City Council Agenda Packet 01-13-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 13, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held December 9,
1985, and the Special Meeting Held December 19, 1985.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Public Hearings
4. Public Hearing on an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Text
and Map.
Old Business
5. Consideration of ordering Plans and Specifications for Water
System Improvement.
Now Business ,
6. Consideration of a Replotting Request to Roplat an Existing Lot
into Eight Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot - Applicant,
Jay Miller.
7. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a
Mixed Use (Commercial Office Space and Residential) Within a
Proposed Now Zone, PZ -M - Applicant, Soostrom Company.
8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and
Outdoor Storage and Rental Equipment in a D-3 (Highway Business)
Zone - Applicant, Suburban Gas, Inc.
9. Consideration of a Replotting Request to Allow Construction of
a Zero Lot Lino Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant, Vic Hallman.
10. Consideration of a Replotting Request to Allow Construction of
a Zero Lot Lino Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant, Jerry Barthel.
11. Consideration of a Siaple Subdivision Request to Subdivldo Ono
Existing Residential Lot into Four Residential Lata - Applicant,
Doug Pitt.
12. Consideration of a Roquoat to Rezone from R-1 to R-2 - Applicant,
John Sandberg.
12a. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat in the Meadows (laat minuto
addition to the agenda).
13. Consideration of a Request for a Gambling License.
Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council
January 13, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 2
14. Consideration of Adopting a Statement of Understanding for a
Temporary Extension of the Fire Services Contract.
15. Consideration of Bids for Floor Covering for the New Fire Hall.
16. Consideration of Sewer Rate Adjustment.
17. Consideration of Maintenance Agreement with Wright County for
County State Aid Highways in Monticello.
18. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments.
19. Consideration of the Balance of Bills for the Month of December.
20. Adjourn.
J
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 9, 1985 - 7:70 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Sill Fair, Dan 8lonigen.
Members Absent: Jack Maxwell.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by 8lonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 25,
1985.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Mr. Greg Dolphin, owner of the Burger King Restaurant, requested
that his variance request for additional height and size on their
advertising sign be placed on the agenda for consideration. Mr.
Dolphin noted that the Planning Commission was not able to obtain
a quorum to make a decision last week and requested that the Council
hear his variance request.
Motion was mado by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to place Burger King's sign variance request on the agenda
for consideration because of Planning Commission's inability to
act at the last mooting.
Mr. Keith Kubort, of West River Strout, informed the Council that
his mailbox was knocked down by a snowplow during the recent storm
and requested that the City pay for the installation of a now
mailbox rather than just providing reimbursement for materials
as is the City'a currant policy. It van noted by the staff and
Council members that the City crown make an effort to remove snow
as close as possible to eliminate the need for the home owner
to shovel for access to his mailbox; but occasionally soma mailboxes
aro damaged because of the snow being pushed upon them or being
struck by the plov. It was noted that the City crown, during
a storm, are usually very busy and would not have the time to
replace individual mailboxes that are damaged; but the City policy
is to provide for reimbursement of materials to repair damaged
boxes.
After further diacussion on Mr. Kubert'a request, it was tho consensus
of the Council to adhere to the policy in affect of reimbursement
for materials only, with the home owner being responsible for
actual installation.
Mr. John Sandberg appeared before the council to express his dianatiefaction
with the Council's recent decision to eliminate the proposed PZ -R zone
n5-
Council Minutes - 12/9/85
along River Street from the public hearing scheduled in early
January, 1986. Mr. Sandberg noted that when he purchased a vacant
lot on East River Street, property across the street was zoned
R-3 (Multiple Family), and it was his intention to propose multiple
zoning for his vacant lot. At the time his request was made for
rezoning, he was instructed that the City was in the process of
revising its Comprehensive Zoning Map to possibly include a type
of zone that would allow some multiple dwellings along the river
and felt that the City Council's decision to eliminate the PZ -R
Zone from the public hearing was in error. Mr. Sandberg felt
that many residents along River Street are still in favor of PZ -R
zoning and that he intends to conduct a survey for presentation
at the public hearing scheduled in January.
4. Public Hearing on a Modification of Tax Increment Finance District 02.
Tax Increment District @2 was previously established in the downtown
area to encompass the Hass property, K & H Auto, Metcalf & Larson
property, and the old Ford Building site, along with the O'Connor
Truck Garage and Jones Manufacturing sites. Metcalf & Larson
have recently developed an office building within the District,
and it wan the City's proposal to enlarge the District to include
a residence directly north of the Metcalf & Larson building in
Block 50 and three vacant lots owned by the BRA in Block 51, along
with Stelton's Laundromat property and the Maria Gustafson property
all in Block 51.
