City Council Agenda Packet 07-11-1977.'RE-dU-LA:R',kEE-ftNG,
MO.NT-ICEL-CO CI -TY COUNCIL.
'Juiy 11, t9.7Z;- -7-'30, P. K.
Mayor: ,Con jo�finson.
Cd tincilden: D., 1116-nijf6iii, &:,Ge fmsrd6i_,G. Wal.tbrb, T. White.
Meeting -t -o b& taped.
Oath of office-- Philip -White.
Citizens comments.
Public licaring - Variance on Accessory Building
Area Limitati6n@,.<
Consideration and WAtdr Co6ruictioti, Fee.
vi. Consideration,,of. Amendin-g-Ordinarice Rdatxve to
Length of D ' -'--dmj
Dog, 'mpg". -Lc-R:P
V4.: Considovatioh',of Scr'vicc Cofttir-act with ,Minnesota
Crouith,'Excha - -
VS: Setting, Upr'Ndw Day for Sdcond 'Council Meeting 6?
theMonth.
D 1 0 - pikrtdiint 11cadQuar.tes ly Mooting Approxfmat6ly
600 P. M.
A/7-. Appro.val of, minutes.,
Usifidished !business.
MAILINQ T0:
John Badalich
Don Smith
Mike Troop - KRWC
41 John Sandberg
�t•
)v �e 00 1
AGEINDA SUPPLEMENT
Agenda Item 1. Public Hearing - Var-- nce on Accessory Building Arca
Limitations.
Mr. Jean Brouillard is requesting a variance from
the provisions of Monticello Ordinance Section
10-3-2-(D)-4 which 1.-.mits the total area of accessory
buildings to 1,000 square feet.
Mr. Brouillard currently has a garage that is 24' x
40' or 960 square feet to Lhc cast of his residence
at 336 East Broadway and would like to bui l.d a
second garage in his rear yard of the same sire.
At their last meeting, the Panning Contmi.ssi.on vc-
commcnded approval o£ the variance with the stipulation
that the second garagc be used only for personal
use and not for Mr. Woui-Ilard's business. Reason-
ing behind this stipulat':Lon is that the garage
would be bu.ilt in a R-2 (Single and Two Pami.ly)
residential. zone and variance should not be con-
s.i_dored in any way to a1.l.ow for expansion of a
business. Mr. Broui.3_lar•d's business Is currently
al..lowed as a perm.itfcd non -conforming use but i.s
not: allowed to expanel according to our ovdi.nances.
As required by our ordl.nance, requests for var.i.ances
are to be considered by the, city council at n
public hearing and proper notice has been sent to
su rvotmding property owners sol ic.i ting_t.hei.r comments.
POSS]BIX ACTION- Consideration oflapproval or denial
of variance request.
Agenda l.tem 2. Cansl.derat::i.on of Sewer and Water Connectlnn Fee.
01.1 1, rr.r even is ord.i nnne es (Seo c114"l osed) relative to
sower and water C011neeti.9n fees should he amended
in order to coincide_ wl.th one policy on sewer and
wri for line nssessmcn t;s.
According to our present city ordinance Section
7-2-1 -(C) 011 water connection fees and Section
7-2-1-(D) on sewer connection fees, n charge IS
indicated for overs.i.:zing of :bines and for Cho cost.
of tile te'eat.ment; plant.. It wnuld appear that tho
current ol.ty Ord Inanco, S intent, is to assess OR,
oharge 100% of all n-Ity sewer and watr_r extensions.
l
Our policy has been to only assess a normal lateral
charge to a benef.i.tted property owner wi.th any
oversizing, .Lift stations, treatment costs to be
paid on ad valorem.
While i.t would appear reasonable and justified to
charge a property owner a connecti.an fee in add:i.tion
to the amount assessed for a portion of the ovor-
s.izi.ng costs, etc., our current ordinances are
quite severe in their charge to a property owner
and by far higher than I could find than charges
made by other cities. (See enclosure on sewer and
water connection charges from the League of MN. Ci.tfcs).
