City Council Agenda Packet 01-26-1981AGENDA
Regular Meeting - Monticello City Council
January 26, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments -
1. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Variance Request - Decorative Services.
2. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development -
Robert and Marion Jameson.
3. Consideration of Resolution Ordering Feasibility Report on Improvements
to NSP Property on River Street.
4. Consideration of Final Payment to Barbarossa Construction Company on
the 1979-1 Improvement Project.
5. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment for Signa.
C6. Consideration of Amendment of Ordinance to Have the Planning Commission
Act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
7. Consideration of Approval of Fire Contract with Silver Creak Township.
B. Consideration of Appraioal - Lindberg Property.
9. Consideration of Approval of Bills - January 1981.
10. Consideration of Approval of Minutes - January 12, 1981 Regular Meeting.
Unfinished Business -
ti'
Now Business -
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Variance Request - Decorative Services.
PURPOSE: To consider a variance request by Decorative Services for a
curb barrier on south � of the Eastern portion of Lot 1, Block 2,
Oakwood Industrial Park.
Decorative Services of Monticello has requested a variance to eliminate the
curb barrier around their parking lot and driveway to their new facility
they are proposing to build on the lot east of the Independent Lumber
Company and on the south half of that particular lot. Their reason for
requesting that variance is that the back half of that lot is lower than
the surrounding area, and by constructing a holding pond on the lot, they
could contain the runoff water in that lot and also could use that pond as
a part of their landscaping, hopefully to enhance their property.
The plans for their request have been submitted to John Badalich, the
City Engineer, and he has recommended that the Planning Crnmoission and
City Council consider granting this variance request. Mr. Badalich did,
however, point out a couple of items of concern that he has with this project.
One item would be that at the road ditch where the driveway crosses onto
Chelsea Road, that the 28" proposed culvert be changed to a 30" culvert.
Also, Mr. Badalich is recommending that the developer consider a manhole
at the point where the sanitary sewer connects with the City's main sewer
in the street on Chelsea Road. Although these last two items are not
items that Mr. Badalich says that this variance should be contingent upon,
he makes them as suggestions for possible methods to better facilitate
the construction of this proposal.
one item that the City Council should consider on this variance is the
intent of requiring a continuous concrete curb barrier. if the intent
is merely for drainage purposes, possibly consideration could be given in
the future to amend the ordinance such that the continuous concrete curb
barrier would not be necessary if, in the estimation of the engineer, it
was not required for adequate drainage. This would eliminate the necessity
of the several requests we have had in the past regarding curb barriers. On
the other hand, however, if the intent by the Council may also be deemed for
aesthetic purposes, that is to delineate the parking area and to protect
green areas by means of a continuous concrete curb, this should be taken into
consideration on this particular variance and others similar to this.
This parcel which is proposed for construction on is the southerly part
of the easterly part of Lot 1, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, and is
zoned I-1.
At the time of this writing, there have been no comments submitted, either
pro or con, on this variance proposal as advertised.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider approving or denying this variance request.,
REFERENCES: Enclosed site layout and area map, and Planning Commission
` Minutes of 1/)1/R1, as woll ea John Badalieh's letter of 1/9/81.
-Noto: 4/5'o veto of Council is
required for approval of variancen.
- 1 -
Council Agenda - 1/26/B l
2. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development -
Robert and Marion Jameson.
PURPOSE: To consider the request of Robert and Marion Jameson, who own a
parcel of land on the south side of the Monticello Junior -Senior High
School, to develop a planned unit development on their property which
is located in an R-3 zone.
Purpose of the Planned Unit Development would be to allow the additional
placement of three log cabins on the property to be restored and used as
displays of the past for public observation on a limited basis.
By applying for a planned unit development, the Jamesons would have more
flexibility in terms of the historic community and neighborhood layout,
as opposed to adhering to strict ordinance regulations, specifically in
the area of setbacks, lot sires, etc. Also, this would give the Council
a handle on the development of this proposed historic neighborhood, and
any additional structures to be moved in would require the approval of
the City Council.
For your information, since these buildings would be of historic significance,
the modern-day building codes would not have to be adhered to as long as
the structures were put in a safe condition.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of conditional
use for a Planned Unit Development. -
REFERENCES: Enclosed map of Jameson property showing their proposal, with
the historic buildings. Planning Commission Minutes of 1/21/81.
��
�( 11
CA 0 1- L I
•Note, 4/5's veto of Council is
required for approval.
- 2 -
I
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
3. Consideration of Resolution Orderino Feasibility Report on Improvements
to NSP Property on River Street.
PURPOSE: To consider the extension of sewer, water and blacktopping to
a portion of the NSP property (the former Dick Brooks farm on River Street).
A petition has been filed by NSP representative Ward King for the above
improvements for the purpose of serving a 23,000 square foot complex
that would be for training purposes and also include a simulated control
roam similar to the actual control room in the NSP nuclear plant itself.
There appear to be two possibilities of serving this property - one would
be to obtain sewer and water across County Road 75 near the location of
the Rod 6 Gun Clubi the other choice would be to receive these improvements
through an extension of sewer and water through The meadows Plat. If
approved by the City Council, John Badalich, our City Engineer, will be
looking at the most feasible way to serve this particular parcel.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution ordering
our engineer, John Badalich, to prepare a feasibility report on this
proposed project.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area, along with copy of the pro-
posed resolution.
A`1
I-'
�N
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
q. Consideration of Final Payment to Barbarossa Construction Company on the
1979-1 Improvement Project.
PURPOSE: Barbarossa Construction Company is £ inished with the 1979-1
Improvement Project, which serviced the southern portion of Oakwood Indus-
trial Park, along with the former J.R. Culp property, Lauring Lane and other
minor areas, and is requesting final payment on this project.
Our engineer is recommending final payment in the amount of $18,208.17.
With this payment, the total amount paid to Barbarossa on this project would
be $837,383.90, compared to the original contract amount of $867,600.85.
Reason for the difference is that the original contract amount is based on
estimated quantities, and the final amount is based on actual quantities.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of final payment to
Barbarossa 6 Sons, Inc. of $18,208.17 on the 1979-1 Improvement Project.
- 4 .
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
5. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment for Signs.
PURPOSE: Consideration of sign ordinance amendment necessitated by
Great River Road Grant.
The City of Monticello has been notified that it has been selected to
receive a grant in the amount of approximately $35,000 from the Federal
Highway Administration for the improvement of Ellison Park along the
Mississippi River, because it lies adjacent to the Great River Road. The
Great River Road goes through Monticello beginning at Halligers Tree Farm
and following West on County Road 39 to the Intersection by Curtis
Hoglund's and then follows Highway 75 west through town until it exits
the community near the Nuclear Power Plant.