The intent of the modification is to capture increment that will
be generated by the construction of the elderly apartment house
project proposed for portions of Block 51. in addition, the enlarged
Tax Increment District may be a benefit to the HAA once development
occurs on the Haao/K & H Auto property.
Hearing no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed;
and a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bili Fair, and
unanimously carried to adopt a resolution modifying Tax Increment
District N2 enlarging the boundary area. see Resolution 1985 #31.
5. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding the Salo of $350,000.00
in Tax Increment Bonds.
Mr. Ron Langn000 of Springatod, Inc., the City 'a Bonding Consultant,
presented seven bids that ware received from various financial
institutions on the issuance of 3350,000.00 in tax incroment bonds
which will be need by the HRA to acquire Block 15 for redevelopment.
The bids received ware as follows:
-2-
Net Interest
Coot & Rate
Dain Bosworth Incorporated
$401,893.34
8.2893%
lot National Bank of Mplo.
$412,777.92
8.5138%
Juran & Moody, Inc.
$415,059.58
8.5609%
Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc.
$416,125.42
8.5828%
Allison -Williams Co.
$416,674.17
8.5941%
Miller & Schroeder Financial. Inc.
$421,421.25
8.6920%
The lot National Bank of St. Paul
$426,325.00
8.7932%
-2-
Council Minutes - 12/9/85
Mr. Langness recommended that the City accept the low bid from
Dain Bosworth, Inc., in the amount of 8.2893% net interest rate.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of the $350,000.00 bond
issue to Dain Bosworth, Inc. See Resolution 1985 932.
6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Execution
of a Pledge Agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution entering into a pledge agreement
with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority which guarantees
that the tax increments generated by the project proposed for
Block 15 will be turned over to the City for the retirement of
the above issued tax incrc=cnt bonds. Sae Resolution 1985 933.
7. Consideration of Encompassing a Request to Rezone to R-3 within
the Overall Zoning Revisions.
At the last Council meeting, developer John Sandberg appeared
before the Council to present the idea of rezoning a portion of
the Meadows Subdivision to R-3 for multiple family dwellings.
Before he incurred additional expense in preparing a preliminary
replotting of the Meadows, Mr. Sandberg requested an indication
as to whether the Council would be receptive to the idea of R-3
zoning in that area. The Council gave their preliminary indication
that R-3 zoning in that area was sensible planning, but there
were some development concerns to be addressed.
Mr. Sandberg proceeded to prepare preliminary raplatting plans
for the Mnadowa for Planning Commission review December 3; but
due to a lack of a quorum, no action was taken on Mr. Sandberg's
preliminary plane. As a result, the timing factor of holding
a public hearing on the proposed revisions to the overall City
Zoning Ordinance scheduled for January 13 and the consideration
of the replotting aro in conflict in that the proposed zoning
to R-3 in the Meadows would be hoard before a preliminary plot
is reviewed to address development concerns. If the R-3 zoning
occurred prior to the preliminary plat review, the city may lose
control on conditions that could be applied to the development
since the zoning is already suitable for multiple buildings.
If the zoning is not amended to R-3 as part of the overall plan
but rezoning is conaidared after the preliminary plat is reviewed,
Mr. Sandberg felt it still loaves him in a position of proceeding
with replotting cost and not knowing whether the rozoning will
over occur.
An alternative to the problem was presented by the City staff
whereas the rezoning request to R-3 could be considered by the
Council at the public hearing scheduled January 13 but contain
a sunset provision whereby the parcels coned R-3 could not be
-3-
oi�
Council Minutes - 12/9/85
built upon for a period of 60 days to allow for Mr. Sandberg to
complete and get approval of his replotting request. In this
case, if the replatting did not occur, the property would revert
back to R-2, or single and two-family residential.
Mr. Sandberg indicated opposition to the proposal to rezone to
R-3 with any type of sunset provision and indicated if this was
the City's intent, he may just drop all plans to replat the Meadows
and develop as it currently exists. Some Council members felt
that the delays in reviewing the preliminary replat were not the
developer's fault due to Planning Commission's inability to obtain
a quorum and felt that including in the public hearing on January 13
the proposal to rezone to R-3 would not be a detriment to the
City having control over development. Councilaan Blonigen felt
that a sunset provision should be considered if the property is
rezoned before a replat is given approval.
