City Council Agenda Packet 03-12-1979C
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
March 12, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arvo Gri omo
Councilmembers: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments.
V1 . Feasibility Report on Possible 1979 Improvement Projects.
-/2. Consideration of Petition for Improvements to Inuring Hillside Terrace.
/. Review of Annual Financial Statements for the Municipal Liquor Store.
V4. Consideration of Appointment of Public works Director.
%/5. Consideration of Appointment for the Business and Industrial Development
Committee.
%/6. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 26, 1979.
Unfinished Business -
VRemindor - Special Meeting with School District,
March 27, 1979 - 8:00 P.M. - Oakwood School
New Business -
/Inform Council of Limited Market value.
JMayor Grimsmo gone from April 20th to April 27, 1979.
Ordinance`prohibiting parking from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M., y -round
�QV
F
a \
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
March 12, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken "taus, Philip W.`titc.
Members Absent, None
Citizens Comments -
Public Works Department employee, Dick Brooks, questioned the Councilmen
in regards to possible reorganizationai plans within the Public Works
Department. Mr. Brooks questioned whether there would be changes in
regards to the Street Supervisory position now currently held by
himself. The Council informed Mr. Brooks that they would be discu?sing
this with him at a later date.
1. Feasibility Report on Possible 1979 Improvement Proieets.
A feasibility report on the 1979 improvement projects for four areas
in Monticello was presented by John Badalich, Consulting Engineor.
The four areas listed in the report had requested various street, i,ewor
and water Improvements.
The various alternatives were discussed by the Engineer concerning different
ways of serving the individual petitioners, and the alternatives reum
commended
by the Engineer would have a total cost of approximately $721,400,, of which
$551,940 would be financed through assessments.
The four areas discussed in the feasibility study included water and ,sower
service to Commercial Plaza 25, water and sewer to portions of Oakwood
Industrial Park, with the extension of those services westerly to the
J. R. Culp Farm on the southern edge of the corpora -to City Linits. Alto
discussed was the extension of. Seventh Street from ocust one block weot
with street, sower and water improvements.
In Area 1, the extension of sewer and water and street imbrovl;nenr.o from
soventh Street westerly approximately one block, the City rngincar r,�:,on-
munded that the proposed extensions of sewer and water follcw rhe uli,li,ment
for a fuLuro collector road which would connocr-Moetcrly to
t,'incfN it-il)peari. that If this futurr collector nal ir, to tM, i itlr, a
diffuren t alignment would be necessary than the 1•rc•;i n sov.t, :i ti, t
platted ctrewt, qtr. Dadalich recommended that rhe rnaJ In
to the south to provide for a future alignment of thr colle tor ri.il. In
order for the road to be constructed in some future date, aarrment,i Cram
the proporty owners would be necessary. One of the property owners involvod
in the area of the future collector road, Jeannie Hoglund, indicated she
was not aware of the proposed road alignment and was not notified of such
plans. Council informed her that it was not a Public Hearing and that at
a future data, a public hearing would be held if the future collector road
�U
City .Council Minutes - varch 12, 1979
is considered. Because of the uncertainty over the road alignment for the
collector road, and the effect this would have on serving the area peii4oncd
for sewer and water improvements, motion was made by Phil 14nitc, scconded
by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to defer any action on the requested
improvements until the area property owners can be contacted in regards
to their ideas on the collector road alignment.
Mr. Badalich noted that the petitioned property could be served with just
sewer and water off of Wcust Street if a decision cannot be reached on
the collector road alignment.
The second area petitioned for sewer and water was Commercial Plaza 25
area south of I-94 along Highway 25. It was the recommendation of
the Engineer to serve this area with sewer and water by coming from
County Road 117 along Cedar Street. This aligiuneut would allow both
sides, east and west of Old Highway 25, to be assessed for sewer and
water improvements.
Comments were heard by property owners, Rick Longley, Arleen Hoglund
and Gary Corrow, in regards to the possible assessment. Both Mr. Longley
and Mr. Corrow indicated that the assessments would appear to be quite
high, approximately $5,000 per 100 feet, and that if these assessments
wore payable over five years, it would be a financial hardship for
both property owners. Mrs. Hoglund also indicated that the assesoecnts
for their property would be extremely high and indicated that they felt
their property is not ready for development and would not be in favor of
any improvements to this area. Mrs. Hoglund felt that if Commercial
Plaza 25 wanted sewer and watar, they should be served from and along'
Highway 25, thus eliminating them from -any assessments.
The report also recommended extending sewer and water along Dundaa road
in Oakwood industrial Park, which also included the extension of Dundee
Road westerly to connect with highway 25. Various alternatives were
discussed for this road alignment, which when sewer and water wao
placed in the roadway, would serve the J.R. Culp farm, who also petitioned
for sewer and water improvements.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to
call for a public hearing at a future date to review the feasibility report
on areas 2, 3 and 4, Commercial Plaza 25. Oakwood Industrial Park, and
the J.R. Culp Farm, for 1979 improvements. (Sea Resolution 1979 43).
2. Consideration of Petition for Improvements to Laurino Hillside Terrace.
Mr. Roy LAkuring submitted a petition for sanitary sewer and pavenrnt of
a rural type street with ditches and no stone sewer or curb and gutter,
to serve Leuring Hillside addition. Included In the request was that
if rural type streets are determined to be put in, Mr. Laurina requ,'tit„l
a tan year assessment payoff, rather than five. The request al:,_i inUr;ato;!
that if tho Council determined a permanent type street with curia w dtitl(r
was necessary, the petitioners wanted a fifteen year financing ratLcr
than five years. Mr. Lauring also requested that the requirement that the
assessments be paid in full at the time of a building permit ir, waive,1
for the lots in Louring Hillside Addition.