However, in order to be eligible for these funds, it is necessary that
the City o f Monticello have an ordinance that indicates that the City would
be willing to enter an agreement with the Federal Government which would
enable the City, in the future, to purchase non-.onforming signs along the
Great River Road. The money for the purchase of these non -conforming signs
along the Great River Road would come from the Federal Government. Although
the Federal Government would not provide necessarily 100% of these funds,
the agreement would not be able to be effected unless the Federal Government
provided at least 75% of the funds for purchasing the non -conforming signs.
The agreement with the Federal Highway Administration that Would allow
Monticello to receive 75% reimbursement of the acquisition costs would be
entered into at a later data. However, an agreement would not be made
unless highway beautification funds were available. The availability of
those funds depends on congressional action during the next two years.
The Federal Highway Administration has stated that all costa (including
appraisals, purchase, removal and o Adcmnation proceedings) associated
with the acquisition cost of the non -conforming signs are 75% roimburseablo
should that money become available.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider approval of a sign ordinance amendment which would
allow the City of Monticello to enter an agreement with the Federal
Iiighway Administration to purchase non -conforming signs along the Great
River Road whenever funds would become available from the Federal Government.•
REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of the proposed Ordinance H10 -3-9-C-7. Also,
Planning Commisoion Minutes of 1/21/81.
-Note: 4/5'0 vote of Council is
required for approval of Ordinance Amendment.
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
Consideration of Amendment of Ordinance to Have the Planning Commission
Act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
PURPOSE: This amendment would have all variances approved by the
Planning Commission, with their decision being final, unless such decision
was appealed in writing by any individual within five (5) days after
the decision was made, after which it would be brought to the City Council.
In order to simplify the variance procedure, the Planning Commission is
currently considering an ordinance amendment which would allow the
Planning Commission to serve as the Board of Adjustment and Appeal,
with their decision being final unless such decision was appealed in
writing by any individual within five days after the decision was made.
If an appeal was filed, the findings of the Planning Commission plus the
background would be brought forward to the City Council.
There is a feeling within the Planning Commission that many of the
items that are brought to the Planning Commission are non -controversial,
and for the most part, their recoamwndations are sustained by the City
Council. However, by requiring an applicant to go before both the Planning
Commission and the City Council requires an undue delay. In cases where
the applicant or another individual feels that the decision made by the
! Planning Cor -mission was unfair and unequitablo, there would still remain
the possibility of bringing the matter to the City Council. As indicated,
an appeal would have to be in writing indicating the basis of the appeal.
Hearing notices on such matters would state the appeal process if this
ordinance amendment is approved.
All other matters such as zoning ordinance amendments, rezoning requests,
and subdivisions, must be approved by the City Council, whereas, Minnesota
Statutes 462 does allow the Planning Commission to carve as the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to have Planning
Commiaaion carve as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. (Note,
ordinance Amendments require 4/5'a vote of. Council for approval.)
REFERENCES: Planning Commission minutoo of January 21, 1981.
Copy of proposed ordtnanco.
- 6 -
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
7. Consideration of Approval of Fire Contract with Silver Creek Township.
PURPOSE: To consider the approval of a fire contract with Silver Creek
Township for the calendar year 1981, and also consider their approval
of a proposal for the calendar years 1982 and 1983.
Previously, the City Council was sent information relative to the status
of the Joint Fire Board negotiating fire contracts with the Townships of
Silver Creek and Otsego that was authorized at the October 27, 1980
meeting. For your information, the Joint Fire Board consists of Monticello
Township Representative Gerhart Decker, City of Monticello Representative
Rick Wolfsteller, and Monticello Fire Department Representative Lee Trunnell.
In order to establish a more equitable contract cost for the two Townships,
the Joint Fire Board had recommended that the Standby Charge and Hourly Fee
Charge be revised. On the current contract, the standby charge for both
Townships is $300 per year, and a per fire cost of $300 for the first hour,
$100 for the second hour, and $75 for each additional hour. It is recom-
mended that the fee schedule be changed as follows:
STANDBY CHARGE - (to be paid annually)
Silver Crock Township $4,000 - was - $300
Otsego Township $ 600 - was - $300
HOURLY FEE (Both Silver Creek and utsego Townships)
$200 - lot 11our (waa $300)
$100 - Additional Hours (was $100 for 2nd hour and $75 for additional hours)
OTHER ALTERNATTVF.S:
1. Standby Charge $2,400 (Silver Creek), $400 (Otsego) - plus hourly charge
of $ 400 for let hour and $100 per hour for additional hours.
2. Standby Charge $1,500 (Silver Creek), $200 (Otsego) - plus hourly charge
of $500 for lot hour and $100 per hour for additional hours.
Those charges were for a threo-year contract based on the percentage of total
firemen hours from 1975 through July of 1980, along with a computation to
determine the cost of each fire run. Enclosed you will find a shoot entitled
Allocation of Piro Coats to Silver Crock and Otsego Townshipa. Initially,
the fixed cost on the 1981 Budget, which aro thooe eooto which would be
incurred by the Fire Department rogardl000 if there was a single fire or not,
were computed and incroascd for 1982 by 10% and 1983 by 10%, and allocated to
the areas served on the baois of total houro fighting firoo from 1975 through
July 1980. Additionally, it woo determined the average coat of a fire in
terms of oalarieo, maintenance and repair of the equipment used, etc., and
thio is how the hourly fee wao arrived at.
- 7 -
on this basis, the Fire Board recommended that Silver Creek be charged $4,000
for a standby charge, and Otsego $600. The hourly fee was recommended to be
$200 for the 1st hour, and $100 for each additional hour.
Two other alternatives were considered, and these alternatives would produce
the same amount of revenue based on the average number of fires in Silver
Creek and Otsego during the period from 1975 through July 1980. During this
period of time, Silver Creek experienced annually seven 1 -hour fires and
one 2 -hour fire, and Otsego experienced one 1 -hour fire. For example,
in the case of Silver Creek, if there were seven 1 -hour fires and one 2 -
hour fire, the three alternatives presented would result in approximately
the same revenue amount. Additionally, by allowing for some possible
alternatives, a particular township in question would be given some choice
in the method used for contract fees.
on llovember 18, 1980 and January 20, 1981, the Joint Fire Board reviewed
the proposal with the Silver Creek Township Board . As a result of these
meetings and negotiations, the Silver Creek Township Board made a pro-
posal for a three-year contract which would call for an annual standby
charge of $1,000, and a per fire call charge of $ 250 for the first hour
or any fraction thereof, and $150 for each additional hour or fraction
thereof. It was indicated by the Silver Creek Township Board since they
have their annual meeting in March to vote on the budget for the following
year, their budget for 1981 was pretty well set, plus the fact that during
the year of 1980, they had over a dozen fires which depleted their fire
fund balance. They furthermore indicated that before they could sign a
three-year contract which would approve any of the three alternative proposals
suggested by the Fire Board, they would have to go to their March Town-
ship meeting in 1981 to establish the budget for 1982. For your informa-
tion, the ruloo and regulations governing a township are quite different
than a City, and the budget is subject to this annual meeting at which the
citizens themselves can actually vote on the matter as I understand it.
