by the City for operation under the Final
Permit, including:
. The Class A sludge process needs to be on-line and reliably functioning_
Producing Class A sludge gives the City additional options for sludge disposal.
above and beyond the land applicatiqn program currently being implemented.
. The City may need' to implement sludge dewatering to further reduce sludge
volumes_
If one of these options cannot be implemented and the City continues to land apply liquid
sludge, at least one more sludge storage tank will be needed to accommodate extra sludge
produced by Sunny Fresh and residential gro"Wth.
.
4
jq
g/t'd S900'ON
SNI~33N1SN3 ONVl13M ~ N
j
~dOt:Z OOOZ 'Ol'qe~
.
.
.
Ciry of Monticello
Sunny Fresh Interim Permit
February 10,2000
Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs)
The 1,500 lb/day load increase granted under the Final Permit represents 37 percent of
the capacity of the next SBR tank. This tank should be on-line by 2005 to accommodate
residential growth and the additional Sunny Fresh load from the Final Pennit. The
preliminat:y estimate for this tank is $1,600,000.
Sunny Fresh should pay 37% ofthe cost of this tank for operation under the Final Permit.
i
If you have any questions. or n.eed additional information, please feel free to contact us at
651433-2115.
Sincerely,
:i.
"
5
-I
I~
gig 'd 6900'ON
~Nl~33N[BN3 aN~113M ~ N
Vldlv:l OOOl 'Ol'qej
. .
CITY OF MONTICELLO SOLIDS PROCESSING
Tablr 1
Engineer's Opinion of Cost
Sludge Storage Tan}.:
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE
Tank Volume 650,000 gallons NJA. N./A.
Concrete 425 cy $400-1)0 $170,000
Tank Cover 1 each $100,000.00 $] 00,000
Earthwork 2,150 cy $8.00 $17,000
Dewatering 1 LS $:!O,OOO.OO $20,000
Sludge Pumps 2 each $6,700.00 $12,000
supernatant Removal 2 LS $20,000.00 $40,000
yard Piping 1 LS $50.000.00 $50,000
Sludge Loadout 1 LS $25.000.00 $25,000
Paintings & Coatings 1 LS $28.000.00 $28,000
Insulation 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Odor Control HV AC 1 LS $66.000 $66,000
Electrical (incl. t&C) 1 LS $56.000 $56,000
Sludge Pump Bldg. 800 sf $150 $ 120,000
Finish Grading 1 LS $6.000 $6,000 .
. CONSTRUCTION
SUBTOTAL $135.000
Contingency (10%) $74.000
Engineering Design (11 %) $81,000
Construction Oversight (5.2%) $38,000
c-fP/TAL COST
TurAL $928.000
Notes~
1. Lump Sum (LS) prices based on comtnlction cost:; from ~i.mng WWTP (A&P bid + CPRs)
2. Supernatant removal includes retrofit of Cltisting $Iudgc 310rage tank
3. Design &. constrUction costs ~d on USDA Rutal Development guid~li"~ for allowable engineering ~
4. CO$l$ ass\II:Jte a new sludge pump building (C3Il be used for up to 4 t:m.ks)
5. CostS assume new sludge loadout at new tank l(l(:llion
.
.
Jq
.1
~N1H33NI~N3 GNVl13M V N
WdOt:Z oooz 'Ol'qa~
gjt . d 6 gOO' 0 N
Jul.30.1999 5:24PM
N A WEilAND ENGINEERING
No.8204 p. I
tj
ea
",,",tt..
.....
t,
.
.
....~.,
~.....
......
.....'
.......
.'
,-".. '
'""'T'
.....-
....'.. '
,.,. t~
t.
..." ",
~,..
"'1""
"" ~,
......
" ' .~
North American Wetland Engineering, P.A.
20920 Keewahtin Ave
Forest Lake MN 55025
651.433.2115
Fax 651-433.4280
July 30, 1999
John Simola, Public Works Director
CitY of Monticello
909 Golf Course Road
Monticello MN 55362
RE: Sunny Fresh Load Increase
Dear Mr. Simola,
Introduction
The City of Monticello recently completed a 4-year effort to upgrade the City's
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The new WWTP was intended to provide
wastewater treatment capacity to the residential, commercial, and industrial users within
the City of Monticello.
Sunny Fresh Egg Products (SUIUlY Fresh) operates a production facility within the City of
Monticello that produces egg-related food products. Wastewater generated by Sunny
Fresh is relatively low in volume but of much higher strength than normal domestic
wastewater. Waste strength in this report is based on the CBOD5 (carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand. 5-day) test, which measures the amount of oxygen needed
to remove the waste.
Due to the low flowlhigh strength nature, Sunny Fresh results in about 41 % of the
CBOD5 loading, but only 13% of the flow entering the WWfP.
When the City entered the planning phase for the new WWTP in 1995, up to 3,000
pounds per day (Ibid) of CBOD5 capacity was reserved for Sunny Fresh. The 3,000 Ibid
limit was the result of negotiations between the City and Sunny Fresh over the design
capacitY for the proposed WWTP and who would pay for those improvements.
Since 1995, Sunny Fresh has enjoyed growth beyond their initial forecasts. As a result of
increased production, Sunny Fresh has experienced instances when the 24~hour CBOD5
limit of 3,000 Ibid could not be complied with. After implementing numerous
improvements to their operations to reduce loadings, Sunny Fresh has asked the City to
evaluate the cost impacts of providing additional discharge capacity.