2
/0
City Council Minutes - March 12, 1979
Mr. Lauring informed the Council that Data 3, a corporation that leases
and rents used IBM equipment, is interested in purchasing sono of the
lots in Lauring Hillside Addition, and also of constructing a iS,000 square
foot building. Mr. Johnson, President of Data 3 Corporation, explained
his business venture and indicated that because of the financial statun
of his business, he felt that a five year payoff for the improvements would
be a hardship to him.
A feasibility study was completed in 1979 on extensions of sewer and
permanent streets through Lauring Hillside Addition, but the improvement
was denied. John Sadalich, consulting engineer, indicated that a rural
type street is feasible for the area if the Council so desired, and that
an updated feasibility study could be prepared by the next meeting if a
rural type street was indicated. The Council then discussed the current
assessment policy regarding a five year payoff on assessments. Included
in the discussion was whether it would be fair to leave residential
property at five year payoffs with possibly ten years for commercial
or industrial assessments. It was determined that any decision regarding
the new assessment policy should be discussed with the bonding con-
sultants, Springsted, Inc., who helped draw up the original asscas.-ent
policy.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to consult with the bonding consultants, Springsted, Inc.,
on possible revisions to the assessment policy, and have a report
presented at the next Council meeting. The motion alae directed
the consulting engineer, John Sadalich, to prepare an updated £eanibility
report on street and sower improvements to Lauring Hillside Terrace.
3. Review of Annual Financial Statements for the Municipal Liquor Store.
The Council reviewed the 1978 Financial Statements of the Municipal
Liquor Store with the Manager, Mark Irmiter. Mr. Irmiter noted that
the sales were up more than 19% over 1977 figures, with a not income
up $12,000 from original projections, to 550,000.
The Council also discussed with the Liquor Store Manager the rising cost
of liability insurance and how it's affecting all communities, not just
Monticello.
4. Consideration of Aopointment of Public Works Director.
The City Council held interviews with eight applicants on Thursday,
March 8, 1979.
Motion was mads by Phil White, seconded by Kan Maus and unanimously carried
to hire John Simola as the new Public Works Director at a salary of x1.500
por month.
5. Consideration of Appointment for the Business and Industrial SvwcI,imint
Committee.
Motion was mads by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Slonigen and unanim)u•iiy
carried to appoint Marn slicker to the Business and Industrial n vr1,q -%rnt
Comsittee to replace Ken Maus, who resigned.
- 3 -
16
City Council Minutes - Starch 12, 1979
`r 6. Approval of Minutes.
The Minutes of the City Council Meeting held February 26, 1979, were
approved as presented.
7. Discussion on Ordinance Prohibiting Parking from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. Year -Round.
After discussion on the present parking ordinances, motion was made by
Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to amend
the ordinance prohibiting parking from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. Year -Round to
state no parking from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. from November 15th through
April 15th. (See Ordinance Amendment 3/12/79 465).
Meeting adjourned.
Rkdk Wolfste Yder
Administratike Assistant
RW/ns
City Council - 3/12/79
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Feasibility Report on Possible 1979 Improvement Projects.
At our last meeting, John Badalich handed out a feasibility report relative
to four areas requesting improvements. At that meeting, it was decided to
have the feasibility report on the formal agenda of the next meeting.
Because of the various alternatives that could be selected, the report
becomes quite complicated. If the alternatives as recommended by the
engineer on page 28 were selected, the total cost of the project would be
$721,400, of which $551,940 (or 779) would be financed through assessments
and the remaining portion, or $169,460, would be financed through general
property taxes (ad valorem taxes). On page 29, the ad valorem portion
is summarized. The primary components of the ad valorem portion is the
overeizing necessary for sewer and water in addition to the interceptor
sewer to be constructed in Oakwood Industrial Park. As an example, for a
home that is assessed at an estimated market value of $40,000 in Monticello,
this would cost an additional $11.95 over five years, which has been the
City's policy with financing improvements.
Enclosed for your reference, is a map of the 1979 projects which would utilize
the alternatives as recommended by our engineering firm. This has been
enclosed to give you kind of an overview of the entire project and its
scope.
Following are some items that are significant or may be of interest to you:
It should be noted that the Alternative 3 proposal for area 1 as indicated
in map 2 of the report for the future collector road, would also be used
for the future extensions of sewer, water and storm sewer. however, it
will be necessary in the future to obtain an easement for the future
interceptor sewer somewhat, but not exactly, in the came alignment as
Alternative 41. As a result, coma properties in this area will be
required to grant the City an easement for the future collector road when
it is built, and also for the future interceptor sewer. The interceptor
sewer cannot follow the route of Alternative 03 because of problems with
the depth of the sewer that would he necessary. hopefully, the problems
in obtaining the necessary easements in the future can be worked out,
and it is possible that the City could take easements in exchange for
park dedication which is always required when land is to be subdivided.
B. The Alternative 03 recommended by our engineers for area 1 appears to be
the route that would have the least effect on the existing development
in that it will not be necessary to take any houses down as in Alternative
q2, and the collector road will not be as close to the exiating apartment
houao as proposed in Alternative H1.
C. Servicing of Commercial Plaza 25 (area 2) from the intoreoction of
Oakwood Drive with Codar Street (old I(ighway 25) as recommended by the
engineer in Alternative 3 would serve both aides of old highway 25 and
would also allow for a basement service of cower and water and also the
elimination of insulation.
City Council - 3/12/79
D. The initial petition from Oakwood Industrial Park (area 3) to serve
the south part of the industrial park did not specifically request
street improvement of the road to the east, or Industrial Drive, but
has been included in this report. The reasoning for this is that with
this road paved, all roads within the Industrial Park have been brought
up to a bituminous surface level as required by the City of Monticello's
ordinances. This segment of road improvement would cost approximately
$23,480.