Understanding there might be some concern for the year of 1981 since the
budget for 1981 wan actually then set in March of 1980, the Joint Fire
Board recommended that a contract be proposed for 1981 based on the
offer by Silver Creek Township of 81,000 standby charge plus per fire
call charge of $250 for the firat hour or any fraction thereof, and $150
for each additional hour or fraction thereof, but that the Silver Crook
Township Board bring the matter to their March 1981 Township Meeting for
the years 1982 and 1983, to consider the altornativas previously presented
by the Joint Fire Board. In this way, if approved by Silver Crack Town-
ship, the contract would be entered into for 1981 based on the recommenda-
tions of the Silver Crook Township Board, and 1982 and 1983 would be based
on the recommend ation a by the Joint Fire Board.
- 8 -
I
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
The Silver Creek Township Board accepted this method and approved a
contract for 1981 and indicated that they would bring the proposal as
presented by the Joint Fire Board to their March 1981 meeting for an
extension of the contract for the years.1982 and 1983. In this fashion,
the contract could be entered into right now for the calendar year of
1981, plus the fact that, if approved by the Township Board and the
City Council and Township of Monticello, the contract could be amended
to cover the years 1982 and 1983 based on the alternatives proposed
by the Joint Fire Board.
It was felt that this was a fair proposal in light of the timing relative
to Township Board Meetings in setting their annual budgets for the follow-
ing year. In this fashion, the proposal made by the Joint Fire Board,
although not to go into effect immediately for 1981, would go into effect
for 1982 and 1983 if approved by all parties.
For your information, this contract would go into effect immediately
when approved and signed by all parties for 1981, and the main effect it
would have would be that the standby charge would b e increased from
$300 annually to $1,000, and there is some minor adjustments in the
hourly fee, but the fires that have occurred up to the time the City of
Monticello and Township of Monticello and Silver Creek Township Board
enter into a contract, it would all actually be based on the past con-
tract which, in effect, would probably result in approximately the same
revenue to the joint fire district as to the fire calls themselves.
Additionally, I have sent the proposals recommended by the Joint Fire
Board to Otsego Township, and as of yet, I have not heard from thea.
however, in tho case of Otsego Township, the change in the increased
cost was not as dramatic as the change to Silver Crack Township. I will
be attempting to call. Otsego Townahip to find out the exact status and
make a report to the Council on Monday night.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Conoidoration of approval of one-year contract as
proposed along with consideration of extending this for additional two
yearn based on the Joint Fire Board's recommended altornativos. For your
information, the Silver Creek Township Board indicated they would have a
preferenco to a $1,500 atandby charge with an hourly fee to be $500 for
the first hour or fraction thereof, and $100 par additional hour or frac-
tion thereof, but that they would like to propose all three alternatives
at their March 1981 mooting. Any approval would be subject to the approval
of the Township of Monticello also.
REFERENCES: Copy of proposed contract for 1981 enclosed. Aloo, shoot
entitled "Allocation of Fire Costo to Silver Crook s Otoogo Townships".
- 9 -
Council Agenda - 1/26/81
8. Consideration of Approval of Appraisal - Lindberg Property.
PURPOSE: To consider the authorization for the appraisal of the Kermit
Lindberg property just east of the present Wastewater Treatment Plant.
As you recall, this was discussed at the January 12, 1981 meeting. The
entire parcel consists of 5.13 acres, and Mr. s Mrs. Lindberg have indicated
they would be receptive to selling the property of the City of Monticello.
Reason for possible interest on the part of the City of Monticello would
be for expansion in the future of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. While
the current site is sufficient to handle the updating of the present
Wastewater Treatment Plant, according to our engineers, Orr-Schelen-
Mayeron 6 Associates, it would be necessary for the City of Monticello
to find another site for a new Wastewater Treatment Plant in 20 to 25
years to adequately accommodate the growth that is expected to take
place.
The process, at this time, if it were approved, would be to obtain an
appraisal, review that appraisal with the City Council to determine a
possible basis for an offer by the City of Monticello to the Lindbergs
for their property.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Conaideration of approval of obtaining appraisal on
the Kermit Lindborg property.
ry
I
C
- 10 -
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 21, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer, Dick Martie, John Bondhus,
Bill Burke.
Members Absent: Loren Klein (ex -officio).
1. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment for Signs.
The City of Monticello was recently notified that it has boon selected to
receive a grant from the Federal lfighway Administration for the improvement
of Ellison Park along the Mississippi River, because it lies adjacent to
the Great River Road. However, in order to be eligible for these funds,
the City was notified that it was necessary that an ordinance be adopted
that indicates that the City would be willing to enter an agreement with
the Federal Government which would enable the City, in the future, to
purchase non -conforming signs alony the Great River Road. The money for
the purchase of these non -conforming signs along the Great River Road
would come from the Federal Government. Although the Federal Government
would not necessarily provide 1001, of these funds, the agreement would not
go into effect unless the Federal Government provided at least 75t of the
�•� funds for purchasing those non -conforming signs.
It was noted ticil the availability of these funds in the future depend::
on congressional action during the next two years.
Ifcaring no comments from thu public, motion as. made by Bill Burke,
seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to recommend approval of
a sign ordinance amendment which would allow the City of Monticello to
enter an agreement with the Federal llighway Administration to purchano
non -conforming signs along Uro Great River Road whenever funds of at
least 75% would become available from the Federal Government.
2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Simplification of. Variance Process.
In an attempt to simplify the variance procedures, a public hearing was
held to consider nn ordinance amendment. whoreby the Planning Commission
would hold a public hearing on variances requested, rather than the
City Cotuicil, and would net and approve or deny each variance requoat.
An part of the Planninq Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission's
action would be final, unless the decision was appealed by either the
applicant or other citizan to the City Council. if the decision of the
Planning Commission wan appealed, the Council would then hear the variance
request and maks a final recommendation of approval or denial.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/21/81
The attempt of this ordinance amendment would elininate the necessity of
both the Planning Commission and the City Council having a simple variance
request on both agendas, especially in light of numerous setback and side -
yard variances requested during the past years.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to recommend adoption of a City ordinance amendment that would have
variances heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing where the
decision would be made on the request, unless appealed to the City Council.
Public Hearing - Consideration of Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Develop-
ment - Robert 6 Marion Jameson.
Robert and Marion Jameson, who own a parcel of land on the south side of
the Monticello Junior -Senior High School, made application for a conditional
use to develop a planned unit development on their property.
This planned unit development request would allow three more log cabins
to be moved onto their property and restored and used as displays of
the past for public observation on a limited basis.
Marion Jameson indicated that the three buildings proposed for erection on
their property are intended to resemble an historic neighborhood of
different ethnic settlements. Mrs. Jameson indicated that they will not be
charging an admission fee, although they will be asking for donations of J
$1.00 for adults and S.SO for children, etc.
The Planning Commission recommended that the Planned Unit Development,
as proposed, be approved for the three new buiLdingn and thnt if addi-
tional buildings are requested in the future, the request should be
brought to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval.
Motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use request for a Planned Unit Develop-
ment un the Jameson's property for up to three additional historical
buildings.
•1. Consideration of a Variance BCrPleat - Decorativa Services.
Decorative Services of Monticello requested a variance to eliminate the
curb barrier around their parking lot and driveway to their new facility
planned on the sout.h half of a lot next to independent L unbor in Oakwood
Industrial Park.
J
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/21/01
Their reason for requesting the variance was that the back half of the Lot
is lower than the surrounding area, and by constructing a holding pond on
the lot, they euuld contain the runoff water in that pond and could also
use the pond as part of their lanuscaping.
The plans for their request have been reviewed by John Badalich, City
Engineer, and Mr. Badalich did indicate that Lite grading plan and the use
of the holding pond would be acceptable.
It was noted by the Planning Commission that the proposed location of the
drainage pond would exist on part of the north half of the lot in Oakwood
Industrial Park that is not part of the new building site. It was recommended
by the Planning Commission that if the drainage pond is built as proposed,
a drainage easement be obtained and recorded on the north half of this lot
so that a future buyer would be aware of the drainage pond. Discussion
did occur by the Planning Commission as to whether or not part of the parking
lot should have a curb barrior even if the driveway would not, but a motion
was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to
recommend approval of the variance request to eliminate the entire curb
barrier requirement around their parking lot and driveway to the new
facility.
5. Consideration of Possible Mvnendment to the City of Monticello's Park
OodicaLion Ordinance Requircmeni..
Currently, th... park dedication for the City of Monticello requires all
developers requesting platting contribute 10% of the final plat gross
arca to be dedieat.ed to the public for Lheir use as either parks., play-
grounds, public open space, or linear park and trail systems, or to
contribuLe an equivalenL amuuuL in cash and the form of con tihuLion,
whether cash or land or combination thereof, shall be decided by the
City Council based upon need and cunformance with the City'n approved
plans.
In the pant, Lha City of Monticello has determined Lhat the cash equivalent
would be equal t:u lot of Ulu assessur's fair market value of Lhu property.
The asnesuor's fair market value of the property is determined to be as of
January 2nd the preceeding year, and this market value determination in
very low. The value per acre historically has been anywhere from $1,000
to $4,000 per acre when, in fact, after development has occurred, residential
property, for example, could be in the arra of $24,000 per acre. This
$24,000 in just an astimat.n, and based on four 1/4 acre Lots culling for
$6,000 ench, not including anuosamcntn.
If a developer proposes to pay the amount in Cauh, he is a lot better off
than dedicating land which is worth quite a bit moru than Lila asscusor's
fair market value..
3
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/21/81
As a result, it was recommended that the City of Monticello consider hold-
ing a public hearing on amending the park dedication ordinance that would
result in the following:
A. When the park dedication was proposed in cash, the City would obtain
an appraisal of the market value of the property based on final plat
on a per acre basis.
B. When the contribution is in land, the City would obtain an opinion from
an appraisal firm that park dedication is equivalent to a 10% value of
the total plat, as opposed to 10% of the land area, to discourage the
developer. from granting poorer land for park and receiving the same
credit as the developer who offers good land.
C. The park dedication should not include a wetland or ponding area, as
this is ultimately saving the developer money as storm sewer would not
be needed and the City still does not have any additional parks because
the area is for ponding purposes.
When the Planning Commission discussed lowering the park dedication require—
ment from 100 to St after implementing the above way of determining market
value, it was noted that the City would still probably be better Off than
it is under its present systein because the valuation of the land would be
much higher than the assessor's market value. After discussion on the
percentage requirement, it was recommended that the 10% remain in the
ordinance as previously stated, and that this percentage could be lowered
in the future if it was dotermined to be excessive.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commisoion members to hold a public
hearing at their next regular meeting on the proposed amendment to the
park dedication ordinance that would change the City's method in determining
market value of the land to be proposed in pack dedication cash or land
requirements.
6. Approval of Minutes - november 11, 1980 MCCtinq.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, aecondad by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve tho Planning Commission minutes of november 11, 1980
as presontcd.
Meeting adjourned.
Iti hard wolf eilor
Adminiatra tlyu Aaoiutant
IN/no
- 4 -
1+If�l^fit _� . � •J � 1 _ ,
(rqXr% it7
/ i`h c�•, �l'iti`t�t i,l.r%(a t�-;r ,t r /t.Jr,,�(-�tl ... �,, "�..
\'wJ �� 1 % .t)�'t•J`I; �`t�'j ,�•• c•,,�,�� 1,,:fry.J Jf� �t� q �, E-1( �;`••�. r'�-,.•:�.`,.t!•� •• .
f _ ,. , j , •t ci.j ,J r.r t'l , •tj;7 -^. �"•�� t%~ r .•, �•,. ; �`�
��`"•`'•..`t••'.•+;J1 i' � . .`J.�, �•t / ,'%,�•"--=:t 4,,t� � ` � �1"1 /-. r.„ j :t .� , • •-•....� �p j • d. .
`:r :l �(�`��J `/'+.r��1//j o,:7,•it�tl,:,rt �•+""�L;��l,i!:v.�pgyyy'Y ••'• ,• . `i..•• f,: IL,,; J •.r•
NO 94
"y.'.J t i ; :.`••.•r .,�7•Y r , • r� (U r . AV ��p t _ • r.` `1 .,
j` ,��i�%/-'.t :�.�' j�. � .`• ..+'\ � 1 •it'''s• �'- � 1�� +.
V .��• •'� �iCE BEQUEST S� vL��g _ _ — "� �•�:., � z.
/ Zip -'`
�F �6OT I �• , /" ��� / 95LOs;��ta".. _..d.� _ � • gihy {1"�qq�'
J �S , iQ INE O12
F Tr+
1 , / FEfT cF CD. I / � / ° 1 � �. a ' .� J, • j'� �i$.q; of
/ 1 a I� O. �=. .�'. i��V. •� .+—��.�'l�+j SPS .,
�f
6-0.
JA I
I �•
Soo�1 INSJfli�rior�u, rM I,S VA CSS
_—� a j• ".a
;AtKw �'� +' Df / . 1� T�-"�•
�� �, � _.�—.OI/7 � i F4MPi" ' •--�� 1 �N�IN 7)IIGF: / � �, �/.
IF
Ir
� + 1 t ✓-f8-aj,.-"._`-�" ' _I 'a 2��0` �;�•-� Iryr.S n{n
of,
If
- -sA-6,/ If
/ I
1 ; I
i,.
Consulting Engineers
tand Surveyors
0
January 9, 1981
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Loren D. Klein
Building Official
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
He: Review of Decorative servicer, site Plan
Dear Loren:
Several weeks ago we received a copy of the Decorative Services Site Plan and
Layout from Richard Smith of Roger Johnson Associates/Architectn, that was
submitted to our office for review. I have previously conversed with Richard
Smith regarding thio property based on my letter to you sometime ago.