As an example, under our current; city ordi-nance
those lots i.n Oakwood Tridustelal. Park or Perkins
which have a six (6) inch line would be charged
over $8162 In addi.ti.on to the assessments for water
alone.
I have talked to John Uada.l.ich and he concurs that;
the present ordinance appears unreasonable. An
amended ordi.nanec is enclosed for your, rev.i.ew and
line been sent; .in advance to .John for study also.
The proposed ord.i.nance would be more Ln Line w.i.th
oLhoer commun.i t;.i es relative to it sewer and water
connecti.un fee. Under the proposed ordinance and
uti.l,izing the example cited Oakwood Industrial Park
lots and Perkins would be charged $1000 plus ln-
stallation costs (primarily water meter cost) .i.n
add.it.ioe to an assessment for the .lateral lines.
For your information, Lilo current charge to a
property owner Foe- sewer and watts hookup, whore
previously assessed, for Inteva.l lines and service
stabs has been $75.50. This is it, i.itua with our
pail icy but, not aur ovd.i.nance. A rompar.i,son of
current .:11111-ges, current ordinance ehnrges and
proposed ordinance charges fora single fam.l.ly
residence, is as follows:
S17WI711 AND WATCH CONNECTION 171IKS
Current:
Current
Proposed
Charlie
Ordinance
Ordinanr.n
Water meter
$42.00
$ 42.00
$ 42.00
Sanitary sewer permit; 5.50
7.50
7.50
Sewer hookt,rp fee.
t4.00
280.00
75.00
Wince hookup feta
14.00
70.00
40.00
$75.50
$399.50
$164.50
�(TOTA1.
�iti4i iOe� «
jera. c e
?rots NoT'
t�v
3 s. s0
Af3os.so
It also should be pointed out that for the sewer
connection feeta schedule has been formulated equating;
commercial enterprie;es to a single family residence to
arrive at a hookup fee. Using a motel as an exampleteach
two rooms would be multiplied by $75 along with the
applicable fee for a cocktail lounge if applicable. A
20 unit motel with a cocktail lounge seating 46 people
would be charged as follows:
Motel - 20 roomy + 10 (parameter) x 75 $750.00
Cocktail lounge - qb seats • 2 (parameter) x 75 4150.00
Sewer Hookup Charge • 00.00
Reasoning for equating these facilities to single family
residern es is to eliminate problems incurred in trying
to determine coats attima of development. Thin schedule
has been formulated by another community and I have
asks -d John in rc-,iew for reasonableness.
for those areas hooking up to sewer and water which
have never been asaeased,ordinance Section 7-2-1-(11)
states they will be charged the current cost of an
equrvatent aasessatent for the property in addition to
a hookoli fee.
p4 SSI BI R ACTION: Consideration of proposed aerndsent .
WFFI RENCES: Current ardinan��propo:ed ordinance,
Comparstive sews and water Gnnrt 1 ton fey ^i
other clues.
Agenda Item 3. Consideration of Amending Ordinance Relative to
Length of Dog Impoundment.
A majority of the costs incurred by the city for
dog control i_s for the feeding and cleaning of the
dogs. In order to reduce these costs, considcraLion
should be given to reducing the length of impou.nd-
ment to three (3) days instead of the present seven
(7) days.
If a dog is not claimed within three (3) days i -t
will probably not be claimed at all. As a resLL_IL
the fecdi.ng and cleaning of the animals appears to
be an unnecessary cost.
Since the length of impoundment of dogs is deter-
mined by ord:i_nance (Section 6-2-14) i.t will be
necessary to make any changes by amendment.
PCSSTDLE AC'f.I:ON: Consi.derati.on of amending ordinance
reducing _length of dog impoundment to three (3) days.
REFERENCES: Ordinance Section 6-2-14.
Agenda Item 4. Consideration of Scrv,i.ce Contract with Minnesota
Crowth Exchange.
The city, s contract w1t:h M.i.nncsota Growth hsrhange
is cu -ren tly up for renewal.. M.Lnnesota Growth
Exchange, Inc. is a consul ti.ng agency Chat; provides
terlinical. and referral. sorv:iec assistance to em-
ployers rclatIng to behavioral/medical problems of
emp I oyccs .