It should be mentioned that plats have not been submitted for the J.R.
Culp farm (area 4) and plate would be necessary to be approved by the
City Council prior to the extension of sewer, water and streets to this
area. In talking with OSM in this regard, it would be possible to
complete this project except for area 4, and at a later date, when area 4
was platted, the extension of sewer and water and streets could be made.
If the plats were received soon enough, the area could become a part of
the 1979 project, either as part of the original plans and specifications,
or through means of a change order. If this were not possible, this
area could be served after the final plats were received.
John Badalich and Keith Nelson, of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, will
be reviewing the proposed projects at Monday night's meeting. If the
City Council approves of the feasibility report and recommendations of
the engineer, the next step in the process would be to call for a public
hearing at which time all property owners proposed to be assessed would
be notifir:d and would have the opportunity to voice their opinions and
comments on the project. After the public hearing, the City Council would
have to make a decision whether to go ahead and have plans and specifications
prepared subject to any revisions that the Council might want to make, and
then at a later date, the plans and specifications would be approved by
the Council and put out for bids. Also, after the public hearing, but
possibly prior to the crdering of plans and specs, tho Council may want
to consider obtaining all necessary easements for this project.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of resolution approving of recommendations
of engineer and calling for a public hearing on the
feasibility report.
REFERENCES: February 26, 1979 feasibility report (previously handed out),
map which indicates the 1979 project alternatives as
recommended by OSM.
AQi4 1 Cp U f a wt �((v Nn :1x�1+.f
- 2 -
1
6,
City Council - 3/12/79
2. Consideration of Petition for Improvements to Inuring Hillside Terrace.
Mr. Roy Inuring has submitted a petition for sanitary sewer and pavement
(rural type street with ditches and no storm sewer or curb and gutter) to
serve Lauring Hillside Addition.
It should be noted that the following stipulations have been made a part of
the petition:
A. If rural type of streets are determined to be put in, a 10 -year financing
for the assessments is being requested.
B. If the Council decided to put in a permanent type of street with curb and
gutter, 15 years of financing is requested.
C. Assessments normally are required to be paid in full upon the application
for a building permit, and Mr. Lauring is requesting that this provision
be waived for Data 3, a Buffalo -based corporation which would like to move
to Monticello and build in Lauring Hillside Terrace.
It should be mentioned that the Council did review its assessment policy last
year and did change this method of financing assessments over 20 years and
reduced this down to five years. Additionally, a provision was required that
any balance unpaid on an assessment would have to be paid in full at the time
of a building permit application for projects started in 1978, and thereafter.
As a result, therefore, Mr. Lauring is asking the City Council to consider a
longer period of financing than provided in its assessment ordinance with
two options, one on a rural type street and one on a permanent type street,
and additionally, a waiver on the requirement that assessments be paid in
full upon the application for a building permit.
It should be pointed out that the assessment policy that was adopted in 1978
was after much discussion and review of the matter with the City's bond
consultants, Springsted, Inc. Springsted, Inc. actually formulated the
assessment policy with input from the Council and made the revisions suggested
by the Council. Springsted, Inc. felt quite strongly that the City should
finance projects over a shorter period of time to improve and maintain its
bond rating, and reduce the City's potential outstanding bond indebtedness
that could arise because the City was a growing area and there aro many
possible future developments that could be served with sewer and water. For
example, if all improvements were to be assessed over twenty years, there would
be obviously a lot of overlapping on the bond retirement schedule of various
projects. It was felt that by going to a five year assessment payoff, the
City would be in a batter position financially to approve now bonds since
outstanding bonds would be retired at a very short period of time, and there
would be a greater turnover of its indebtedneso.
Additionally, it was felt that the concept of requiring assessments to he paid
up in full at the time of building permit application was a good one in light of
the fact that financing is normally required on any now building or house, and
the applicant for a building permit could certainly make appropriate arrangements
to include the assessments with their lending institution. As is the ease with
q many residential loans, the lending institution will require that the assess-
monts outstanding be paid in full at the time the loan on a home is closed.
- 3 -
City Council - 3/12/79
l�
It should be pointed out that there may be some merit in the request of
Mr. [curing since the assessment policy formula was probably geared up
more for residential development than industrial develooment. Quite
possibly because of the amount of assessments an industry could incur
along with the initial requirement of paying the assessments in full at
the time of building permit application, it may deter industrial growth
in the City of Monticello. However, I think any change should be viewed
with caution at this point.
C
The Council may want to table any particular decision for further review
of this matter. However, if the Council is set on the current assessment
policy, probably the best action would be not to proceed with any
feasibility reports on this particular petition.
one other item that should be mentioned is the fact that this petition was
received after the January lot cut-off date, and the date of January lot
was initially utilized in order to receive the petitions for improvements
so that they could be constructed during the same calendar year. However,
this does not prohibit the Council from still acting on a petition
that is received after the 1st of the year, but quite likely, the chances
of completion in 1979 would be less than those received by the lot of the
year.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of ordering feasibility report based upon O
petition for improvements.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area of improvement.
- 3A -
City Council - 3/12/79
3. Review of Annual Financial Statements for the Municipal Liquor Store.
Enclosed with the agenda, please find the annual financial statements for
the Municipal Liquor Store operations. Mark Irmiter, the Manager, will be
at Monday night's meeting to review the statement with the Council.
Following are some significant items of interest contained within the
annual report:
A. Sales - have increased 19�% over 1977, and final sales figure is
actually $53,000 more than originally projected.
B. flet Income - up over $12,000 from what was originally projected to
$50,142.