,,- '-~3J '-ZiJ'
~~
"".",.
-..
.....
;.,,-...'
Hi- ..
I" lit..
-" to.
-'!"'
:r
....~
.~ ,.
..
-t'.
"""11"
rt
,.... .
I ~, 't
,JUI.JU. I~~J 5:25PM
N A WETLAND ENGINEERING
DRAFT
No.82a4 P. 2
City of MondceJJo
Sunny Fresh Load Increase
July 30, 1999
North American Wetland Engineering P A.. (NA WE) was retained by the City to evaluate
the increased COsts the City could be expected to incur at the WWTP if Sunny Fresh's
discharge pennit was increased to the following parameters:
.
Table I
Proposed Sunny Fresh Discharge Limits
Parameter
CBOD5 (24-hour)
Flow (24-hour)
Proposed Limit
4,500 Ibid
274,500 gpd
WWTP Expansion
The City bas funded the construction of the new WWTP Primarily on the basis of ad
valorem taxes and sewer hook up charges for new homes. As a consequence, user
charges have not been used to directly recover construction COsts. The City's user chazge
system recovers the cost of operating the WWTP, and sewer collection system, and also
pays for minor items such as equipment replacement.
The increased flow from Swmy Fresh would have a negligible impact on the WWTP.
However, the load increase (50% over the CUrrent pennit), would have a large impact on
the WWTp, especially in the area of sludge handling and the sequencing batch reactors
(SBRs).
.
Sludge Handling
Sludge is generated at the Monticello WWTP as a byproduct of the biOlogical treatment
process used to remove BOD and TSS. This sludge must be removed from the SBRs,
thickened, pasteurized, digested, and stored prior to trucking and land application.
The current thickening, pasteurization, and digestion systems, when working Properly
have adequate throughput capacity to accommodate the additional sludge associated with
the load increase. However, the WWTP is short on sludge storage capacity. In order to
be able to effectively store sludge for spring and fall land application, the WWTP should
have 180 days storage capacity. However, at the projected 2020 design loading of 8,100
Ibid of CBOD5, the WWTP would only have about 60 days of storage (assuming a 3%
solids concentration).. This indicates that additional storage capacity will have to be built
during the lifetime of the faCility. The WWTp has functioned better than projected
because I) there has been a greater reduction in VOlatile solids and predicted, and 2)
dissolved air flotation (DAF) thickener has been achieving a much higher solids content
2
.
-,
Jq
.,:
.... ...
.
J\l\ .30. 1999 5:26PM
N A WETLAND ENGINEERING
DRAFT
No.82U4 \". ~
..."..
...
'""~.
1<" ..
11'*""'"
.....,..
.......
1000+0.
"...~
.'
...., !".
::t:
""i~
....." '
'" "
.
City of Monticello
Sunny Fresh Load Increase
July 30,1999
than anticipated. However, increasing the discharge load from Sunny Fresh will
accelerate the need for additional sludge storage capacity.
For instance, the additionall,SOO Ibid toad increase (from 3,000 Ibid to 4,500 IbId) wilt
generate an additional 3,600 gallons per day of sludge (assuming 60% volatile solids
content and 3% solids after thickening). At 180 days storage time, this is about 647,000
gallons; approximately equal to the large sludge storage tank at the old WWTP.
Construction of a new 650,000 sludge storage tank is project to cost approximately
$900,000.
Sludge dewatering cmdd be pursued as an alternative to liquid sludge hauling. By
dewatering the sludge, the volume is dramatically reduced and storage requirements are
minimized. This alternative was addressed in the Facility Plan Update (HDR
Engineering, 1995) and was found 10 be cost effective on a 20-year life cycle cost basis.
However, the initial investment to construct the dewatering presses and associated
mechanical equipment was double the up-front cost of liquid sludge hauling.
Implementation of sludge dewatering at the Monticello WWTP is anticipated to have a
construction cost of approximatelY $2,000,000.
Sequencing Batch Reactors
Loading, in the form of BOD and TS8, is removed in the sequencing batch reactors
(SBRs). The SBRs were designed to process up to 8,100 Ibid of BOD with lWn SBR
tanks in service. The third SBR tank is for standby so that shock loadings can be isolated
and treated separately without disrupting the rest of the WWTP operations.
Initially, the only effect an increased discharge from Sunny Fresh would have would be
to increase the run time on the SBR blowers. However, as domestic growth continues in
Monticello, eventually the point will be reached where there is not enough WWTP
capacity left for additional residential growth.
,-
When the Facility Plan Update was prepared, it was envisioned that additional SBR
tanks would not be needed until the end of the planning period in 2020. However,
reserving 4,500 IbId of WWTP capacity for Sunny Fresh. while maintaining some
capacity for other industrial usetS, means that an additional SBR tank will almnst
certainly be needed during the planning period.
The Facility Plan Update (HDR Engineering, 1995) projected that approximately 100
housing starts per year would take place in Monticello. Currently, the City of Monticello
is growing faster than projections prepared in 1995.
3
IQ
..-
Et
l'
".. !!"
:~
~:
.....
,... ...
-, Ir
Ei
1Iit"
"" ,.
,........,
... f.'
:t
110...
~.
l","~ .
......'..