After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded
by Bill Fair to direct the City staff to include on the Comprehensive
Zoning Map public hearing scheduled for January 13 the proposed
zoning of a portion of the Meadows as R-3 prior to preliminary
plat approval. voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Arve
Grimsmo. Voting in the opposition: Dan Blonigen.
B. Consideration of Setting a Data for a Special Meotinq for the
Express Purpose Of Adopting a Resolution Granting Final Approval
to the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds - Applicant, Raindanco
Properties.
Motion was made by Dill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to sot a special mooting of the City Council for 7:45 a.m.,
December 17, for the purpose of granting final approval for the
issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Raindanco Properties.
9. Consideration of Bills to Data for the Month of December.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of December as presented.
10. Consideration of Sign Variance - Burger King Corporation.
Mr. Grog Dolphin, owner of Burger King in Monticello, requested
the following throe variances relating to their pylon sign.
1. Requested a variance of 56 aq. ft- to allow for a 16 x 16 ft.
sign.
2. Requested a variance to increase the height to 75 ft.
which would require a variance of 43 ft.
3. Requested a variance to allow the erection of a prohibited
sign - a lighted message board consisting of 225 aq. ft.
.4.
Council Minutes - 22/9/85
In regards to the first issue of sign height, Mr. Dolphin noted
that due to the Burger King location, the Highway 25 overpass
on I-94 obstructs the view of his sign at the present time. Mr.
Dolphin requested the height be increased to 75 feet from the
present 50 -foot height to allow for better exposure on the freeway,
which would be approximately the same height as surrounding establishments
such as Perkins, Country Kitchen, McDona£ds, and Wendy's.
It was noted by City staff that establishments such as the Silver
Fox Motel, the Oakwood Inn Motel, and other restaurants were granted
height variances; and it would appear that 75 feet would not be
unreasonable in this case. Council members Bill Fair and Fran
Fair noted that the bridge does obstruct the view of the Burger
King sign and both agreed that the City should treat Burger King
the same as the others located in the general area.
Mr. Dolphin noted that with the increased sign height to 75 feet,
their present 144 sq. ft. sign would seem very small; and the
only larger sign that is available is a 16 x 16 or 256 sq. ft.,
thus requiring a 56 sq. ft. variance.
A request was also made by Mr. Dolphin to erect a 225 sq. ft.
lighted message board on the pylon sign that would be used to
advertise bath for Burger King and provide massages on community
events, atc. A presentation on the typo of sign requested was
presented to the Council; but it was noted by the City Administrator
that the City's Ordinances presently do not allow any typo of
lighted mossago board, and thin typo of sign is strictly prohibited
by City Ordinances.
After further review by the Council on the throe variance requests,
motion wan made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to grant two variances to Burger King to allow the sign
height to be increased to 75 fact and to allow the placement of
a 16 x 16 (256 sq. ft.) sign, but not to allow the message board.
Rick wolfstollbr
Assistant Administrator
..g-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELL40 CITY COUNCIL
December 19, 1985 - 7:45 A.M.
A special Council meeting of the Monticello City Council was duly
held at 7:45 A.M., December 19, 1985, in the City Hall. The purpose
of the meeting'was to consider a resolution of final approval
for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for the project known
as the Raindance Properties/Maus Foods Development Project. Members
present were: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen. Members absent: none.
The Mayor called the special meeting to order. City Administrator
Eidem briefed the Council members on the status of the project.
He noted that the original request amount of $1,500,000.00 had
been reduced to 51,075,000.00. He also advised them that there
were title problems developing with the lands in question and
that these matters were being addressed by the title insurance
company and the attorneys. Lastly, he noted that the closing
for the IRB sale was tentatively scheduled for 9:30 a.m. at Holmes
6 Graven's of Yices in Minneapolis.
The Mayor asked if there were any questions on the project. There
being no questions, the Mayor asked for action. .Councilmember
Fair moved the adoption of the following resolution:
Soo Resolution 1985 434. The motion was duly seconded by Couneilmembor
Maxwell. The Mayor asked if there was any discussion. Councilmember
Blonigen stated that he did not wish to debate the project anymore,
but did wish to go on record as being opposed to the use of Tax
Increment Financing and IRB'a for this project. He stated that
in hie opinion, aesioting these developers was inappropriate use
of those financing tools, and that future use of those tools should
be directed toward the small businessman who to faced with financial
difficulty. He indicated in his opinion that the developer and
the main tenant were financially sound enough to have done the
project on their own and would not have needed financial assistance.