C. Inventory - level of a little bit over $59,000 is actually about
$10,000 less of inventory than the City had on hand at its older,
much smaller operations in the downtown area. When inflation is
taken into consideration, the inventory level is close to half of
what it used to be. As a result, the City of Monticello is able to
invest these funds and earn interest on them.
D. Gross Profit Percentaqes - while these percentages in some areas are
slightly down from the previous year, the concept of the operation was
to remain competitive with immediate and the St. Cloud and Metro areas.
The prices at the Monticello Liquor Store, except for the largest
operations in the metropolitan area, are certainly competitive with the
St. Cloud and Minneapolis -St. Paul vicinities.
E. Salaries - as a percent to Pales, salaries have actually decreased
from 5.95% to 5.56%.
F. Utilities - have been reduced by $600.
G. Insurance Costs - have increased by $4,000.
it. Legal a Professional Fees - included in this amount is a foe of $750
for an appraisal when the City was considering selling the operation.
I. Advortioinq Expense - this fee has doubled and has been due somewhat
to a change in the law allowing greater flexibility in advertising
liquor.
J. Interest Income on Investments - reduced about $3,400 as a result of
transfers made from the liquor store operation to the City (fall
construction fund to finance this project.
All in all, I think nark ties done a fine job during 1978 at the liquor store.
When you consider the controllable factors ouch as Inventory, salaries and
gross profit percentages, it becomes quite apparent. Were it not for the
$4,000 increase in insurance, the not income from the operations would have
approached the area of $54,000. he it stands, the not income of $50,141.82
is the twat year over for the liquor store.
- 4 -
City Council - 3/12/79
POSSIBLE ACTION: No specific action is necessary, but the intent of the
agenda item is to review in detail the liquor store
operations with the Manager and also to allow the
Council the opportunity to ask any questions.
REFERENCES: Enclosed financial statements.
4. Consideration of Appointment of Public Works Director.
Dependent upon how the interviews came out on Thursday, March 8th, the
Council may be in a position on Monday night to make an appointment of
the Public Works Director.
Hopefully, the individual appointed could start April 1, 1979. In
addition to the appointment, the salary of the Public Works Director
should also be determined.
One other item that has been previously discussed and that should be
formalized if a Public Works Director is appointed, is the promotion
of Roger Mack to Street Supervisor and establishing Dick Brooke as a
maintenance worker.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of appointment of Public Works Director
and setting salary, and additionally, considering the
appointment of Roger Mack to the Street Supervisor ,
position and establishing Dick Brooks as a maintenance
worker.
5. Consideration of Appointment for the Business and Industrial Development
Committee.
Members of the Business and Induotrial Development Committee have gotten
together and have suggested the name of Karn Flicker as a replacement for
Ken Maus on the Business 6 Industrial Development Committee.
As you might recall, Ken Maus had resigned as a result of boing appointed
to the City Council from this committee.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of appointment to Business 6 industrial
Development Committee.
- 5 -
ORDIIUkNCE AMENDMENT
The City Council of Monticello hereby ordains that Ordinance
Section 9-1-2(K) be amended as follows:
(K) On any Street or Roadway between the hours
of Two O'Clock (2:00) A.M. and Six O'Clock
(6:00) A.M. from November 15th through April 15th,
except physicians on emergency calls.
ATTEST:
Gary Wiebor
City Administrator
passed this 12th day of
March, 1979
Arvo Grimsmo
Mayor
Ordlnanoo Amon.lmrnt I 1: ^ u,.•,
7u1: '.n oi�e :95�i 71 t
Cif o� �/Y�onf%ceL[o
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monticello City Council
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator 46
DATE: March 7, 1979
Mage L— 333 5739
SUBJECT: City's Ordinance Relative to Prohibiting Parking from 2:00 A.M.
to 6:00 A.M. Year Round
Mr. Tom Price, Assistant Wright County Attorney, recently contacted me and asked
if the City would reconsider the ordinance which prohibits parking from 2 A.M.
to 6 A.M. on a year round basis. It should be mentioned that the Wright County
Attorney's office has the duty of prosecuting cases relative to parking and
traffic violations in the City of Monticello as part of the City's agreement
with Wright County for law enforcement protection.
Mr. Price felt that the ordinance was reasonable during the winter months, but
was very concerned about this ordinance being upheld during the remainder of
the year. Mr. Price indicated that the justification for prohibiting parking
from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. during the winter months could be based upon facilitating
snow removal and snow plowing operations. He indicated that the Wright County
Sheriff's office would have to enforce this ordinance without prejudice whether
snow removal operations ware occurring or not. As a result, those tagged during
the spring and summer months might certainly attack the ordinance on the basis
of its reasonableness and its rationale.
As those of you who were on the Council at that time may recall, we have reviewed
this ordinance provision during the latter part of 1979, and it was felt at that
time to enforce the ordinance on a year round basis. Rationale behind this factor
was to have an ordinance that was consistent, and not necessarily tied into a
period of time, such as no parking permitted from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. from
November 15th through April 15th. Additionally, it was felt that streets should
accommodate traffic flow and not parking, and the individual property owners
were responsible for providing off-stroet parking.
My own racommandation would be to roviso the ordinance to prohibit parking from
2 A.M. to 6 A.M. only during the period from November 15th through April 15th.
My reasoning for this recimmondation is that I sea no particular benefit which
comes from prohibiting parking from 2 A.M. to 6 A.M. year round. It can be
argued Lortainly that it accommodates traffic flow more aaoily by not allowing
parking on the otrootot however, there is obviously more traffic during the
day and parking is allowed during the day. Additionally, I foal that if the
Wright County Shoriff'a office enforces this law, which they say they must if
it remains, it will cause many ill foolinga towards City government and the
r
1/Va110me to Tflonlicallo . . . [illlo 0n094nlnin `,
Monticello City Council
March 7, 1979
Page #2
reasonableness of this particular ordinance. Additionally, it should be mentioned
that the City does have another ordinance which does prohibit parking on City
streets for more than 72 consecutive hours, and this would prevent someone from
abandoning a car on a City street, for example, or just leaving it sit for more
than three days at a time.