JUI.JU. 1~99 5:27PM
N A WETLAND ENGINEERING
No.8204
......
j;..~
,...~
.
DRAFT
City of MODticello
Sunny Fresh Load Increase
July 30, 1999
Table 2
Monticello Growth Rate
..
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998*
Actual Housing Starts
107
115
107
185
Projected Housing Starts
100
100
100
100
'" Sewer moratorium lifted in 1998 when the new WWTp went online.
Based on available data, it is apparent that the City is growing faster than originally
anticipated. In 1998, there were 180 housing starts. While this may represent Some pent-
up demand (due to the sewer moratorium) the 1995-1998 average was SIil1127 housing
starts per year, 27% higher than predicted. To date. there have been 122 housing starts in
1999, whereas there were 92 housing starts at the same time in 1998.
The current rate of growth within MOnticello, combined with a load increase for Sunny
Fresh, means that an additional SBR tank should be on-line by the year 2005, bringing
the total nmnber of SBR tanks to four. Fortunately, the SBR process is modular and can
be expanded; up to six SBR tanks can be constructed at the Monticello WWfp site.
Construction of an additional SBR tank is anticipated to cost $1,600,000 (1999 dollars);
however as discussed above, th.is tank would not have to be in service unli1 about 2005.
Summary
This letter discussed probable costs the City of Monticello would incur by allOwing
Sunny Fresh to increase their peak discharge load from 3,000 Ibid (CBOD5) to 4,500
Ibid. Major point include:
· An increased discharge from Swmy Fresh means that expansion of the WWTp will
be necessary. An additional sludge storage tank of at least 650,000 gallons should be
constructed before the load increase takes effect (anticipated cost about $900,000).
· Construction of an additional SBR tank will be needed in the future. This tank should
be on~line by 2005, if current residential growth trends continue. The anticipated cost
for this tank is $1,600,000 in 1999 dollars.
4
P. 4
.
.
,.
IQ
.
t.-. t!"
"'".....
ef
".... .
... ..
"
"
~
::~
"'i ..
I'
"t
!":""t.
~
JI-Ie ~l:
..
" , ...
Jul.30. 1999 5:28PM
N A WETLAND ENGINEERING
DRAFT
No.8204 P.5
City of Monticello
Sunny Fresh Load Increase
July 30, 1999
If you have any questions, or need additional infonnation. please feel free to Contact us at
651-433-2115.
Sincerely,
North American Wetland Engineering, P.A..
Scott D. Wallace, P.E.
Vice President
5
.1
'Q
.
.
.
_.:~D_~ ~1 ~(!I//iir ~ t
\;. _: ~ ~ G~~~~lJ/AZ7j,~ '~~lltlfl!il:.. -~-'
., ~ _. . . ~u f/,.,......... ,flY/,7 {h-;. ty .... · · '!:!!!Idf/llftL'.
_~ -I Po ~7>. 'l.1.ClU!1lli!ff llf/f R1ib 0'!!1'- ......
._~~ .O:~~~~ 'I'~-' rlJJfiJ~~"
~4~ '~f!~~~irlff!b~ ~7' ~;~~ ~
~~ i""'-- - ~ 17hf'n>..- "i ~. i~ ,,'lj>-.... CIJlJJL fJZ,!ftij ".
7- _ L !-::- II"""""~;; ;;;;!l- ~ ./1 P.;"~ [1~~ ~
JU6I1Ii4~""" ..: fTA I 1/ j 'l./.7~ ~
L. . _ I III 'I:'f Eb..."""'<..
-= 1(1, III - ,.. ......... .......
: ; 1":";:'-'- D1i~"';, ',. I l '
~. 1M ~ hH ~~ ~
: ~ .71 f.~...J · :. _I"~' ~p S
~/~F..... ./' (I. .
~9 (I ~~ · · 0 0 0 I ~ h.. ·
-g,(E 'f (0' ~~('
. . -..!:p. I ~ · . ~'/J 1
\ . ""'''''b 2,;: ,
c:; ~ ) - c:1 t"; ,:.;{;...- . 0 ,.: I I 1 -
Pi · -n · ;" "I:
OJ
brTe-
~IIDN V)
~
.'
-
~
-
-'
?-
. .
~
.
. .
'I Z '
~..
~ t-' ilAJU ESfATES
~ _ ..... \ .IIJ111!f-
~ ..__... ~I . ."C~. ~ I
,..... "'" \. I 1 - A I=:J · '':: "" .-" ~ ·
LJ. ~ Ii CL "'- : "e ~ : "T :- ..
.. Ii I ....~
.... ~ f,. ..;... , · '. ~. ,~..: ~. :
.... _ I_~" .Il:!...t'".\
, .. __ -..j r-I"\~
~ to \) r::Il "i..n~ ~ '" ..
MflL' ~ ~ t.. .. 1:' .,........1 .....~
~ .. ' ':! <. "," , . ..,...~
~ ~O" Z-~ I .": ~ ~ "'I'''''''~
".=!_ r 1/.~ ~...... Tv ~.:~" .h,. · .,~ ~
. ,'FIt If K '~~'\:;l i'<M ~.Y?d ~' :. .'
I lr.""f. - t .. · ~ 5'""\
~....;. I J:;: _ ti r..; :i ..
~.";I l
CITY LIMITS,
J
5\
B3~
13ihibit > ~\
,
1 t.'IJ';>O~ ~~ ~ h ..