Purpose of entering into it contract with Minnesota
Crowth Bxchange, 'Inc. Lo es ttibl i.sh an employe,: nss.i.st.-
ance prn6ram3 is to obtain a higher .Level of ernployce
job porfnnnance i.n addition to prevention of accidents,
Insurance claims and grievil nees.
'11118 purpose .is accomplishecl by offering the employee
assistnnco w,i.th personal problems Clint uLt.imaColy
affcr.t h:i.s job performance. The r,lty of Mont.i.co'HO
Is not a sonlal agency, bill; It should be concerned
With mnl,l:cr9 Chat affaUL J01) performuu:c.
11, takes a cons.idarablo amount of experLi.se Cn de -al.
with these t;yeas of personae probl ems, And th i. s .i s
the mason for engaging someone_ like Minnesota
fr��wl.h Exchange.
Minnesota CI•owl.11 Exchango Sevves as it cortsult:i-ng and
referral. agcnry and as such do tint, perform any
ti, fill l,men1; sf_rviccs. Tf an empLoyce has a drug;
ve:laCed problem for :aamp14::, Minnesota Crowth 1'. .1-1190
W1.11 consul t; and rounoll Chu employee and if turcaement
Is nrr.ossavy wilt refer Lhi-� emliiuyce Co the necessavy
agency.
-3-
Cost of the program is minimal. wi.th the state funding
i $138 of the yearly contract of $180 w.i.th the net
` cost to the city through June 30, 1978 of only $42.
However, the state will no longer fund employee
assistance programs after June 30, 1978 and the
costs to the city would be increased should the
city decide to renew the contract again next year.
Monticello entered .i.nto its first contract with
Minnesota Growth Exchange on March 1, 1977• This
contract terminated June 30, 1977 with a cost to
the ci.t'y of $6 for the four months. During this
period of time the program was used once by an
employee.
S would recommend the city renew its contract with
Minnesota Growth Exchange, Inc. through June 30, 1978
at a cost of $42.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Cnnsi-dcration of renewal. of contract.
REFERENCES: June 20, 1977 letter from MN. Growth
Exchange. Proposed contract.
Agenda Item S. Setting Up New Day for Second Council Me_cti.ng of tile,
Month.
Due to the, fact that the new council member, Philip
Wh.i.t;c, has a cont] 1 c t on the counc.iA i s second regular
mecti.ng of tile- month, the fourth Monday, it; will,
be necessary to set up a new day for this meeting.
\�Yt POSSIBLE ACTION: Amendment of city ordinance Section
VC /1-5-1 which establishes regular mr_cl;i.ngs of the city
council.
Agenda :Item fi. Department [lead �luart;evly Mect;.ing Approx.i.mntely 8:30 P. M.
Purpose of t;he meeting 18 to allow conununi.catl,on
hotwecn t;he council and department hearts that. .i's
not always afforded during the normal agenda. Among
other t.h.i.ags, th.i.s meeting w.i.11 give an opportunity
to council members to detorm.i.uo progress on specific
issues or projects and allow department; heads to
clarl.fy city counci-1 policy.
The following wi:l.l be .in at; tend ancc at l.h.i.s meeting:
Public works dAver,tov, deputy sheriff, c:i.ty admin.i.stratwr,
fi.ro chIef, ci.vi_l, drf.snse director, building .inspector.
Our liquor strn•e nuwnager hall a previous Comm i.tt;Ment;
and w.1.11. bo at our next; mrot:ing Ln review the financial.
statements for the six months ended June 30, 1977.
-4-
REGULAR MEETING
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
July 27, 1977 - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor: Con Johnson.
Councilmen: Arve Grimmo, Dan Blonigen, Gene Walters, Philip White.
Meeting to be taped.
J1. Consideration of Site for Senior Citizens Center.
,Citizens Comments
12. Consideration of Approval of Building Permit - Cedarcrest
Housing for the Elderly.
3. Consideration of Amending Ordinance Relative to Appropriate
Requirements for Certain Subdivisions.