It should be noted that I have not put this on the agenda since the previous
Council had decided to retain the ordinance, but I just put it under new
business in case any of the Council members wishes to bring this matter to
the attention of the full Council.
GW/ns
Tolouhono 2952711
Cita o/ If&.ticeff.
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
MEMORAtmUM
M.— L— 333 5739
TO: Mayor 6 City Council Members
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
DATE: March 9, 1979
SUBJECT: Agenda Item N2 - Consideration of Petition on Improvements
for Roy laurinq's Hillside Terrace
After the Agenda was written up for this item, Mr. Roy Lauring indicated
that he would now request that the City Council waive the provision
that assessments be paid in full upon building permit application for
all lots within lauring Hillside Terrace. Formerly, he had mentioned
he would request that it only be waived for Data 3.
For your information, Data 3 currently has an office in Buffalo,
and also has a manufacturing plant in Plymouth, and the intention
of this firm would be to move to lauriny Hillside Terrace and
construct a 15,000 square feet building which would serve as their
office and their manufacturing plant. Data 3 refurbishes IBM computers
and intends to dmploy approximately 15 people.
GW/ns
q � � D �/U pD fall.
D
Welcome to//�onlico![o fill[. mounlain ���
b
` � • .. rt. . 5 A 1
d� , mac..` 1 +�� `- 7jio.G3E-• ' +; 1-.- wta;,.._,
1�- NAi V
{
IV
14
in. •, s„ J t. -
r'�• ! � D "ts f _ 5' ail, z,.ti yw La _i C+. Y•oij.j �1-s ! � / ec•w u.h �+; 1.+V` � y=t
Sj ,A+ n4 ..5; .4 L_-Ild Y6 �^ ,r"d:r•- tvt•,..i. ,14 i
rn _, c.,ltlaf ,f ti' rr _ y� �4�, ¢p ! =t. !r t�utr ,t'•..c_ \�J�
/ 11 y ,+ S4 '-r I v"=�'C'd4 a � iy `• °f . ` �; aw . 1 � ! •�;,, ''j\�;
14
Ov a•
•'rr C ! s�trre.�ti6� s-ytK t;�Ia- =`r �JJ' rPi. , : •� �!`'• ,,�".p•a7i �1 'r'• t M1g',
3 :J
10
14
u 44
• ,`• ;,'' , is `F,+`•"• 1344,1-rp yh , � i •
44, Fee IVA T/UF f `I!°'oM Me NDf t,
\ MFMORANDWI l
TO: File I-10-16 (1979-1 Improvement Project)
FROM Gary Wieber, City Administrator
DATE: march 6, 1979
SUBJECT, Review of Feasibility Renort from OSM dated Februar: Z6, 197c,_
In reviewing the above -referenced report, the following are significant items:
1. It should he mentioned that Industrial Drive, which is the Road that borders
Oakwood Industrial Park on the cast side, is planned for' pavement, although
this was riot specifically a part of the petition signed by the Oakwood
Industrial Park Partnership.
2. The report mentions three possible alternative alignments for the collector
road between the Intersection of Seventh and Locust and the extension of
Country ,..... , ancl they ara as follows.
i
Alternative l - Northern Route - this can also be utilized as a future sanitary
sewer interceptor route; however, it comes very close to existing apartments
1 and houses causing concern of noise pollution.
Alternative 2 - Divides the developable areai4halves forming a convenient
delineation for zoning districts, as shown on the comprehensive plan,
however, two houses must be removed and cut and fill work would be
required.
Alternative 3 - Southern Route - provides an alignment with the least inter-
feronco. The route is sufficiently distant from the Interstate 094
to permit both aides of the collector road to be developed.
r 3. Would alternatives 2 and 3 as mentioned in Item 2 also allow for the alignment
�.>rGlyv of the oanitary sower interceptor?
r
4. If alternativo 2 is to be chosen, the property owners living in the two houses
should be notified as soon as possible.
5. The extension of sewor and water to Commercial Plaza 25 invoivea the following
alternatives:
Alternative i - The extension of sewer and water underneath Ilighway 25 from the
existing stub at tlw southern cornor of Sandberg Road. This proposal would
service all propertioa bordering the entrt side of State liigt_ay :". POT ti Oita
of the or:wotwould hn shallow, thus eliminating potontdsl basement servtec
r
and rcguirinq insulation whore there is lose than 6' of cov.�r.
1
Mu -mo to File 1-10-16
march 5, 1979
Page 02
Alternative 2 - The extension of sewer and water from the intersection of Oakwood
Drive with State Higlrwr.y 2S. This would serve all property bordering the
east side of State Highway 25, and would allow for sufficient depth to
eliminate the insulation requirement and also would provide for basement
servi cc.
Alternative 3 - Extension of sewer and water from the intersection of Oakwood
Drive with Cedar Street (Old Highway 25). This would serve both siders of
old State Highway 2.5, and apparently would allow for basement service
and elimination of insulation.
Alternative 4 - Would be the extension of water utilizing ei nl;craati,.a
1, 2 of 3, however, sewer would be provided from the Intersoction of .,tate
Highway 25 with Cedar Street (Old Highway 25) and then would proccod
north up to the n rtherly portion of Commercial Plaza 25. This •.•ou I
_,w r
result in no"•sewe_service to the property north of Commercial Plaza 25.