1 only received one copy of the plan, no I'll try to describe as best as pucs-
ibie the rommento we made regarding this plan.
1. In checking the City map and also the tax records, there to an overlap of
property in the southwest corner of this property. However, in checkini the
deed of Dave Hoskin, the property as shown on the site plan seems to be cor-
rect. Therefore, we ascertain that there is an error in the City map as well
as In the, tax retards, as the overlap does not exist if the deeds are
checked.
2. The drainage provided for the location of the building in the southerly
one-half of this property seems to be well designed and should drain proparly
so that the excess drainage from the ponding arra would cross over the en-
trance road and then turn and flow easterly down Chelsea Road in the event of
heavy precipitation.
3. The culvert at the entrance of Lite drivuw4y should be chanitud to 3U", as
I'm sure a 28" culvurt is not manufactured.
4. As I stated pravioualy, Lite connection into the sanitary 4l'wvr on Lliulsea
Rood is quite deep. i believe it to approximatiey 24' deup, so that de-
watering and possibly sheeting will be needed, otherwise, a large opsuiul,
would be required in Lite street. It way be advisable, and if Jahn Sin -0i rk+y
` think necessary, that a manhole be construetvd over the sanitary sewer so that
t the connection of the 6" service frog the Decorative Services Building can be
run into a manhole instead of directly into Lite 10" sanitary suwer at this
location.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue a Suite 238 a Minneapolis, Minnesota 55d t;i
612!331.11660 TE fX. 29-0948
J
City of Monticello
January 9, 1981
Page -2-
Other than the comments above, I would recommend approval of the site plan as
submitted.
If you have any questions In this regard, please give me a call_.
'fours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
//John P. Badalich, P.E. �'f'04�
City Engineer
JPB/kmp
cc: Mr. Richard 11. Smith, Rogers Johnson Associate o/ArchiteCta
Gary Wlcber, City Administrator
W• REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR
�
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
� 1 w ,
Robert & Marion Jameson
N.
V
it
----------- * ........
e e
Oc
v
ce�s +
v •.r�� / 1a � i
0
-.Ir 0 Ci I
-1
A u -
MATERIAL TITLE/MM IG04T %3vlLj/m5s
proposed 1301-d.Nq s 14eS
FINISH AND COLOR DRAWN BY DAVE TAMESOU
DATEAUr= a)-FOI SCALEYS,Si
RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF
G- PETITION AND ORDERING 11REPARAT101 OF REPORT
Ea
DE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of Dlonticello, Minnesota:
1. A petition requesting the improvements listed below for the property
indicated has been filed With the Council on January 26 , 19 81, iS
hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of property affected
thereby. This declara cion is made in conformity With Minnu sotn Statutes 429.035.
IMPROVEMENT REQUESTED:
Sewer. water and blacktoonino to that Dart of the KWI. of the NE11
lying south of County Road 175 in Section 4, Township 121N, Range 25W, in
__jjQnjiolln Minneent,a
2. The petition is hereby referred to John Radalich, and he in instructed
to report to Lite Counc it with all convenient upend advising Lite council in a
prolimintrry way os to Whether Lite proposed impruveawnt is feaoible and ar; to
whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some,, other
improvement, and Lite estimated cost of the improvement as reconune.nded.
MOtiaa co adopt resolution was made by councilmcmber
seconded by councilnember
Voting in favor;
Oppoued:
Adopted by the Ci ty Council this 26th day of January 1981
CGary Wicber,
City Administrator
3
La
ORDINANCE SECTION: 10-3-9-C-7
The City of Monticello, or its agent, is authorized and required
by this ordinance to enter into an agreement with cite United
States, or any of its 'agencies, or departments, to the end
that the objective stated in Title 23, United States'Code,
Section 131, Suction 319, or any other applicable Federal
Statute to obtain non-conforning signs along Elie Creat River
Road within the City of Monticello, llovcver,.the City of
Monticello, or its agent, shall not be required, nor allowed, to
expend funds for the acquisition of non -conforming signs or
advertising devices under this Chapter until Federal funds
in the amount of 752 or more of this acquisition cost are made
available to Chu City of Monticello for the purpose of carrying
out this ordinance. Mo sign nor advertising device legs]. under
Laws 1971, Chapter 883, sholl be required to be removed or
relocated until payment, as provided in taws 1971, Chapter 883,
is teudeced by the City of MUnticv Il0.
S—
FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
This AGREE14ENT between the Ci ty and Township of Monticello, Monticello,
Minnesota, hereafter referred to as the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT, and the
Township of Silver Creek, hereafter referred to whether in whole or in part
as the TOWNSHIP. Both agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish fire service and fire protec-
tion to all properties subject to the terms of this agreement, within the
TOWNSHIP area, said area being set forth in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto.
ARTICLE 11
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT wil 1 make a reasonable effort to attend all
fires within the TOWNSHIP area upon notification of such fire or fires, and
under the direction of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT fire chief, subject to the
following terms and conditions:
A. Road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can be
madewith reasonable safety to the firemen and equipment of the
JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT. The decision of the fire chief or other
officer in charge of the fire department at the time that the
fire run cannot be made with reasonable safety to firemen and
equipment shall be final.
D. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall not be liable to the TOWNSHIP for
the loss or damage of any kind whatever resulting from any failure
to furnish or any delay i n furnishing firemen or fire equipment,
or from any failure to prevent, control or extinguish any fire,
whether such loss or damage Is caused by the negligence of the
officers, agents or employees of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT or its
fire department, or otherwise.
7
ARTICLE 111
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT further agrees:
A. To keep and maintain in good order at its own expense the necessary
equipment and fire apparatus for fire service and fire protection
within the town area so serviced.
B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall provide sufficient manpower in its
fire department to operate fire equipment.
ARTICLE IV
The TOWNSHIP agrees:
A. To pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT a standby charge of $1,000.00 for
maintaining fire equipment.
B. To pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT for each fire call. The charge for
each fire call will be $250.01) for r,ne first hour or fraction thereof;
and $150.00 for each additional hour or fraction thereof for the use
of fire equipment and firemen's services.
C. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will submit a statement to the TOWNSHIP
after each fire call and prompt payment will be made.
D. The standby charge is a cost for the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT to maintain
a fire department and shall be paid, together with all amounts past
due, prior to the last day of March, 1981, to render this agreement
effective for the cdlenddr year 1981.
ARTICLE V
In case an emergency arises within the JOINT FIRE DEPART14ENT while equip-
ment and personnel of the fire department are engaged in fighting a fire
within the TOWNSHIP area, calls shall be answered in the order of their
receipt unless the fire chief or other officer in charge of the fire depart-
ment at the time otherwise directs. In responding to fire calls within the
TOWNSHIP area, the fire chief or other officer in charge shall dispatch only
such personnel and equipment as in his opinion can be safely spared from the
JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT.
j ARTICLE V1
In cases where the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT receives a notification of an
emergency, other than a fire, and its assistance is requested in the area
defined in Exhibit A of this contract, it shall respond to such emergency in
the same manner as a fire as outlined in this contract. Charges for such
service shall be as outlined in ARTICLE IV.