14. Consideration of Approval of John Sandberg Plat East of
Highway 25.
V 5. Review of Supplemental Report on Permanent Street Improvement.
1%6. Review of Liquor Store Financial Statements.
V7. Approval of bills.
4. Approval of Minutes.
Unfinished business.
New business.
Agenda Item 1. Consideration of Site for Senior Citizens Center.
At our June 27, 1977 meeting, it was decided to have the architects
prepare plans and specifications for expansion of the present city hall
for future utilization as a senior citizens center. However, at our
last meeting, it was decided to appoint Arve Grimsmo and Philip White
to a committee to review the situation. This was a result of the request
by the Fire Department to be allowed the use of the present city hall.
After reviewing the situation, the committee would like to recommend
the City Council approve the purchase of Denton Erickson's Moon Motors
building for $ ",600 as a senior citizens center as opposed to
the expansion of the present city hall for the following reasons:
1. Cost:
For the same price, it would appear the present
city hall could only be expanded to half the size
of the Moon Motors building.
2. Long Term Needs:
With the purchase of the Moon Motors building for
the senior citizens center and turning over the
present city hall to the fire department, the
city would provide long term facilities for both.
This decision was reached after reviewing the two alternatives that
seemed practical in light of cost and availability, i.e., the present
city hall building with an addition and the Moon Motors building.
In reviewing the sources for funding for City Hall and a Senior
Citizens Center, there are sufficient funds to finance the purchase
in 1977 although this would not allow much flexibility for major
expenditures not budgeted for in 1977. (See Fhclosuro on Funding
Q Sources)
(��y � / POSSIUS ACTION: Consideration of the purchase of Moon Motors building.
r v REFERENCES: Shoot on Possible Purchase Moon Motors Building. Sheet
on Sources of Funding - Senior Citizens Center - City Hall.
Agenda Item 2. Consideration of Aaaroval of Duildina Permit - Cedarcrest HOUsinR,
for the F.ldorly.
Mr. John Borgstad, developer of Codarcras' Hopermitsi for the Elderly,
is requesting approval of a building permit for ha thirty-eight (38)
unit apartment on Fourth Street. Construction is xpected to start
in August.
It appears that all ordinances including landscaping provisions aro
adhored to including the requiremant that elderly housing projects
provide one (1) parking space for every two units with futuro
expansion of parking lot on a ono -to -one ratio. Thorn aro 34 parking
stalls for the 38 unite with sufficient room to provide for four
additional parking apacos.
- 1 -
It should be pointed out to Mr. Bergstad that it is city policy to only
issue a certificate of occupancy upon completion of all aspects of the
building, including exterior items such as landscaping, parking lot, etc.
as wall as interior items unless a variance is approved by the City
Council. Additionally, it is incumbent upon the developer to apply
in advance for such a variance if necessary.
The plans have been reviewed by the building inspector and he
recommends approval.
POSSIME ACTION: Consideration of approval of building permit.
REFERENCES: Plans available at city hall.
Agenda Item 3. Consideration of Amending Ordinance Relative to Apnrooriate Requirements
for Certain Subdivisions.
Monticello ordinance 11-1-7 relative to subdivision requirements reads
as follows:
11-1-7: EXCEPTIOUS: When requesting a subdivision,
if either of the two following conditions
exist, the City Administrator shall bring the request
to the attention of the Planning Commission where-
upon, they shall review said request and exempt the
subdivider from complying with arty inappropriate
requirements of this ordinance.
A) In the case of a request to divide a lot which is
a part of a recorded plat where the division
is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to
an abutting lot or to create two lots and the
newly created property lino will not cause the
other remaining portion of the lot to be in
violation with this Ordinance of the Zoning
Ordinance.
D) Such division results in parcels having an area
of five (5) acres or more with frontage on a
public right-of-way mcaouring three hundred (300)
feet or more and when such division does not
necessitate the dedication of a public right-of-
way; or if a lot which is part of a plat recorded
in the office of the Register of Deeds of Wright
County is to be divided and such division will not
cause any structure on the lot to be in violation
of tho zoning ordinance or said new portions of
lots to be in violation of city ordinances.