1\
City Council Agenda - 12/11/00
.
12.
ter 3
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City Council has previously denied this item due to exclusion of certain emergency
service vehicles from residential zoning districts. The proposed ordinance as recommended
by the Planning Commission now includes a provision l7, b, v.] that includes vehicles that
were considered by the City Council.
This Zoning Ordinance amendment coupled with a proposed amendment to the traffic
ordinances of the City or Monticello are intended to allow enforcement of ordinances
restricting commercial vehicles from residential districts. The current ordinances intend to
disallow commercial vehicles in residential districts (with some exceptions); however, alone
the 9,000 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is insufficient to enable enforcement.
This ordinance amendment along with amendments to the traffic ordinances (on-street
parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character of our residential districts while not
limiting necessary commercial vehicle traffic serving those districts.
.
n. ALTERNATIVE ACTION
I. Motion to approve Ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3,
Section 3-5, [D] 7. by adding subsections (a) and (b), and establishing regulations ror
commercial vehicles in residential districts.
2. Motion to deny the Ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3,
Section 3-5, [01 7, by adding subsections (a) and (b), and establishing regulations for
commercial vehicles in residential districts.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Starf recommends Alternative I.
D. SllPPORTING DATA
. Copy of proposed Ordinance with underlining to show amendments.
.
- 1-
---"- - .,-:"---
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COlJNTY, MINNESOTA
f.wJ~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING ORlJINANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, lD]
7, BY AlJlJING SU BSECTlONS (A) AN 0 (13), EST ABU SIIlNG REGlI EAT! ON S FOR COM M ERCI AL
VEIIlCLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS:
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title la, Chapter 3. Section 3-5, [0] 7 is hereby amended to read as follows:
7. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized
solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no
more than one (I) truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand
(9.000) pounds. and recreational vehicle and equipment. Under no
circumstances shall required parking t~lcilities accessory to residcntial
structures be uscd for the storage of conunercial vehicles or equipment or for
the parking of automobiles bclonging to the employces, owners. tenants. or
customcrs of business or manufacturing establishments.
illl For the ur ose of this section. a commercial vehicles or ec ui
trucks truck-tractors vans. and the like .shall be defined as.
i. An
"BY"
.
iii. ^n 'vehicle with a orosS vehicle weiL'ht in excess of9,OOO Ibs.
D2}
i. Commercial vehicles that are actuall ' in the rocess of being loaded or
blnloaded in the due course of business.
ii. Commercial vehicles that are direetl aneillar' to construction and
(larked within LOOO teet ofthe related construction site
iii. Vehicles licensed with Disabilitv Plates or dis11avino a Disabilit
Parking Certificate.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN^NCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, [Dj 7, BY
^DDING SUHSECTIONS (A) AND (B), ISr^BLlSHING REGUL^TlONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS:
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORlMIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, lDl 7 is hereby amcnded to read as follows:
7. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely for the
parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no more than one (1) truck
not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds, and recreational
vehicle and equipment. Undcr no circumstances shall required parking facilities
accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or
equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the cmployees, owners,
tenants, or customcrs of business or manufacturing establishments,
ill For the ur ose of this section a commercial vehicles or ec ui
trucks, truck-tractors, vans, and the like).shall be defined as.
.
iii. Anv vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of9,000 Ibs.
l.Ql Commercial vehicles,shall be subiect to all other provisions of this
ordinance" however the rohibitions of this Section shall not a ,Iv to the
following:
i. Commercial vehicles that are actuallv in the process of beinQ loaded or
unloaded in the due course of business,
ii. Commercial vehicles that are directly ancillary to construction and
parked within 1,000 feet of the related construction site.
iii. Vehicles licensed with Disabilit Plates. or dis la 'in" a Disabilit
Parkin2: Certi IIcate.
iv. One-ton assen"er vans used solei
.
led
..- .~ ~'" .....:...-
.
.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
.
,2000.
I~
~ .~----:.~ ~
.
u.
.
.
City Council ^gcnda - 12/11/00
Consideration of 2nmtinu financial assistance to the Mielke commercial
development. (JO)
A. REFI~RI'~NCE AND BACKGROUND
As you recall at a City Council meeting a month ago. City Council approved the concept
stage pun calling for development ofa commercial campus in the area of Cedar Street.
East Chelsea and Highway 25. as proposed by Dan Mielke. At that meeting, City
Council granted concept PUD approval which included granting of variances and/or
street vacations necessary to construet the development as basically proposed. In
eonjunction with direction to the developer to proceed to development stage planning.
staff was authorized to begin the planning process for reconstruction of Cedar Street with
a goal of integrating Cedar Street design with development plan design undertaken by
Mielke. At that same meeting Mielke's representative requested that the City consider
providing various financial incentives to the project. at which time Council did not deny
granting incentives but requested that City staff prepare a report to assist in further
consideration of this matter.
With rel!orel to the elesil!n orC'eelar S'treet - The City Engineer has been working with the
developer's architect to determine the ideal road and drive configuration for this area.