ARTICLE VII
The TOWNSHIP agrees to make a fire protection tax levy or otherwise to
provide funds each year in an amount sufficient to pay the JOINT FIRE DEPART-
MENT the compensation herein agreed upon.
ARTICLE VII
This AGREEMENT shall be in force for a term beginning on the day it
is executed by the duly authorized JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT and TOWNSHIP officials
and ending on the 31sL Jay of December, 1981 . This contract may be terminated
upon a six month notice by either party.
CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK.
8y: 8y
Mayor Chairman
Attest: Attest:
Clerk Clerk.
Signed this day of 1981. Signed this _ day of
1981
TOWNSHIP Or MONTICELLO
By
Chairman
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this _ day of , 1981
7
EXHIBIT A
This EXHIBIT is a part of the attached FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT,
and its purpose is to designate the area covered under this AGREEMENT
and referred to herein as the TOWNSHIP area. Therefore, the TOWNSHIP
area in which protection for fires is agreed to involves the following
sections of the TOWNSHIP herein:
Sections 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36,
North half of Section 20, Section 21 except Southwest Quarter,
and Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 33,
Township 122, Range 26; Section i, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 except
Southwest Quarter all in Township 121, Range 26.
CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK
11y BY
Mayor Chairman
Attest: Attest:
Clerk Clerk
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
By
Ch a i rma n
Attest:
Clerk
RECOMMEND -
STANDIIY CHARGE
Silver Creek $4,000 wan $300
Otacgu $ 600 was $300
HOURLY FEE (Both Silver Creek 8 Otsego)
$200 lot Hour (was $300)
$100 Additionnl Hourn (vas $100 for 2nd hr, and $75 for additional humirs)
OTHER ALTERNATIVES -
1. Standby Charge 52,400 (Silver Creek) $400 (OtsogO), plus hourly charge of
$400 1st hour and $100 per hour for additional hours.
2. Standby Charge $1,500 (Silver Crock) $200 (Otsego), plus hourly charge of
$500 lot hour and $100 per hour for additional hours.
I
ALLOCATION OF FIRE COSTS TO
SILVER CREEK 6 OTSECO TOWNSHIPS
1981 BUDGET (Fixed Costs)
Telephone
$ 500
Utilities
2,150
Salaries - Drills (est.)
2,000
Supplies
1,500
Legal
100
Training
3,000
Insurance
3,000
Other
300
Building Repairs
500
Depreciation -
Equipment 10 -years
($35,663)
$ 3 ,566
Trucks 20 -years
(551,683)
2,584
Buildings 25 -veers
($35,829)
1 ,433
7,583
BUDGET - 1981
$20,633
ESTIEfATE - 1982 + 10%
$22,29,
ESTIMATE: - 1983 + 101.
$24,965
ESTIMATED TOTAL 3
YEARS
$67,894
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOURS
- FIREMEN - 1975 -
1980
Township o1 Monticello
43.04%
City of Monticello
30.99%
Silver Creek Township
17.72%
Otsego Townahip
2.63%
Outside. Assistance
5.62%
100.00%
ALLOCATION OF FIXED COSTS
TO SILVER CREIiK 6
OTSI:CO TOWNSHIPS
Silver Crcck 17.72%
x $67,894 _ 3
$4,01%;
Otsego 2.63%
x $67,894 = 3 e
$ 595
RECOMMEND -
STANDIIY CHARGE
Silver Creek $4,000 wan $300
Otacgu $ 600 was $300
HOURLY FEE (Both Silver Creek 8 Otsego)
$200 lot Hour (was $300)
$100 Additionnl Hourn (vas $100 for 2nd hr, and $75 for additional humirs)
OTHER ALTERNATIVES -
1. Standby Charge 52,400 (Silver Creek) $400 (OtsogO), plus hourly charge of
$400 1st hour and $100 per hour for additional hours.
2. Standby Charge $1,500 (Silver Crock) $200 (Otsego), plus hourly charge of
$500 lot hour and $100 per hour for additional hours.
I
LIQUOR FUND
AMOUNT CnCK
JANUARY --- 1981 NO.
Wright County State Bank - FWT - Dec.
MN. State Treasurer - PERA
Northern States Power - Utilities
Yonak Sanitation - Contract
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
Ed Phillips & Sons - Liquor
Old Peoria Co. - Liquor
Johnson Bros. - Liquor
Twin City Wine - Liquor
State Treasurer - Social Security Cont. Fund
VOID
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Dec.
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - Dec.
First Bank Mpls. - Liquor Revenue Bond payment
Ed Phillips & Sons - Liquor
Gronseth Directory Service - Adv.
Persian's Office Products - Repairs to cash register
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
North Central Public Service - Utilities
Bridgewater Telephone - Utilities
Trushenski Trucking - Freight
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
Smith, Pringle & Hayes - Legal on deed to Lindenfelser'a
Share Corporation - Fertilizer & weed killer
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. Mdae.
7 Up Bottling - Misc. Mdse.
Dick Beverage - Boor
Dahlhoimer Dist. Co. - Beer
Grossloin Beverages - Boer
Jude Candy & Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
Old Dutch Foods - Misc, mdae.
Monticello Times - Advertising
Day Dist. Co. - Beer, etc.
A. J. Ogle - Bear
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Boer
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
0
410.80
9542
193.49
9543
524.53
9544
40.00
9545
3134.79
9546
2394.36
9547
711.63
9548
81.30
9549
1181.97
9550
296.34
9551
--
9552
161.80
9553
3506.63
9554
19612.50
9555
7441.12
9556
33.60
9557
172.40
9558
272.24
9559
239.24
9560
51.54
9561
356.45
9562
200.67
9563
25.00
9564
34.43
9565
939.10
9566
492.20
9567
2846.25
9568
5771.78
9569
13895.00
9570
566.09
9571
126.20
9572
320.63
9573
49.50
9574
258.70
9575
2332.15
9576
$68,674.43
r
r,: ;�;':.� FIRE DEPARTMENT
�r 4ti '
,,
530. PUMP CAPACITY (PC):
The total available pump capacity Should be sufficient for the Basic Fire Flow in the city. The pump capacity ab-
rained by test at rated pump pressure, not to exceed rated capacity, maybe credited. Credit will be limited toso
percent of the rated capacity It no test data is available. Less than 80 percent may be credited if other
mechanical features of the apparatus indicate a generally poor mechanical performance.
531. REVIEW OF PUMP CAPACITY:
A. Existing Pump Capacity(EPir
The pump capacity of in-service pumpers, pumper ladder and pumper-serviCe trucks which were credited
in Item 513 shall be credited in this item.
B. Reserve And Other Pump Capaclty(RPt)and(Opt):
The creditable capacity of reserve pumpers, and reserve pumper -ladder and pumper -service trucks which
were credited in Item 523 shall be credited in this item.