The Mayor countered oaying that he felt the use of the financial
incentives was appropriate to develop substandard lands. There
being no other diecuaaion, the Mayor called for the vote. Voting
in favor of the motion to adopt the final resolution: Grimsmo,
Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Maxwell, Blonigen. Voting in opposition:
None.
There being no further business allowed on the spacial mooting
agenda, the Mayor adjourned the meeting.
Thomas A. Eidsm
city Administrator
11
Council Agenda - 1/13/06
4. Public Hearing on an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Text and Map. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This hearing is a now and separate hearing on the adoption of the
revised zoning ordinance. The alterations that were suggested by
the City Council at the last hearing have been incorporated into the
new map. There are a couple of items that cause me some concern from
the land use planning perspective.
First, the change in zoning to R-3 in the Meadows is of some concern.
By incorporating the R-3 zoning into the overall revised ordinance
adoption, the City Council is relinquishing its ability to control
the development in that area. Certainly, the Planning Commission
and Council can still regulate the construction of units in excess
of 12 units, but 12 -unit apartment houses are permitted uses in an
R-3 and require only the acquisition of a building permit. Twelve
unit apartment houses are not conditional uses, and thus, no development
restrictions or conditions could be attached to such construction.
It also would be permissable to erect 12 -unit apartments without pursuing
the roplatting any further. The lots could be sold off under the
exact configuration in which they are platted today, and providing
they have enough square footage, could erect 12 -unit buildings without
condition. In my estimation, to allow development to occur in this
area without any further consideration would be flagrant disrespect
of those citizens to the south of the Meadows who have voiced their
protest and concern over the traffic, density, and development issues.
Both the City's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance itself
refers to the obligation of the Planning Commission and the City Council
to acquire as much information as possible about the potential development
before granting a rezoning which may conflict with an existing use.
By granting this rezoning request within the text of the overall zoning
ordinance (and without a sunset provision), we have granted the rezoning
with virtually no information on the development plan.
In my opinion, it is ill-advised to rezone this without a sunset provision.
If thodoveloper'a intents were to carry through an originally indicated,
than the ounsst provision should not be of concern. On the contrary,
the developer spoke adamantly in opposition to the sunoot provision,
but did not state reasons for that opposition. A frequently used
argument to support this rezoning has been that the City will benefit
oubatantially from the rezoning. This is patently untrue. Indeed,
there are delinquencies against the property, and it in standing idle.
That, to me. dean not constitute a problem, but a nuisance. The true
benefit of development goes to the developer.
The second area of concern with the zoning ordinance comes from a
concurrent request from John Sandberg to rezone the want half of Lot 4
and all of Lot 5, in Block 6, Lower Monticello, from R-1 to R-2, in
order to accommodate S -unit cluster housing. This parcel is the land
Cm
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
fronting on River Street that currently has a block garage that was
converted to a dwelling on it. Mr. Sandberg contends that such rezoning
would not be spot zoning by virtue of Block B lying southwesterly
of his parcel is currently zoned R-3. It is his rationale that the
R-3 zoning lends itself to a lesser density zoning of R-2 on his parcel,
which would then be amidst the R-1 zone. This is where the conflict
point arises, as I understand it. Gary Anderson has informed me that
Mr. Sandberg intends to object to the removal of the R-3 zoning in
Block B under the proposed zoning ordinance. That block under the
proposed ordinance has been rezoned to R-1 since, in fact, the R-3
development never occurred. It strikes me that, using sound land
use principles, if we wish to allow multiple dwellings in Block B,
we would have a mechanism to do so using PZ -R rather than the unrestricted
usages under R-3. R-3 zoning in this half block seems inappropriate
and inconsistent with the remainder of the surrounding zoning. If
the R-3 zone is, in fact, removed under the new zoning ordinance,
then the R-2 request is clearly spot zoning. To allow the R-2 zoning
to occur would be inconsistent with the Councils earlier direction
to re-establish R-1 zoning along the river and River Street. while,
in fact, developments in excess of two units in an R-2 is a conditional
use, the controlling conditions of such a project are much less restrictive
than the control requirements under the PZ -R. It seems logical to
me that if the restrictions provided under PZ -R were, not satisfactory
for development in this area, then R-2 restrictions clearly would
not be satisfactory.