The City Engineer is indicating that the City generally can aff(wd to give up 10 feet of the
Cedar Street ROW. Although the balance of the Cedar Street ROW (80 ft.) rernaining
alter the vacation is relatively wide as compared to other thoroughfares. it is important
that this amount of ROW remain to accommodate turning lanes associated with the
Chelsea intersection and to provide turning movement areas to accommodate the Mielke
driveway which is set at close proximity to the intersection. At certain locations the 10'
vacation will result in sidewalk pushed directly next to drive areas. The City Engineer
will be present at the meeting to detail the site/road development contlicts. For further
information prior to City J.:ngineer review, please refer to the supporting data.
With rel!orel to the financial incentives reauesteel hv Mielke - The package requested
includes approximately $55.000 of City assistance. This includes $10,000 for demolition
of structures, $25,000 f(Jr forgiveness of trunk utility assessments and approximately
$20,000 for reloeation of the water main extending at an angle through the southwesterly
corner of this site.
It is proposed by the developer that a tax abatement program be employed to fund this
package. Tax abatement works in a manner similar to tax increment financing (TIF) in
that the additional taxes created by the increased tax value can be used to pay for certain
improvements associated with the original development. However, tax abatement is
-1-
City Council Agenda - 12/11/00
different than TIF in that only the City's share of the increase in tax is used to pay f()l'
improvcments. Unlike TIF where allthc new tax increment revenuc produced by the
project can go toward funding, the County and School District portion of the tax revenue
gocs to those jurisdictions like any other tax revcnue.
.
This particular project will generate approximately $28,000 (net present value) through
the abatement program over an 8 year period, assuming that the buildings proposed under
this projcct are constructed at the same time.
There is sufficient revenue through a potential tax abatement program to pay for a portion
of the financial assistance rcquested hy the developer. following are some t~lctors that
the City Council should consider when determining whether or not to use the tax
abatement program or provided financial assistance in general.
1.
.
.
There is currcntly no policy governing use of the tax abatement program. Little
thought has been given as to the proper use of this tinancing tool. Other financing
programs that the City utilizes such as TIF, economic development revolving loan
fund, and the tacade redevelopment fund all are employed using a well thought
out set or standards. Sueh standards will lay out what thc minimum requirements
are for use of the finaneial incentive programs. The policy might contain
minimums for job creation, wage scales, and might require demonstration of a
financial gap. In addition, the policy might identify particular uses for the money
not otherwise identified in State Statute. The policy could also identify the
circumstances under which the tax abatement funds could be used. Onc might
ask. is this an appropriate tool for industrial, commereial and residential, or
perhaps it should be used only for industrial and residential when redevelopment
is involved? A policy should be developed identifying when tax abatcmcnt
should he used. Also, according to Steve Bubul, tax ahatement programs are
typically administered hy the HRA.
2.
The present development plan requires a vacation of a Ion. section or ROW
adjacent to the Mielke property which effectively becomes part of the sitc.
Although in this case the City cannot require that Mielke pay for this land that
will be convcyed to him, it could be argued that considerable added value was
gained by Mielke due to the vacation of the 10 n. strip alongside Cedar Strect.
3.
With regard to the water main relocation, it is my understanding that when Mielke
purchased the parcel containing the water main hc had requested that the City pay
for the cost of relocation of the water line in conjunction with his original offer.
City Council did not make any acljustmcnts to thc original deal due to the fact that
there was anothcr offer on the tahle to the City for the land. That offer did not
-2-
City Council Agenda - 12/11/00
.
request that the water main be relocated. However, when the land was conveyed
to Mielke there may have been some inkling by the City Couneil that if it was
deemed necessary later to relocate the water lllain in eonjunction with a future
project, then the City might look at funding the cost of the reloeation. This notion
is based on my reeolleetion of the discussions, I am not sure if there is any
documentation of this possibility. Council members may want to check their own
memory on this and determine whether or not you feel it is reasonable to simply
reloeate the water main at city.
Council may wish to select one or a combination of the alternatives below.
B. ALTERNATIVES
I. Motion directing staff to prepare policy/guidelines f()f use of tax abatement
financing tool.
This option should be selected if the City Council is inclined to use tax abatement
in this case or to help future developments.
.
7
Motion to authorize use of tax abatement financing prior to establishnlent of
policy to an extent desired by Council.
Couneil should select this option ifit desires to utilize tax abatement financing on
this project prior to establishment of a poliey.
3. Motion authorizing city staff to initiate the proeess of relocating the watermain at
the expense of the City.
Under this alternative the city can provide financial assistance without
establishment of a tax abatement program.
4. Motion to deny use of tax abatement financing assistance or other additional
assistance on this project.
Under this alternative the City Council is satisfied that sufficient city assistance
has been provided to commercial development through the investment in the road
system, and vacation of Cedar Street.
.
-3-
City Council Agenda - 12/11/00
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator to deny granting financial assistance
to this project. The City Administrator does not recommend utilizing tax abatement
financing to pay for items requested. If Council is inclined to use tax abatement
financing the City Administrator strongly urges Council to set up a policy first.
Why the recommendation llw no additional assistance? As you know, the City and State
together have spent $7 million on improvements to Ilighway 25. The City has spent 3.5
million. Of this amount. $600,000 has been assessed to adjoining property owners. The
property values on the Highway 25 corridor have increased greatly, largely as a result of
improvements made and funded by the City and the State. Thereflxe, it would seem
unwise flJr the City to both make investments in road improvements resulting in land
appreciation, then turn around and assist in financing commercial development that has
benefitted greatly from the original City investment.