One-half the capacity of pefmanentfy-mounted pumps, capable of delivering a! :oast 50 gpm at 150 psi, on
other apparatus, reserve pumpers, and reserve pumpor-ladder and pumper -service trucks not credited in
items 513 or 523 shall be credited in this item.
C. Automatic-Ald Pumper Capacity (AAPS):
The capacity of pumpers credited as automatic aid in Item 513 shall not exceed the percent determined by
the value of the automatic -aid plan (AAS) times the creditable pump capacity for each credited automaliaald
pumper.
532. CREDIT FOR PUMPER CAPACITY (CPC):
CPC _ (EP + RP + OP + AAP) up to BFF x 5
BFF
n
EP = EP,, whore n = number of in•sorvice apparatus from Item 513.
tot
n
AAP = 1' ((AAP;)(AAi)), where n = number of nutomaliC.aid pumpers.
' ° r The value AAI is from item 512.D.
n
RP = RP,, where n = numoor of reserve pumpers,
lot
n
OP = ! OPI, where n = number of diner apparatus.
tot
540. NUMBER OF NEEDED LADDER COMPANIES (NL):
Response areas with 5 buildings that Ore 3 stories or 35 feet or more In height, Or with 5 buildings that have a
Needed Firo Flow greater than 3500 gpm, or any combination of these atresia, should have a ladder company.
The height of all buildings in the City, including those protected by autOmallC sprinklers, are considered when
determining the number of needed ladder companies,
When no individual suspense district alone needs a ladder company, at least one ladder Company is noedad it
buildings in the City m001 1110 abOve Criteria.
Tho Crites is f rom It erns 510.8 and 510 C for rho number of noodod engine companies also applies to the number
of needed ladder companies.
541. NUMBER OF NEEDED SERVICE COMPANIES (NS):
Response areas not needing a ladder Company according to item 540 Should have a serviCe Company.
f: c,t,m+a,ao 17 ec�pvrpht Me, tnaurtnce 1101v,ce6 Office
COUNCIL UPDATE
January 26, 1981 Meeting
District Court Ruling on Assessment Appeal of Monticello Ford, Inc.
The District Court in Buffalo ruled in favor of the City of Monticello rela-
tive to the appeal filed by Monticello Ford, Inc. on the assessment appeal.
This ruling favored the City on all points, including the number of years
over which the assessment was to be spread, along with the cost on both the
parking lot improvement project and the 1978-1 Improvement Project.
Additionally, the City of Monticello was awarded costs which means that the
City of Monticello can recover the costs incurred for legal expenses,
expert witnesses, etc.
Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for Library Purooses from the County.
I talked with Ozzie Arlien, Administrator for Wright County, and he indicated
that the County has established a policy whereby the use of Federal Revenue
Sharing funds will be used internally. As a result, no funds have been
allocated to outside communities, including Monticello for library purposes
or any other matters. In the past, such funds did go to such communities
as Howard Lake-Cokato for library purposes, and Buffalo for civic center
complex.
League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference - June 10 thru 12. 1981 - St. Paul.
For those of you who may be interested, the Annual League Conference is
scheduled for June 10 thru 12, 1981 at the St. Paul Radisoon Hotel (the former
Hilton Hotel). It would be advantageous for the City of Monticello to make
advance reaervationa since many of the hotels are filled by the time the
official notice comes out in the League Bulletin. For those of you who are
interested, plcaee contact me within the next couple of weeks, and I will
make the proper arrangements. It ohould be pointed out too that there is
special provision for those who may want to go down for only one or two days.
CW/na
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
January 12, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Gr 3msao, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus,
Phil White.
Members Absent: None
An Invocation by Reverend Steve Hammer was given.
1. Consideration of the Award of the Sale of $160,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds of 1981 and $255,000 in General Obligation Bonds
of 1981 for the Libra ry.
Mr. King Forness, of Springsted, Inc., the City's bonding consultant,
opened and read the b ids received on the sale of two bond issues
proposed by the City of Monticello.
The first bond issue, in the amount of $160,000, was to be used to
finance the 1980-1 and 1980-2 improvement projects, which served
Macarlund Plaza and Prairie Road. Seven bids were received from various
banks and financial institutions, with the apparent low bidder being -
i Bank Northwest of Minneapolis, with a net interest dollar cost of
A $87,980, or 8.1462% interest rate.
Nine bids were recoivad from financial institutions on the sale of
$255,000 library bont5lissue of 1981, with the apparent low bidder being -
Bank Northwest of Minneapolis, with a net interest dollar cost of
$157,032.49, or 8.15751.
It was the recommendation of Mr. Forness of Springsted. Inc. that the
two apparent low bidders on each bond issue - being Sank Northwest -
be awarded the sale of both bond issues.
Motion was made by Kan Maus, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution approving the award of the sale of the
$160,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1981 to Bank Northwest
at a net interest dollar cost of 887,1j80. (See Resolution 1981 11)
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to award the sale of the $255,000 General Obligation Bonds
for financing the library to Bank Northwest at a not interest dollar
cost of $157,032.49. (See Resolution 1901 12) (See Exhibit 1/12101
11 and 2).
- I -
IG
Council Minutes - 1/12/61
2. Consideration of Resolution Ordering Feasibility Report on Improvements
to the Meadows Subdivision Plat.
Mr. Mel Wolters, owner of The Meadows SnbCliVisiOn Plat, filed a petition
with the City requesting that sewer, water, street, curb 6 gutter, and
storm sewer improvements be extended to Lots 10 thru 14, Block 1, and
Lots 11 thru 15, Block 4, and Lots 1 b 2, Block 5, all in The Meadows.
The petition for improvements is only for a portion of the subdivision
plat, but Mr. Wolters requested that the feasibility study also address
the cost involved in providing the required storm sewer facilities as
shown on his grading plan. Mr. Wolters indicated in his petition that
if the cost is in line, he may consider petitioning for these improvements
to be included in the project at a later date.
;lotion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution ordering the City Engineer, John Badalieh,
to prepare a feasibility report on the proposed improvement project.
(See Resolution 19111 113).
3. Consideration of the Extension of a Variance to Allow the Display of
Pennants - Rollin Wheels, Inc.
Mr. Jim Teslow, of Rolling Wheals, Inc., requested an extension for
two years to allow him to display pennants which are of a spinner type
at his business at the intersection of Broadway and Linn Streets in
Monticello.
Mr. Teslow roquosted the additional two year extension primarily due
to the fact that the pennants are still in fairly good shape, and he
would like to got some additional use out of them. Furthermore,
lie indicated that he would not be asking for another variance extension
if this one waa granted.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to extend the variance to allow the pennants to be displayed
for an additional two yearn with the understanding thnt this variance
would not be extended beyond twu yedln ill LLm futnro.
4. Consideration of Appointment of Committee Memborn and Various City
Functions and Duties.