With the exception of soma unsubstantiated rumors, we, do not anticipate
other conflict points over the zoning ordinance. Soma of the rumors
we, have received indicate that there may be inquiries as to why tho
PZ -R was reversed to R-1. Our understanding is that those inquiries
may coma from the wast and of River Street.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the zoning ordinance as published - this would put the now
map and text into plata upon publication.
2. Elect to altar the boundaries of the proposed map - this would
generate a continuation of a hearing and additional notice.
3. Do not adopt the zoning ordinance - thio would leave our current
zoning controls under the terms of the existing zoning ordinance.
C. STAFF RE:COIMIENDATION:
Overall, staff hao not prepared a formal recommondation on this issue.
From a professional land use planning point of view, I rocommond that
the R-3 in the Meadows not be granted unless there is a muncot provision
put in. Clearly, the ounoot provision needs to be of a long enough
duration to allow the developer to adequately prepare a development
-2-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
plan and get it recorded. If the sunset provision is not considered
to be acceptable, then I think the R-3 zoning in that area should
be omitted, which will lead to a continuation of the hearing. The
request to rezone the small tract on River Street from R-1 to R-2
is, in fact, separate and distinct from the zoning ordinance revision.
It does, however, have a direct impact from the developer -a point
of view. If the R-3 zone in Block B is omitted under the new zoning
ordinance, then the R-2 request is spot zoning and should not be granted.
If the R-3 zone is left intact, then perhaps the rationale Mr. Sandberg
is using has some substance. If the overall matter is continued to
a later meeting, it might be wisest for the City Council to adopt
a motion placing a moratorium on all rezoning requests until the matter
is solved finally.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the area being requested to be rezoned along River Street;
The revised zoning map was published in the Monticello Times.
-3-
Parcel for which J. Sandberg is
requesting rezoning from R-1- to R-2
Parc currently zoned R-3, but which
will change to R-1
Linder zoning revision
10 6 g
1-
4 Vi
so OG 46 Go
13 -1
5 4
IA-
3
Is oa so 19
IsOle 60 61; .0 6. ST- so 66 4. so *4 es so as
if If . If 3 11 15
oe I_I
r. Oi
10 In V,
0
11 -
75 02
A-4
a �.�, t T I I t I
so
V)
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
5. Consideration of Ordering Plane and Specifications for water System
Improvement. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On November 25, 1985, the Council discussed and reviewed the water
system analysis prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates. One
part of the discussion centered around the possibility of building
the interconnecting link along County Road 118 across the freeway,
the Burlington Northern Railroad, down County Road 39 East to Mississippi
Drive. It was brought out that a portion of this water main from
County Road 75 to Mississippi Drive would need to be in place prior
to the road improvements the County plans for East County Road 39.
The Council requested that OSM prepare a further cost estimate for
the project and determine if a portion of those improvements along
County Road 118 and East County Road 39 would be assessable.
We received the memorandum from John Badalich just prior to the December 8
Council meeting. At that time, we felt it would be best to mail
out the memorandums and allow the Council to digest the information
until the first meeting in January. It is my understanding that
John Badalich will have an additional memo prepared for the January 13
meeting. This memo may or may not be included with your agenda.
With all the information at hand, it appears that it is time for
some decisions to be made in regard to the water improvements. If
the decision is mado to go ahead with the project, plane and specifications
should be ordered to be returnable most likely by the first meeting
in May, which is the 12th of May. If the scope of the project is
still undecided, it would be possible to order plans and epocificationo
for the entire project making the interconnecting link to East County
Road 39 an alternative.
In addition to the above, some thought should be given to the actual
method to be used for assessment, and negotiations should
be started with the Monte Club for acquiring the reservoir site and
easements to that reservoir site from the Township road, as wall
as any easements that would be required from the Township.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to order plane and specifications
for the entire water system improvements an previously outlined
at an eotimatod cost of 91,113,000.00. The motion would include
an alternate for the County Road 118 trunk watormain to County
Road 75.
2. The second alternative would be to ardor plane and opacifications
dolating the County Road 118 trunk watormain south of County
Road 75 and include only that portion botweon County Road 75
and Mlasicaippi Drive.
-4-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
3. The third alternative would be to delay any action on the water j
system until further study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Council
consider ordering plans and specifications as outlined In Alternative @1.
As I stated earlier, these improvements are currently needed and
would be a necessity to future annexation. If the City at this time
can safely take on the financial responsibility, now is the time to
make the improvements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of memos from John Badallch.
Note: Additional maps and wator studies are available at City Hall
should anyone require them.