.
Additionally, City has invested in land and utility structures necessary to provide storm
water service to this area. We are counting on storm water trunk fees to help pay back the
majority of the up-front cost associated with storm water improvcments. It is difficult to
justify tl)rgiveness of trunk fees when these fees arc vital to the funding program
supporting the original project. Furthermore, forgiveness of trunk fees for this
development would set a precedent that could result in similar requests by futurc
developments.
Also. Agreeing to any tax abatement before a policy is established would set a precedent
with other developers in the future.
Last of all. it might make sense for the City to develop a pol icy for use of the tax
abatementlinancing tool regardless of the Mielke request. This is a project that could be
rcferred to the II RA.
n. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of sitc plan showing road and lane configuration on Cedar Street.
.
-4-
DEC-07-2000 12:52
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
7635411700 ~.~~/~~
.
.
.
, \
y
Cedar Street Impl'Ovements
The attached layout for the proposed reconstruction of Cedar Street between Chelsea
Road East and Oakwood Drive consist of the widening of Cedar Street from 28 feet to 48
feet wide, The proposed street width at the intersection of Chelsea Road East is 66 feet to
accommodate the construction of a westbound right turn. lane, southbound through lane.
eastbound left turn lane and two northbound lanes. The typical section includes the
construction of a 5-OOot concrete sidewalk offset 1 to S-feet from the property line with a
3 to 6-foot wide boulevard. The layout has been generated based on 10 feet of right-of-
way being vacated along the west side of Cedar Street and turned back to the adjacent
property owner.
The site plan submitted for the Mielke Property proposes to construct concrete curb and
gutter on-site to within less then I-foot of the proposed right-of-way at the intersection of
Chelsea Road based on 16-feet of right-of-way being vacated on the west side of Cedar
Street. The concern with this proposal is the boulevard width between the street and
sidewalk and the sidewalk and concrete curb and gutter on-site. The plan, based on 10-
feet of right-of-way being vacated. provides for only 3-feet of boulevard and I-foot of
separation between the sidewalk and the on-site concrete curb and gutter, not providing
space for snow storage, lighting and utilities, \
\\ WSB2\adnlin\ WPWIN\ 1303-00\ccmtg.120700.doc
13
TOTAL P.02
o
o
\ III
JI
~
\
r\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
j
/ // \
<D
/;~~/
// :
/ 9
\\
\
i~
on
c::
,0
i:i
u~
Q)~
CI)~
o
....-
C\I~
,u m
a~
-~
.....
"'---
\
~
~
~
// ~
//\ t
~
~
C;L_~__-
\ L-
I
I [
I
\
\1
\
\ \
DRAFT AGREEMENT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INTERIM WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT INCREASE
FOR
SONNY FRESH FOODS, INC.
.
This agreement datcd Decem her ___' 2000, het ween the City 0 fMontice 110 ("C it y") and Sunny F rcsh Foods.
Inc. ("Sunny Fresh"). is lar an increasc in the wastewater discharge permit for Sunny Fresh and Ilmding of
wastewater treatment plant expansion to accommodate a permit increase.
W BEREA S, S unn y Fresh has rcqucsted a permi t i ncrcase for discharge of add itional wastewater to the C it Y
of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the wastewater treatment plant has temporary or intermediate
capacity in the SBR tanks, but very limited intermediate capacity for sludge storage; and
WI IEREAS, the City had not planned an expansion of the wastewater treatment plant for tbe next fifteen
( I 5) to twenty (20) years based upon proposed allocations to Sunny F resb and the expected growth of tbe
community; and
WHEREBY, only additional sludge storage was expected to be needed around the year 2005: and would
now be needed immediately; and
. WHEREAS, the City does not wish to re-allocate the existing capacity at the wastewatcr treatment plant
hich is intended for planned and expected growth of the community nor does the City wish to tax the current
proper! y owners and res iden ts 0 f Montice 11 0 un neccssari I Y lar unneeded capacity. The City wou I d, therefore, on I y
grant an interim wastewater discharge permit with conditions and limitations to Sunny Fresh as follows:
A.
Flow
1.
2.
..,
-) .
B.
BODs
1.
')
t-.
c.
TSS
1 .
.
The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed 300 gallons per minute.
The maximum total discharge per day shall not exceed 156.000 gallons based on a
consecutive 7 day average.
The maximum total discharge in any 24 hour period shall not exceed 165,000 gallons.
The total number 0 f po unds of BO 0, discharges in a 24 hour peri od shall not exceed 3,750
pounds.
The total number of pounds of BOD, dischargcd in any consecutive 5-day period shall not
exceed an average of 3's00 pounds per day.
2.
The total number of pounds oftotal suspended solids discharged in any 24 hour period shall
not exceed 1 ,700 pounds.
The total n um ber of pounds of total suspended so lids disc hargcd in any consecutive 5 -day
period shall not exceed an average of 1,500 pounds per day.
All other sections of Permit #002-C shall remain in effect.
-PAGE 1-
C\OFF ICEIJOHNISUNNYFRSIPERMIT2000: 12/08/2000
FU RT H E RM 0 R E, the funding for thc interim perm it capacity in add it ion to the normal charges tar now, BOD and
total suspended solids. shall be as follows:
. The estimated costs are the acceleration costs lar the sludge storage tank going from Year 5 to Year 1 and
00% 0 fthe I, nal proj ect costs esti mated at $660,000, and the acce Ierat i on costs for S B R tan k # 4 going from Year
17 to Year 8 and 370/0 of the final project cost estimated at $1.600.000.