Except for the (lousing and Redevelopment Authority Committee, all Commit -
too aphoi.ntmonts are made by the City Council on an annual basis. Thr,
Rouning and Redovelopsent Authority appointments aro, made by the Mayor
with the Couneil'e approval with these committee members (wing on a
rotating five-year basis.
Council Minutes - 1/12/81
t�. The entire list of Committees, Functions and Duties were reviewed by the
City Council, including the Planning Commission, Downtown Parking Committee
Commission, Housing 6 Redevolopment Authority, Historical Society, Joint
Recreation Board, Joint Fire Board, Senior Citizens Center Hoard,
Board of Appeals, Community Education Advisory Council, OAA Representative,
Acting Mayor, City Attorney, Auditor's, Consulting Engineer, Consulting
Planner, official Newspaper, Official Depositories. It was noted that
the Downtown Parking Committee, at the present time, had four members,
and it was recommended that Dennis Seitz be added as a fifth member Lo
the Committee. The Housing L Iiedevelopnent Authority Committee Member
Vic Vokaty's term expired 1/1/81, and it was recommended that his term
be extended an additional five years.
A motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve and adopt the entire list of City commissions, functions
and duties per the attached list, including the two changes, one being
the Downtown Parking Committee addition of Dennis Seitz, and the reappointment
Of Vic Vokaty to an additional five-year term on the (lousing L Redevelop-
ment committee. (See Exhibit 1/12/81 02).
5. Consideration of Approval of Plann and Sl:ecificatiors and Advcrtisinq
for Bids for the Demolition of the Oakwood School Building_
John Simola, Public Works Director, reviewed with the Council the Plans
Qand Specifications that have been prepared for the demolition and
` removal of the Oakwood School Building.
According to the Plans and Specs, bids would be roturneblu February 9,
1901, at 2:00 P.M., and Lhe Specifications indiCnte that removal of
the building would occur Some time between starch 15Lh and April 1st,
1901.
It was noted that attempts have been made, by the City to try and locate
a disposal situ locally that the succeSeful contractor could uue an a
dumping site to lower the coat of. demolition. Two local property owners
have indicated a willingness to use their property or, a dumping site,
but it was the reeummendatiun that. LTIC advortisemcnt for bids will
probably require the contractor t.o arrange for their own site for the
debris, but the information will be provided to all bidders of any in Wrested
locnl property owners who may lx� willing to take the debris from tine School.
According to the plana and upocifica tions presented, contractor will retain
nil oalvago rights to the materialur however, the City in trying to nal-
vagu anything prion to lotting out the bids that could be used internally
by the various City departments such an Public Works, Fire Department, or
tho Senior Citi Zeno Center. Anything that Cannot bu used by the City
departments themselves will prohably lx: put on an auction.
16
Council Minutes - 1/12/81
As part of the City's salvage attempt prior to actual demolition, the
Council approved the use of a CETA program to obtain three people to
work at no cost to the City of Monticello to help salvage some of these
items. if this proposal by the CETA program goes through, these people
could help salvage some of the items and put these with the auction
proposed by the School District.
The Council also discussed the eventual removal of the [)nwling house
located on the future library site, and recommended that this item be
advertised separately from the Oakwood School Building demolition, as
there was a possibility that someone may be interested in moving or
tearing down the house for the materials.
Motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to approve the plans and specifications for the demolition of
the Oakwood Building, and to advertise for bids returnable February 9,
1981.
Motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Dan Ulonigen and unanimously
carried to advertise for hlds for the sale and removal of the Dowling
house located on the library site separately.
G. Consideration of renewing contract with Yt{CA for Detached Worker.
Mr. Mike Mels[ad, the assigned detached worker in the Monticello area,
was present at Monday's meeting, and requested that the City Council
consider renewing for an additional 12 months, the City's current con-
tract with the YIICA.
The 1981 budget projected a 13i increase in this contract, which would
amount to an annual figure of $2,825.
Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to renew the contract. for the YMCA Detached Worker Program
for an additional onu-year in the amount of $2,825.
7. Ou.irLurly DepartmuoL Ilead MooLing.
A quarterly department head meeting was held with the following dopart-
ment heads in attendance:
Fire Chief - Paul Klein
Wright County Sheriff's Dept. Rep. - Buddy Cay E Don Ilozempa
YMCA DeLached Worker - Mike Mclotad
Public Works Director - John Simola
Building Inspector/Civil Uefense Dir. - loran Klein
City Administrator - Cary Wicber
Senior Citi¢mla Center Director., Karen Hanson, was absent.
- 4 -
I
Council Minutes - 1/12/81
Paul Klein. Fire Chief, reviewed with the Council a list of Capital Out-
lay items budgeted for 1981 that he would like to see the City purchase
• as soon as Possible. These items relating to the Fire Department included
two chemical suite, one deluge gun, two helmets, three pair boots, two
smoke masks, six air tanks, thirty hoods, thirty pails of gloves, and
two additional Pagers along with two hand-held radios.
The Council discussed with Mr. Paul Klein the current effectiveness of
the pager system now used by the Fire Department, and it was noted that
problems have been occurring with the present. system. Council advised
Mr. Klein to check into other pager brands to see if a replacement system
should be considered.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Dlonigen and unanimously
carried to authorize the Fire Department to purchase the items budgeted
for in 1981 per the list presented, with a recommendation that the addi-
tional purchase of two pagers be postponed until further review of other
brands can be studied. (See Exhibit 1/12/81 03).
John Simola, Public works Director, reviewed with the COUNCil the present
condition of the City's equipment, and noted that sono of the items
are scheduled for replacement in the upcoming years.
City Administrator, Cary Wieber, presented to the Council a tentative
capital improvement proyram list that indicated soma of on: anticipated
expenditures that will be forthcoming in the next fivh! year.:. Mr. Wieber
noted that the Council should review the list and hopefully a capital
improvement program can be adopted in 1982 that lays tha groundwork for
anticipating future major expendiLures.
Civil Detenue Dirt_ctor, Boren Klein, reviewed with the Council a summary
of thu building pernits insued during 198u, and also recommended that
the City adopt a resolution thanking Regional Civil Dufense Coordinator,
Al Bacrt, for his efforts in helping the City and its civil defense atnff
to develop its nuclear power plant emergency piano and drill procedures.
;lotion was made by Flan Fair. necunded by Phil white and Unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution of appreciation to Al Biber L, Region t'1
Civil Dufunee Coordinator, for his uxceptional job ill helping the City
prelunre iia plans.. LSCC IU:Gelutiell 19111 40-
0. Auvroval of Ililln and Mina Les.
Motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Fran fair and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the last half of Ncembcr, 1900, as
presented, and the Hinct.ea of the Special 14eolin913 1101.(1 DeComh:r 2 and
G, 1980 and the Regular Meeting held DUColilor 0, 1980. (Sec lixhibiL
1/12/01 04).
Meoting adjourned.
Rick Wolfatolier,
Advil niatrAtive Naniaratll