There should be a clarification of what tho in-
appropriate requirements are since they aro not spelled
out. Possibly the beat way to amend this ordinance
would be to spell out what requiremmits have to be
mot rather than lieL all tho inappropriate requirements.
- 2-
At their last meeting, the Monticello Planning Commission recommended
that only the following requirements are necessary if a subdivision
falls under Section A or B of Ordinance 11-1-7:
1. Review by the Planning Commission and review and
approval by the City Council.
2. Certificate of Survey.
3. Park dedication requirements as spelled out in Ordinance
Section 11-f-1 through 11 -6 -5 -
It is recommended that all other requirements such as soil surveys,
public hearings, topographic mapping, etc. will be eliminated in these
cases. Howard Dahlgren, the City's Planner, has reviewed the proposed
amendments and concurs. Additionally, he recommended that Section A
pertain to any lot whether part of a recorded plat or not.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the proposed Ordinance Section 11-1-7.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of emending Ordinance as presented.
REFERENCES: Proposed Ordinance.
Agenda Item 4. Consideration of Aonroval of John Sandberg Plat East
of Highway 25.
Mr. John Sandberg owned a parcel of land on the east side of
Highway 25 that was originally 4.28 acres and has sold a parcel
of approximately .89 acre for a home site. No plat or subdivision was
ever approved on this sale.
Additionally, Mr. Sandberg would now like to subdivide the
remaining 3.39 acres into two parcels one of 1.36 acres and
one of 2.03 acres.
Mr. Sandberg is seeking to fall under Section 13r1-7 as may be
amended in Agenda Item 3 and has agreed to the requirements pro-
posed therein.
It should be pointed out that technically Mr. Sandberg in
actually dividing the parcel twice and three parcels have been
created. Howover, since the parcels were subdivided at different
times, the Planning Commission recommended the subdivision be
approved under Section 11-1-7 as Mr. Sandberg has agreed to a
park dedication in cash based upon the area of the three (3)
parcels.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of subdivision.
REFERENCE: Enclosed map depicting area.
- 3 -
Agenda Item 5. Review of Supplemental Report on Permanent Street Improvement.
City Engineer, John Badalich, has completed a supplemental report
to his street report dated May 9, 1977, which is enclosed for
your review.
According to the supplemental report, John estimates the cost of a
2^ bituminous overlay as $342,000, compared with a cost of
$295579600 for a permanent street program. John further estimates
the cost of both programs in present value terms at a cost of
$2,766,800 for a permanent street improvement program compared to
$1,239,600 for bituminous overlay.
For future bonding debt purposes, it should be pointed out that the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicated a majority of our
interceptors under the facilities planning report would not be
eligible for federal and state funds increasing the local share from
$351,000 to approximately $1,000,000. This may have some influence on
the amount of debt the city may want to incur under a street
program.
POSSIBLE ACTIN: No action is necessary unless council wants to
consider a permanent street improvement. At a previous meeting, the
council decided to order plans and specifications for a 2" overlay.
If a permanent street improvement program is ordered, it will be
necessary to hold a public hearing since a portion of the cost would
be assessed.
REFERENCES: John Badalich's supplemental street report.
Agenda Item 6. Review of Liquor Store Financial Statements.
Ehclosed please find the Liquor Store Financial Statements for the
half-year ended June 30, 1977, along with a comparison reflecting
the first year of business at the new store with the same period a
year earlier.
It would appear that sales will meet tho projected figure for 1977,
or $475,000, and operating income should approach $329000, or over
$4,000 more than the projected figure of $27,600.
Listed below are some of the critical areas that reflect the
management of a liquor store.
Inventory
At the and of Juno, the inventory was $65,597 and this compares with
an inventory of $70,000 - $72,000 at the old location. It was
anticipated that inventory would approach the $100,000 figure at the
new store, and I think it's to Mark's credit the inventory has
been low and as a result it has allowed mors money to be
invested earning interest.
-4-
Gross Profit Percentages.