6. Area 3 (Remaining portion of Oakwood Industrial Park not previously s=rved
by sewer, water or streets). According to the report, the following improve-
ments would take place:
Street Improvements - Dundas Road would be improved with bituminous surfacing
based on a 9 ton design, along with Industrial Drive
which has not been specifically petitionecl fur.
watermain - Extension of water would come from Lho Intersection of Onkwood
Drive and Chelsea Road southerly to the intersection of Dundas
(toad and Oakwood Drive, and then easterly to the intorsoction
of Dundas Road with Industrial Drive.
Sanitary Sewer - Extension would be through the natural drainage swalo in
Oaltwood industrial Park from its interooction with Chelsea
Road southerly to Dundas Road, and then in an east.orl•;
direction to Industrial Drive in the westerly ditoction
to Oakwood Drive. The depth of this sewer and the type
of sower would call for four alternatives, And they are
as follows:
Alternative 1 - a lateral sewer Along Dundas Road would only
be deep enough to servo lots in Oakwood Industrial Park.
AltarnnLive 2 - a lateral sewer deep enough to serve Dundas
Road and area 4 up to Cedar Street..
Alternative .3 - newer extension would bo deep enouah and large
enough to nerve Dundan Road, arra 4 along wish thu Commercial
Plaza 25 portion of area 2.
Alternative 4 this extension woul,l service rundae road, areas
4 and Commercial Plaza 25 portion of area 2, along with a
C depth and size adequate for extension into the southwest
orderly annexation area.
Flemo ro File I-10-16
March 6, 1979
Page b3
7. Area 4 (J. R. Culp Property. Following are the proposed improvements and
alternatives:
Street - Alternative 1 would be a northerly route and the extension of Dundas
Road would be directly west up to the J. R. Culp property, at
which time the alignment would be in a northwest fashion. However,
this alignment would require, accordinq to the report, t•.:rntng
onto and off of State Highway 25 for the continuation: of ihis to
be used as a collector road west of St.ate High.•ay 25.
Alternative 2 - this alignment would be the extension of Dundas Road
west of Oakwood Drive in a southwesterly fashion to the southern
portion of the corporate limits. This would allow for the
continuation of this road to be utilized as a collector road
across State Highway 25 and west of State Highway 25 without
requiring actual access onto and off of State Highway 25. A
second street is proposed to pass through the J.R. Culp's property
from Cedar Street and meet the collector road at a right angle.
Watermain and Sanitary Sewer -
Extension would come from the intersection of Oakwood Drive with
Dundee Road and proceed in a westerly fashion to the J. R. Culp
property and up to State Highway 25. The watormain would be extended
to complete a loop in the water system by connecting it to the
water facilities proposed for area 2. It should be pointed out that
the sanitary sewer and water would follow the road alignment proposed
for alternative 1 on the streets for this area, or alternative 2 for
the streets for this area. In the case of alternative 2, the sewer
and water would follow the lateral street into the J.R. Culp property.
B. It in noted that in aroas 3 and 4, the trunk watermain oversizinq amounting to
16,690 in proposed to be put on ad valorem taxes. According to our new asses-
sment policy, the immediate area ltonefitting from the oVeraizing would receive
its pro rata share of asneosment cost based on the total oversizing cost.
Additionally, the trunk oversizing for sanitary sewer of $39,310 should not
be totally nn ad valorem taxes, but rather split according to tho aria honvfttting
immadiatoly and the area that would not benefit immediately.
10. PeCOmmenclALl911e of the engineer are as follows:
Area 1 - Alternative #3 for the collector road with sanitary aewor, wn:or and
storm facilities to follow same alignmont•
Area 2 - Alt-,rnalivo 03 for wal.ot, that in, extension of +.•neer :rim t:n• r1•„ -:ton
of Oakwood Drive and Codar Street, southerly to the J.R. '.ulp tarn
down Cedar Street (Old Highway 25). Sanitary sower fot area would
utilize alternative 3, which would be the extension of a,,-wor trnm
the intersection of Cedar Street (Old Highway :5) and State Hitiliw,t•; ,
in a northerly fashion up to the northern portion of PlAea 25.
Area 3 - As proposed for the streets and watennafn and for Lh,• Denniey n,•wrr
ueln4 nlLutttaLivu 4, which in urfe.t wu111,1 ir• a luny lamb• t nutke.
which are deep and large enough for extension in the sotol.w.-I , 1•b•t ly
!4e mo to File I -10-1G
March G, 1979
Page 44
annexation area with lateral sewer service in area 4 up to
Cedar Street.
Area 4 - Alternative 2 for the street extension which would extend Du.,das
Road to the southwest of the J.R. Culp farm and then proceed
across State Highway 25 in a westerly direction at the southerly
boundary and proceed across state Highway 25. This would require
a lateral street be extended off of this collector street into
the J.R. Culp property, but would eliminate the necessity of
utilizing State highway 25 to link up to the collector road on
the west side of Hiqhway 25. Watermain for area 4 would he nroeosed,
and the sewer would be utilizing alternative 4 as referred to in
arca 3.
11. It would appear that utilizing alternative 4, or the interceptor sewer alter-
native for area 3, would only be about $45,000 more than the cheapest method,
or alternative 01 for area 3. Additionally, alternative 2 for area 4 •would
only be about $23,000 more than alternative 1 for area 4.
12. Total cost would be $721,400, and of this portion, $551,940, or 77%, would
be assessed. The largest portion that would be put on ad valorem taxes
would be $76,710 of the interceptor sewer which could be held in deferment
until such time as the area actually hooked on to the sanitary sewer. The
i question becomes however if this should be at a cost that is referenced to
a construction cost index in the year of hookup.