Cost to he adjusted at eomp lel ion 0 ffeasi hi I ity study phase and agai n at conclus ion 0 f s Iud ge storage project
and SBR tank #4 project.
The final pcrmit limitations as tallows shall hc granted upon completion of the sludge storage tank:
A.
Flow
1.
2.
The maximum total discharge rate shall not exceed 300 gallons per minute.
Thc maximum wtal discharge per day shall not excced 156,000 gallons hased on a
consecutive 7 day average.
The mal< im um total discharge in an y given 24 hour peri ad shall not exceed 183,000 gall ons.
"l
j.
B.
Bon~
1.
The total n um ber of pounds of BO 0 5 discharges in a 24 hour period shall not exceed 4,500
pounds.
c.
TSS
1.
The total number of poonds oftotal suspended solids discharged in any 24 hour period shall
not exceed 2.250 pounds.
.
Any discharges above and beyond this interim permit shall he handled in accurdance with the City
Ord i nanceTi t Ie 14 "S an i tary Sewer \J i scharge Contra Is', with the cxccpt ion that the perccntag es over perm it uscd
to calculate fines tar BOD, and TSS shall hc computed from the values lar daily limits in original Permit #002-C
This intermediate increase in wastewater dischargc shall remain in effect until I) The increase in permit
di sc harge th rcatcns the daily operations of the wastewater treatment plan!. and in the opi ni on ofthc chief operata r
o f the wastewater treatment plan t may cause the City to vi 0 I ate its own pcrm it with the Minnesota Po II uti on C ontro I
Agcncy. In such casc, the permit shall rcvert to the previous discharge numhcrs immediately upon written notice
to Sunny Fresh; or 2) when additional capacity is constructed at the wastewater treatment plant to allow tar the
interim permit Icvels to he fixed or increased dcpending upon the additional capacity at the wastewater treatmcnt
facility and the allocation to Sunny Fresh thereof; or 3) When Permit #002-C fails to be reccrtifled.
SUNNY FRESH FOODS, INC.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
by: ___ __________________
by:_____~_-------~-------
Roger Bclsaas
The Honorable Mayor
.
hy:___ _____________________
John Simola
Public Works Director
_ PAGE 2 .
C:\OFF ICtIJOHNISUNNYF RSIPERMIT20 00 12/08/2000
.
1L
.
.
City Council Agenda -12/11/00
Consideration of a Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development Zoninl! District and a
Concept Stae:e PUD to permit the expansion of a bus service and 2ara2e. Applicant:
Hoe:lund Bus Company. (NAC/.JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The following is a report prepared by N.A.C. with comments inserted ~,fter Planning
Commission review. Please note that the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the concept stage POD.
Hoglund Bus Company has applied for an amendment to the City's Zoning Map to allow the
expansion of its Hoglund Coach Lines faeility along the south side of Interstate 94. The
property is currently zoned B-3 on the west, and I-Ion the east. with a number of buildings
and related uses on the site. Staff has noted that the business has gradually expanded over
the years onto propcrty which was not a part of previous permits. Moreover, a separate
business (Hoglund Transportation) occupies a portion of the property. As such, the
businesses currently exist as legal, non-confonning uses. The zoning ordinance allows the
continuation of non-conforming uses (so-called "grandfather" rights), hut does not permit
their expansion. Because of the mix of buildings and activities, the only proeedural way to
allow an expansion ofthc existing business would be through the PUD zoning process.
Staff considered whether the bus company, based on previous growth and permits, should
he considered a eonforming use in the B-3 District. However, due to the site development
standards which currently exist, the mix of buildings and uses on the site, and the two zoning
districts which currently encompass the project area, it is believed that a separate PU [)
zoning district would be the most proper way for the applicant to proceed. Under the eurrent
7.Oning, a Conditional Use Permit for vehicle sales would have to be issued (the ordinance
actually refers to "automobile and light truck sales"), and a Conditional Use Permit PUD
would be neccssary to accommodate the uses and site development. Staff suggested the
pun zoning as the more flexible tool to ineorporate the expansion into the current
development.
Under PUD zoning, the City and the applicant negotiate a range of land uses and site
development standards, sometimes with specific phasing requirements. It is implicit in PUD
zoning that the proposed uses show compliance with the direction and intent of the City's
Comprehcnsive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for this area directs that comlTlercial uses
which can take advantage of the site's freeway exposure would be the preferred land use.
There are two sets of issues which the City should address in reviewing this appl ication. The
first is the land use plan compliance, and whether the existing land use is most appropriate
long-term use for this area. This is a question of both highest and best use, and what
-1-
City Council Agenda -\2/1\ /00
.
alternatives would be considered for the site and for the current businesses. The second
consideration would be the development standards applicable to this site if the City
determines that the use is appropriate.
Land Use. As noted, the Comprehensive Plan directs the site for commercial uses which
would take advantage of the freeway exposure and access to both Chelsea Road and Trunk
Highway 25. Any husiness may argue that it receives somc benefit from freeway exposure.