Following are projected percentages compared to actual:
Projected Actual
Liquor
21.2
20.89
Beer
18.8
18.35
Wine
28.9
27.78
Other
26.1
27.79
Total
20.8
20.55
As can be seen, except for the "Other" category, gross profit
percentage are less than projected, although relatively close.
It would appear that the percentages, however, have been coming up in
the second quarter of 1977, and it is expected the percentages will
equal or better the projections.
Salaries.
You will note that the salaries in 1977 are actually less than in 1976
for the first half of the year. The prime reason for this was a change
in sales clerks. Projected salaries as a per cent of sales was
7.42% compared to the actual of 6.80%, and it is expected the figure
for all of 1977 will be 6.3 - 6.4%. The reason for further reduction
is that the second half of the year produces 55`1 of the sales,
although personnel requirements are relatively stable.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Review of report. Mark Irmiter, manager, will be
hero to answer any questions you may have on operations or the
financial statements.
REFERENCES: Financial Statements for year -ended June 30, 1977.
Comparison of first year sales with one year ego.
- 5 -
-p 1
COMMITTEE REPORT RELATING
r
TO SITE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER
For over two and one half years the city of
Monticello has been scelcing an alternative site
For the Senior Citizen's Center. A new site was
sought due to the safety hazards and limited
expansion potential of the existing Senior
Ci.ti_zen Center on Broadway.
l:t appeared the city had found an answer to
i.ts predicament when a new city hall was to be
completed allowing the Senior Citizen Center to
move to the existing city hall. which would have
been expanded to provide for the Senior Citizen
Center. In fact,, as .Late as June 27, 1977, the
council. made a der.:ision to di.rcet architects
to prepare plans and specifications for prov.i.ding
addi_ ti ona 1 space and remodeling tile, present
city hall into a Senior Ci.t-izens Center.
prompted by a request from our fire department
at, our .Last meeting to all.ow them to take over
t:he ent.i.rc present city hall building, P111.1 White
and myse.l.f were appointed as a comm.it:tee to review
the sitllatiion.
After mcet:.ing with the fire department: mid
discussing the issue with the Senior ci.ti,zens
Cc
nGer cl.i,rect:or and members, T would like to
rcaamm(all c1 Che council. puuchnKc Denton Evickson's
Moon Mo l;ors building for $43,000-
rd
43.000.
s
y
This decision was reached after reviewing
the two alternatives that, seemed practical in
light of cost and availability, i.e. the present
city hall building with an addition and the Moon
Motors building.
our committee recommends the purchase of the
Moon Motors building over utilization and ex-
pansion of the present, city hall based on the
following:
1. Cost.
1'or the same price, it would appear the
present city hall could only be expanded
to half the size of the Moon Motors building.
2. Long Term Needs:
Wil,h the purchase of the Moon Motors building
for the Senior Citizens Center and turning
over the present city hall to t.hr,.fire depart-
ment, the city would provide Inns term
faciIities for both.
we
POSSIBLE PURCHASE OP MOON MOTOR SALES BUILDING
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER
Advantages of Moon Motor sales building: Sc X 130 �•
1. Size of buil: ding - 4800 square feet. 1%0 'f I -IL 0
A. Present building only 1620 sq. feet. -(Senior, Citizens)
B. Addition to city hail. of 1500 sq. feet would
make total of 2300 sq. feet.
2. Price - approximately $9.00 sq. foot compared to
new building cost estimates of $25.00 sq. foot.
3. Fire Dept. and Senior Citizens will. have separate
facili.t;ics wli.ich will take care of their needs
for forsecable future.
4. Location - very accessible to stores and shopping.
$. Parking - day to day parking can be handled on the
s.i.tc, additionally overfLow parking could utilize
Cedar Street and parking by Bandstand Park.
6. Bu.i.ldi.ng is compatAbl.e with needs of Senior Cit.i.zcns
for workshop area, recreation area (e.g. pool table)
and social arca, and office arca. (Sr. Citizens
Center director).
7. Availability date: September, 1977 as opposed to
spring of 1978 if ei,l;y 11-11. remodeled.