-5-
'rY r 1
coam na 48G.4103
WOj W.M[MO63
f11EYro b✓'
`
cor
connn no,
1031 EAST N[NN[►IN Ar[,
411ON[A►OLi OINN[SOFA 55413
EAVnOr:
+613)331.6660
subject: Memo to Tom Eidem
John P. 8adalich, P.E. "
December 5, 1985
1704.09
Proposed water Improvements
City of Monticello, Minnesota
At the November 25, 1985 Council Meeting, the City Council discussed improve-
ments listed below and tentatively agreed to proceed with these improvements
including the watermain extension on C. R. 118 extended to C.R. 39 and thence to
Mississippi Drive. The watermain extension was contingent upon a portion of
this trunk watermain improvement being assessed. It was further concluded that
assessing at least 20% of the project cost and 80% on Ad valorem taxes would be
the method of financing these improvements.
I indicated to the City Council that these improvements would not only provide
better service to the developed properties in the City but would also provide
future service to the undeveloped portions in the southerly and easterly part of
the City. Portions of the OAA area that may be annexed to the City in the near
future would also be served by these improvements. if this is the case, it may
be appropriate at this time for the City to set up a water system capital
improvement fund to be funded by trunk watermain or area charges and connection
charges as a number of municipalities are currently doing. Improvements such as
watermain oversizing, wells, reservoirs, pump houses and elevated tanks are now
being paid for by Ad valorem taxes.
This method of financing future water system improvements is being done by a
number of other municipalities we serve: They are listed on the attached table.
From tabulations noted on Attachment A, the per acre charge for trunk, improve-
ment assessment, or connection charge varies from $1,250 to $1,450 per acre,
except Savage which is $3,485 per acre. Monticello has a minimal charge of
$1,000 per building (6" service line), irrespective of property acreage which
ranges from less than one acre up to 40 acres. This area or connection charge
is usually levied upon occurrence of one of the following: a connection permit
is issued, a specific lateral project is authorized for the area or
neighborhood, development and/or subdivision of the property
In addition to the area assessment or connection charge. those properties
abutting the trunk watermain are also assessed a lateral benefit on the water -
main size normally needed to service specific types of zoning, i.e., 6" lateral
for residential zoning, 8" lateral for multiple dwellings, schools, hospitals,
and 10" lateral for commercial and industrial zoning.
d
Page Two
Mr. Tom Eidem
December 5, 1985
This specific project consists of the following:
1. A new ground level standpipe with 800,000 gallon
capacity at Monti Hill $253,000
2. Interconnecting piping on South C.R. 118 to Monti Hill 103,000
3. One new well and pump house with interconnecting
piping at the reservoir site 218,000
4. Modification of Well No. 1 near the old water tower
and 2-1/2 blocks of watermain in the downtown area 60,000
S. Land cost - 1/2 acre at Monti Hill 5,000
6. C.R. 118 north from Boyle property, trunk watermain
to C.R. 39 to Mississippi Drive 217,000
Subtotal of items 1 - 6 above...... $856,000
Indirect Costs (30X)............... 257,000
TOTAL.............................. 51.113.0n0
Based on the analogy previously set forth, assessments to benefitting property
could be as follows:
6" Lateral Watermain Assessment - 514.50/Ft.
8" Lateral Watermain Assessment $19.00/Ft.
10" Lateral Watermain Assessment a $23.00/Ft.
Area Assessment for Water improvements a $1,250/Acre
For tabulation of property to be assessed, see Attachment 8.
Therefore, from the tabulation on Attachment B, you can see that approximately
one-half of the project cost can be recovered from lateral assessment levied
against abutting property and from the same parcel adjacent to the project.
Projecting further east and west, midway to the next trunk watermain or main
roadway and even southerly into the OAA area, additional area charges could be
recovered to cover costs of this and future improvements.
JPB:nlb
(0
ATTACHMENT A
WATER IMPROVEMENT CHARGES
FOR VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES
TWIN CITY METRO AREA
CHARGES BASED ON ZONING OR BUILDING TYPE
HOSPITAL COMMERCIAL
SINGLE CHURCH/ NURSING INDUSTRIAL/
CITY FAMILY DUPLEX MULTIPLES SCHOOL HOME OTHER
Burnsville $600 $600/Unit 5480/Unit 81450/Acre $480/Unit 81450/Acre
+ Meter + Meter + Meter + Meter + Meter
<------------------------ >YuU lank Charge + Meter----------------------->
PriorLake <---------------------------- 51250/Acre--------------------------------- >
Shorewood* 5950 $600/Unit $400/Unit $1250/Acre 5400/Unit $1250/Acre
+ Meter + Meter + Meter + Meter + Meter
Savage $775 $775 <------------- $0.08/S.F. or $3485/Acre------------- >
+ Meter + Meter
Eden Prairie <------------ $1300/Acre------------>
Monticello $40 $80-5150 $300 <--$300 to $1500 per Connection + Meter-->
-Pending Adoption.