GW/ns
Telepho., 2952711
city 4I//lonfice[lo
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, NDN 55362
TO: Monticello City Council /
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator I
/
DATE: March 21, 1979
SUBJECTI Initiation of an Improvement
Mev. L- 333 5739
This memo is intended to inform the City Council of the requirements as
they apply to the percentage of property owners needed for a petition
for improvements, and how the Council may initiate improvements on their
own.
First of all, a petition can be recognized by the City Council for an
improvement even though it may contain less than 35% in terms of land
ownership of that land abutting the improvement. However, Minnesota
Statutes Section 429 does provide that if a particular improvement is
petitioned by less than 35% of the property abutting an improvement, it
will require a 4/5's vote of the City Council Lc order the project.
On the 1979-1 Improvement Project, which involves Commercial Plaza 25,
J.R. Culp Farm, and Oakwood Industrial Park, petitions were received
in all cases. However, only Oakwood Industrial Park owns sufficient
amount of land to make their petition meet the requirement of the statute
indicated above. As a result then, if the Council, after holding the
hearings for Commercial Plaza 25 area and the J.R. Culp Farm, decides
to order the improvement, it would require a 4/5'a Council vote. In the
case of Oakwood Industrial Park, it would only require a 7/51s Council vote.
It should also be mentioned that the City Council can, on their own,
initiate an improvement project without any petition of any sort, but
again, it would still take a 4/5's vote of the Council after the hearings
and feasibility report, to order the improvement. On the other hand,
the Council may receive a petition from 100% of the property owners in a
particular area requesting an improvement and it would not be required of
the Council to have a hearing or order an improvement, but the Statutes
do provide that if over 35% of the land ownership abutting the improvement
is petitioning for the project, the Council has to consider such a project.
Obviously this momo in just intended to convoy to the Council the minimum
requirements. It would poem moat likely that if an area was petitioned
in for and oven though the land ownership may come close to the 35% require-
ment, if the majority of the land ownership involved do not want the project,
that would be a decision the Council would have to woigh at the time.
CW/na
7.
Welcome 10 Monticello . . . [ili[o mountain—� of
��
MonLicello 'Village -- 'rax LeiinquenL -- 1969
Ru•noer
1:a1ne
vears delin:ue ;,
1960;4
InLercnanac Propar.ics, Inc.
1969
19637
Vil. of !4o:iL. (Feed Mill)
1969
19675
John Peterson
1968,69
1y694
8lanci,e Tennison
1968,69
19741
iaar.4eli i'ayvilie
2nd b of 1969
19742
:,uLh aar.rerin
1969
T 1975:
'Jeo. ::ehking •
196:,62,11.,65,66,67,66,89
19747%
Kunz oil
1969
19766
Trunnell-;g :dont. Village
1969
1 97P2
,lames Fit.zgeraid
1969
19810
1..onard JeChene
1968
19811
!,!onard DeChene
196e
19815
KenneLh Jilman
1969
19P.26
PuLrie ArMSLrong
196,67,68,69
19905
ArlLhony i'uirier
2nd p of 1969
1y912
leopard Davis
1961,62, 1d„ 65,66,67,68,69
19957
-Ja1Ler 14arkling
2z1d ,. of 1969
19964
hawkinccnl : 1:gcrgren
1968,69
1992-A
auLh Wangerin
1967,68,69
2CX})2
„onal SL011m3n
1969
20028
Guorge .4mers
1961,0',04,65,6b,67,68,69
20029
11n. -rinLers
1Y61,62,64,65,66,67,68,69
AV79
Wil/'i d l�
29100
Frit,niol' leLLeroerg
1969
20115
Alma i'aruox
1964,65,u6,6-,
201!,3
nil0ur nanL,eimor
2nd ,k of 1969
201 81?
Jo.ie1+1 Julian
1968,69
20202.
1:. V. :,ndernun
1966,67,66,69
20205
]q.a LiLLIc
1962,64,65,66,67,68,6-,
2022.2
Niltur ack
1969
20223
!m. Janison
1969
207.36
A1lUur ,,ck
1969
201,17
John 14illor
1962,64,65,01-3,67,68,69
I
8
�,� �� � cis^:•_.-�-� 1��� 0 0 000 0o it
Monticel3o Village -- Tax Uelinq'uent -- 1969 J
1:u7ber i.uae wears delinauetit.:
19603A
19637
19675
19694
19741
19.142
T 19751
19747%
19766
19762A
19810
19811
19815
19A26
19905
19912
19957
19964
o o0 20007 o _
2Cn128
20029
10019
,20100
201.15
20143
201 P,8
20202
20206
20222
20223
20236
20237
lnterat.anee F•rooerties, Inc.