However. the comprehensive Plan languagc is written to refer to busincsses which have a
stronger retail component to their operation. Common examples arc found around the 25/94
interchange noW' restaurants, hotels, retail automobile sales and service, and other retail
stores and service businesses. The B-3 District is designed to allow these types of uses,
whether by permitted or conditional use.
Uses such as the transportation and bus companies currently occupying the site are more
typical of industrial district uses. These uses typically provide business services to other
business (or iostitutional) entities rather than directly to the retail public. In a spot check of
other Twin Cities area communities with bus services. we could find none where such uses
are allowed in commercially zoned areas.
In areas where industrial districts arc developed adjacent to lreeways, a heightened level of
building and site development standards are typically applied. The existing improvements
consist of. generally, metal buildings and gravel surhlCe. Only a few areas of paved parking
are developed. with limited landscaped open space on the site. This would he inconsistent
with expectations commonly held for freeway exposore. The proposed development would
add a pole structure addition to the existing parts storage building.
Site Development. As noted in the previous paragraphs, the existing and proposed site
improvements arc below the level required for the City's commercial areas. Even in the
industrial districts, paved and curbed parking with organized landscaped screening is
required. While a PUD district permits l1exibility in the application of standards, the intent
of the PU 0 technique is to encourage a higher standard of development rather than lower.
In the 25/94 interchange area, the City has reccntly seen a significant increase in
development activity, most with a high level of building and site improvements. As with
land use. planning statT believes that the proposed development is inconsistcnt with the
City's typical development standards.
In summary, the existing land use of the property docs not appear to comply with the
direction of thc Comprehensive Plan or the highest and best use attributes of the site. Bus
and transportation facilities arc an impurtant service business, but would be more compatible
with industrial areas, preserving high visibility sites 1'01' higher intensity commercial uses.
If an industrial use in considered to be appropriate for the freeway exposure, a much higher
.
.
-2-
C ity Council Agenda - 1211\ /00
.
level of site and building developmcnt would be expccted. particularly under the pun
dcsignation.
The existing site is a significant economic dcvelopment opportunity for both the land owner
and thc City. With the dramatic increase in the commtmity's population and commcrcial
activity. together with the improvements to Highway 25 and Chelsea Road, the property in
qoestion coold likely be put to a highly intense commercial use which complements the
surrounding commercial development and takes advantagc of thc new and existing
transportation facilities. In the past, the City has helped businesses such as this one to seek
alternative locations more compatible with their opcrational needs. The Hoglund application
may be another example where this assistance would be appropriate.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Zoning Map Amendment from B-3 and 1-1 to PllD
I. Motion to recommcnd approval ofthc rezoning to PUD, based on a llnding that the
existing use is consistent with present and future land uses of thc area.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the rczoning to PUD, hased on a finding that the
proposed use is inconsistent with thc direction of the Comprehcnsive Plan and the
highest and bcst use of thc sitc.
.
3. Motion to table action on the rezoning, subject to additional information.
Decision 2: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
l.
Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD. subject to compliance
with minimum site development standards including paving and curbing of parking
arcas. screening of storage areas, and development/mai ntenance of appropriate
landscaping.
Motion to recommcnd denial ofthe Concept Stage PUO, bascd on a finding that the
proposed use and site dcvelopment plans are inconsistent with the area and the
requirements of PlJD design as listed in thc Zoning Ordinance.
!
~
-, .
Motion to table action on the pun, subject to additional inflml1ation.
.
~3~
City COline i I Agenda -\2/1 \ /00
.
c
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffancl Planning Commission recommend Altcrnative 1. From a pure planning standpoint,
staff did not rccommend approval of the PUD to the Planning Commission. In the view of
stall the expansion of the existing facility is not in keeping with the higher level of
development recently secn in the 25/94 area, nor is it consistent with the direction of the
Comprehensive Plan for this ncighborhood. The addition would tend to he disincentive for
eventual relocation of this busi ncss, and would also encourage a conti nuation of the current
level of site developmcnt if a new business were to occupy the site. Assuming that the
investment in more substantial buildings. paved surfacing and landscaping is not
economically sound forthis business. encouragement could be given to the applicants to seck
another site where it could prospcr with fewcr expectations for high-end site improvements.
The Planning Commission maintained thc view that thc PUD is compatible with thc
adjoining uses and that the investments in thc new structure of $300,000 is low relative to
the estimated value ofthe land. Thereforc the Planning Commission was not concerned that
allowing expansion/investment into the site at this level would not significantly diminish
prospects for redevelopment in the near future (5 - 15 ycars).
1fthe City chooscs to approve the pun zoning to accommodate the expansion of the existing
business on its current site, staff would recommend that the site is signillcantly upgraded,
both in terms of building design and site improvements. Since the site borders the freeway
and an active commercial district, compatibility with these areas would be appropriate
requircment for this busincss. Concept Stage pun would be the time 10 identify the site
improvements necessary for further approvals. Examples would include building materials
and design, landscaping,pavi ng req uircments, screening. storage area requirements, signage,
and any other issues which will impact future approvals. The Planning Commission
discussed the level of improvements desired and recommended improvements to
parking areas used by employees ~llld the public. They also recommended tree planting
and landscaping improvements. The detail regarding levels of improvement will be
reviewed as part of the development stage PlJ D.
~
....
;~
,
/
--"
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A -Existing Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Aerial Photo
L
---
-4-
----
.-
1--- T. paM~--
\'
c:k-%-L~
f t