v
ATTACHMENT B
LATERAL ASSESSMENT
POSSIBLE ASSESSMENT
Parcel 000150,
Hoglund PZ -M
5 25,650
19.9 Acres
- 1350' @ $19/Ft.
4.9 Ac x
Lot 19, Hoglund Addition, 200' @ $19/Ft.
3,800
Lot 2, Plaza Add., 164' @ S19/Ft.
3,116
Lot S. Plaza Add., 119' @ $19/Ft.
2,261
Parcel 000122,
Dahlheimer
6,900
4.9 Acres -
300' @ S23/Ft.
* 4.250
Parcel 000121,
Hoglund
4,715
21.9 Acres
- 205' @ 523/Ft.
Parcel
Parcel 000170,
Hoglund
8,510
3.4 Acres -
370' @ S23/Ft .
000170.
Parcel 000150,
Monti Ready Mix
9,545
2.6 Acres -
415' @ S23/Ft.
9.4 Ac
Parcel 000161,
Monti Ready Mix
9,200
17.1 Acres
- 400' @ S23/Ft.
x $ 1250/Ac
Parcel 000170,
Dahlheimer
14,260
27.0 Acres
- 620' @ 523/Ft.
* 24,500
Parcel 000160,
Royle
12,880
9.4 Ac - 560'
@ S23/Ft.
Parcel
Parcel 000210,
Kasper (West.)
55.890
58.9 Acres
- 2430 ' @ S23/Ft.
134400,
Parcel OU0210.
Kasper (East)
15.160
( 19.6 Acres
- 660' @ S23/Ft.
Parcel 000220,
bright Service Oil
14.490
19.1 Acres
- 630' @ 523/ Ft.
Parcel 134401,
Shultz
18,676
32 Acres -
812' @ S23/Ft.
Parcel 134400
Monti Club
10,994
5.0 Acres -
478' @ 523/Ft.
TOTAL LATERAL
ASSESSMENT $241,067
AREA ASSESSMENT
Parcel
00150.
19.9 Ac x
$1250/Ac
• $ 24,875
Parcel
00122,
4.9 Ac x
$1250/Ac
• 6.125
Parcel
00121.
21.9 Ac x
$1250/Ac
27.375
Parcel
00170,
3.4 Ac x
51250/Ac
* 4.250
Parcel
000150,
2.6 Ac x
$1250/Ac
* 3,250
Parcel
000161.
17.1 At
x $1250/Ac
• 21,375
Parcel
000170.
27.0 Ac
x $1250/Ac
33.750
Parcel
000160,
9.4 Ac
x $1250/Ac
• 11,750
Parcel
000210,
58.9 Ac
x $ 1250/Ac
• 73.625
Parcel
000210,
19.6 At
x S 1250/Ac
* 24,500
Parcel
000220,
19.1 Ac
x $1250/Ac
23,675
Parcel
134401,
32.0 Ac
x S12SO/Ac
40,000
Parcel
134400,
5.0 At
x $1250/Ac
■ 6,250
TOTAL AREA ASSESSMENT $301,000
IND
tSPI fTT
' sw tee„ • �. u n 1„ • 1 � r � , adi
`wJ L�..--i
�� r• r..r
12" `-.�..•. � ``"•may / • '• ,,,,,...
(�/��w�'j �"•�•.r,�_ Q..{.1C. '•r�•.�.. �. .' "J•. ` �I.a.. '' 1.
000
00
� reit\�jls:� t � t •tl Jti>,.� '"' •
�, ,� gra � A+_ � � ` , r°_� . �'•
\t ,
77 •
r8 �
exo°
LAMalmoo mMVF"M m1>mbv: P. Badalich, P.E., City Engineer
erre. January 8, 1986
oomm no: ��3591 .10
2021 w31 Mout n611r! Oleeece Water Improvements Fund
■iMMu'OU1.rIMML60u50.13 OMM. City of Monticelln
:6171171 6660
subject: Proposed Water Improvements Fund Revisions
As a follow-up to my memo of December 5, 1985 to Mr. Tom Eidem regarding methods
of financing proposed water improvements, 1 asked Gary Anderson, Building Offi-
cial, to provide me with a list of the building permits issued by the City in
1985.