1969
Vil. of tont. (Feed tall)
1969
John Peterson
1968,69
Clancne '7enruson
1968,69 °
ibx4ell Fuyvillo
21Id d of 1969
•,uLh '.:AI11 grin o
1969
Geo. ..ehkin; •
Y c
1Y61,62,64,65.66.67,66,69'
Kunz oil
1969
Trunnell-ti A=L. Village
1969
James Pitzgoralo
Iy69
Leonard UoChene
1966
Leonard UeChene
Iy66 44
Kenneth .1ilman
1969 �f i
.L,arlo Armstrong
1966,67,68,69
;ulLhony Poirier
2nd h of 1969 I
Leonardravis
1961,62,64,65,66,67,66,69' ®;
,altar li,rkling
2nd •, of 1969 •
Hawkinson h lagorgran
1968,69
auth Wangerin
196'1,68,69
ilonal Stollman
'190 -
George .linters
1961, b2,64,65,66,67,68,,69
•.S. dintern
1961,62,64,65,66,67,68,69
Nr' INIV!I
rrit.hlof .:etLeroerg
1969
Alma 1,,roox
1964? 65,68,69
dilaar 1lahliiolmer
2ud p of 1,969
Jojelvi Uuli'an
1968,69
E. E. andernon
1966,67,68,69•
I-vra Littla
1962,64,65,66,67,68;6) e
'+•ilbur ixk
1969
dw. Janison
1969
Wilbur ,.ck
1969
John Killur
1962,64,o5,o6,67,68,69
N, -Doer
19603A
196,17
19675
19694
i9741
1971._
197:'
1 9747
1976u
197P2A
19810
1 981 1
19815
19826
19`105
1%,91 ;
1 5`757
199u
199E' )A
2OW'd
20024
/?10%fi
20100
20115
20143
201P8
2.0202
2.07,7~,
2()222
20223
20236
20237
Monticello Villare -- Tax Delinquent -- 1969
ha.'3o
lnterc::anyv ;'roxrties, Inc
Vil. of !bit. (Feed Mill)
John PCL9rson
Blanche 1'erl:ison
Hay.-well'1,,yviLle
•i:1Lh :�1a:1 .erin
"CO. :ehhing
Kunz oil
Trunnell-b 1.1anL. Village
James Fittgeralo
Lronani ueChene
!A:onard oeChene
Kenneth :4Im7n
PearlP .kr;nstrong
Anthony :'oirier
Laonard Uavia
+;alter :tirkl.inF
Hawkinson K lagergren
,10th 4ani in
+101,31 utoi lman
George 41tiLero
^m. +linters
rrr:lrrrviar
erit.niof Letterverg
alma I'aruox
nilour ,aninulmor
Jo.lelvt Julian
h. ;tn:iernon
lly a LitLle
✓-11%r nck
.lm. Joni:;on
ailbur :.ck
John RiIler
vears dellmtuent
1969
1969
1968,69
1 968,61i
2nd � of 1969
1969
1961,62,64,65,66,67,68,69
1969
1969
1969
196&
1968
1969
1966,67,68,65
2nd !! of 1969
1961,62,64,65,66,67,68,69
2nd 5 of 1969
1968, 69,
1967,68,69
1969
19o1,6:!,64,65,66,67,68,69
1961,62,64,05,6b,67,68,69
1969
1964,65,68,69
2nd � of 1969
196S.69
1966,6-/,68,69
1962,64,65,66,67,68,6;
1969
1969
1969
1962,64,65,06,67,68,69
Mumoer
19603A
19637
19675
19694
19741
19742
19751
19747X
19766
19782A
19810
15811
19815
19P.26
19905
1991%
19957
19964
19920A
20002
20028
20029
YOOU
20100
20115
20143
201 PS
207-02
20206
20222
20223
20236
20237
Monticello Village -- 'rax Delinquent -- 1969
ame
Interchange ProrerLies, Inc
Vil. of Pont. (Feed Mill)
John Peterson
Blanche Tennison
Mardell Fayville
,.uth Llai ;erin
Geo. aenking •-
Kunz oil
'rrunnell-b M2nL. Village
James FiLzgerald
leonard UeChene
Leonard DeChene
Kenneth r;ilman
Pearce Armstrong
Anthony Poirier
leonard Davis
,alter Markling
Hawkinson & lagergren
nuth Wangerin
nonal Stollmin
George Ji.nLar5
^m. +lin Lern
y"r.'i1Fr/0r11
Frii.,,inf ZoLLeroerg
Alma T.ruox
.Vilour uanbic imer
Jwerii Uulian
1%. H. 4nder:ion
Ptyra ISLLL:
Wilbur r.ek
J. -ii. JavdAon
dilbur rack
John Miller
years deLirauent
1969
1969
1968,69
1968,69
2nd j of 1969
1969
1961,62,64,65,66,67,66,69
1969
1969
1969
1966
196e
1969
1966,67,68,69
2nd S of 1969
1961,62,64,65,66,67,68,69
2nd 3 of 1969•
1968,69
1967,68,69
1969
1961,62.64,65,66, 67,68,69
1961,62,64,65,66,67,68,69
1969
1964,65,68,69
2nd j of 1969
1968,69
1966,67,68,69
1962,04,65,66,67,68,69
1969
1969
1969
1962,64,65,u6,67,6P.,69
Council lino rs, ceeting of J ua
SOTZCE OF LwARISG FOE CONDITIONAL iJS PERW':.
Monticello, Minnesota
TO T M,1 :T FLAX CONCEI \:
Notice is hereby given that the council will meet at 8:O0 P.". on
.uesday, January 23, 1973 in the 1:ont4oello ?ublic Righ School Activity Ro=
I
o pass upon the proposed conditional use permit for the following listed
area, within the Villsge of 'ionticallo, Minnesota:
{1} All that part of Blocks 1,2,L, and , and also Lot 3, Block iC of
Plat of Monticello according to the Plat of Rscoxd and on file i.. k.o
Register of Deeds Office in and for ;right County, :-'Innesota which
lies northerly of the northerly P:ght-0f-,7ay Line of interstate . ig:, :a 1-9:
and wester%r of the westerly Right-Of-,7ay 14ne of;Sinneso;r.Trun.R :'_G sy 25,
Also that portion of Locust Street, Walnut St. -.et, and Eighth Street, to
be vacated, which lies within the boundaries of the above doscrib d
tract. All ly-Ing within the NE 1/!: of the SIX 1/L See. 1-1, 7. 121. R. 225 -
.ten
.ten or oral objections will be considered at the hearing.
Kevin L. La Franco
Village Administrator
Clork-Troasuror