8. Because of size, port;i_on of building could be .Leased
and an .i.ndi.vidunt has capressecl an .i.ni;erest along
thaso lines.
Ill sadva n cages:
1. Parking not ideal.
2. Parcol. wouLcl be taken off tax rolls.
3. Although building is strt.teturally "sound", improvements
wouid 1111VII to be mode and it; would not be 1;hc snme
ns a new bltti,lding or nddi.ng O11 to city hall..
Other S_i.gni.ficnnt Points:
1. Senior Cil;i.zcne Centel' has $4,000 - $,coo 11, their own
funds which they Indicate they would ul,iI-.izo towards
fnl•nish.i.ng find improvd mcnts.
2. Senlor Clt..i_zens Center hoard atilt members sttppOrt; ptly-
chasc oP Int l.lding.
3. Although prefevablo 1;o fi-nance over 1977 6 1978, funds
u arc. nvallable•Por cash pttrehnse.
4. Sala of old 811-0 cuuLcl Partial..ly 017P -sat pu"011180 Of
new fit Ci I i.ty.
July 25, 1977
10: Monticello City Council
Gentlemen:
�J
At the July 19, 1977 Planning Commission meeting, discussion
was held on the City Council's recent decision to proceed
with a 2" overlay for the City streets.
A motion was passed by the Planning Commission recommending
that the City Council seriously consider implementing a
permanent street improvement program as opposed to e
temporary upLrading of the streets in Monticello to
coincide with Monticello's current ordinances requiring curb,
( ,-utter, storm sewer, etc. in newly platted areas.
The Committee understands that financing permanent improvement
of this nature plays a major roll in your decisions, but we
hope that serious consideration is given to our recom-
mendation of a permanent street improvement program.
Sincerely,
.�4 C t.:, . ..
Howard Cillham,
Chairman
Planning Commission
S
pito /o rep
9q
42 �J Al 4
.
July 25, 1977
TO: Monticello City Council
Gentlemen:
At the July 19, 1977 Planning Commission meeting, discussion
was held on the City Council's recent decision to proceed
with a 2" overlay for the City streets.
A motion was passed by the Planning Commission recommending
that the City Council seriously consider implementing a
permanent street improvement program as opposed to a
temporary upgrading of the streets in Monticello to
coincide with Monticello's current ordinances requiring curb,
gutter, storm sewer, etc. in newly platted areas.
The Committee understands that financing permanent improvement
of this nature plays a mayor roll in your decisions, but we
hope that serious consideration is given to our recom-
mendation of a pcmmanent street improvement program.
Sincerely,,
Howard Gillham, %
Chairman
Planning Commission
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL KEETING
July 28, 1977 - 4 P. M.
Members present: Con Johnson, Gene Walters, Philip White.
Members absent: Dan Blonigen, Arve Grimsmo.
Angela Crawford and Chuck Liddy of the Architectural Alliance,
reviewed various items relative to the interior decorating of
city hall. The following decisions were made:
Carpeting - A 28 oz. nylon rust Bigelow Stati-Chek carpeting was
selected for all carpeted portions of city hall except for the elevated
portion for the council table in the council chambers which would be
a 28 oz. rust Bigelow Stati-Tuft carpet. I£ the council decided to
have this carpeting installed by the general contractor it would
cost an extra $1513 over the allowance. It was decided to get a
quote from a local carpet dealer before a decision could be made to
pull this item out of the contract and have it bid or supplied
locally.
Bathroom Floors - It was decided to continue the quarry the
into the bathrooms instead of the ceramic talo which would have
been an extra $156.00.
Wall Coverings - It was decided to put a combination of burlap
and a light beige vinyl covering on the wall e. Added cost would be
computed by the Architectural Alliance.
Stain - It was decided to select the stain as presented by the
ArchiTeciural Alliance. There would be no additional cost although
the original plane called for a clear scaler instead of stained
woodwork.
Counter too - A beige color was selocted as presented by tho
architects.
Floor Drains - It woe determined that floor dratis were not
necessary in tho bathrooms or custodial room.
Mooting adjourned.
Gn y�f� r
City AdK,iniotrator
GW/l9
9