With this information from Gary, and the water improvement charges 1 proposed in
my [December 5th memo as a means of financing future water improvements in the
City. 1 now propose that these water improvement charges be implemented. This
would enable the City of Monticello to increase their connection charges sub-
stantially in line with other municipalities. Using the revised figures on
Attachment A as a base, specifically the proposed charges for Monticelln, along
with your building permit information for 1985, Attachment C, a great deal of
money could be recovered from new construction in addition to any assessments
levied for lateral improvements.
Total potential revenue for the Water Improvement Fund that could have been
derived from bulding permits in 1985 for single family homes, duplex re.side_nces.
multiple dwellings, nursing home construction, and commercial/industrial
buildings is $84,650. With the monies collected through building permits on an
annual basis, this money can then he used for such future improvements as wells,
pump houses, trunk watermains, control systems, emergency generation equipment,
standpipes, reservoirs, elevated tanks, and oversizing of lateral watermains.
In a matter of a few years, a suhstantial amount of money would he available for
these improvements.
JPB:nib
IN
ATTACHMENT A
Revised
MATER IMPROVEMENT CHARGES 1/6/86
FOR VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES
TWIN CITY METRO AREA
*Pending Adoption.
PROPOSED CHARGES
Monti ceIIo $600 ;500/11nit $400/11nit $1?50/Acre <---------- > $1250/Acre
+ Meter + Meter + Meter + Meter
I
CHARGES BASED
ON ZONING OR
BUILDING TYPE
HOSPITAL
COMMERCIAL
SINGLE
CHURCH/
NURSNG
INOUSrRAL/
CITY
FAMILY
DUPLEX
MULTIPLES
SCHOOL
HOMI:
OTHER �
Burnsville
$600
$600/Unit
$480/Unit
$1450/Acre
$AND/Ilnit
$1450/Acre
+ Meter
+ Meter
+ Meter
+ Metes
+ Meter
<------------------------$200
Tank Chdrye +
Meter ----------
--^
Prior Lake
<----------------------------
$1250/Acre-----------.
Shorewood*
5950
5600/Unit
$400/Unit
$1250/Acre
$400/Unit
$1250/Acre
. Meter
+ Meter
+ Mrter
+ Meter
+ Moter
1 Savage
$715
$775
<------------- $0.08/S.F. or $3485/Acre
------------- >
+ Meter
+ Meter
Eden Prairie
<--..........
$1300/Acre
............>
Monticello
$40
$RO-$150
$300
<-4300 to SISOO
per Connection
+ Meter-->
*Pending Adoption.
PROPOSED CHARGES
Monti ceIIo $600 ;500/11nit $400/11nit $1?50/Acre <---------- > $1250/Acre
+ Meter + Meter + Meter + Meter
1
ATTACHMENT C
Cily 4Monlicer-41to
MONTH;ELLO, MN 55382
December 10, 1985
harN{61212062714
0e1612133,V573e
Mr. John P. Badalich, P.E.
Vice President
Orr-SCholen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 236
sly
ow
Osn
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Fnnflrr
wow raw
�1Ysx46
Dear John:
i. 40 Residential Residences
4Qx$60ll/11nit = $24.Q0D
2. 5 Residential Duplex Rosidoncos
5x2(M/Unit = $5,003
TOM BOND
FWW=O ecMr;
3. 9 Multiple Dwellings.
Rma tYef4M11r
pi44q Was :
A.., 1 - 8 Unit Townhouse
8x$400/Lbit - i3.2W
AMsOnms
B. 2 - 6 Unit Townhousoe
b&$40DA)njt = f4.800
C. 1 - 24 Unit Apartment Building
24xE4(X1/Unit - $9,600
0" Aneenion
ti. 1 - 18 Unit Apartment Building
1&($400/Unit - $7,200
E. 2 - 12 Unit Apartment Buildings
2x12x$ 00/Unit = $9,600
P. 1 - 4 Unit Apartment Building
44400/Unit - S1.15M
4. 9 Commercial Buildings:
f
`
A. General Rental
Block I. that part of lot 4 lying
NLY of I.M. ORWN. WLY PR. PT. on
ELY LN. 128.12 FT. S. of N.E. Car.
0.52 Atx$1250/AC a $650
to PT. on WLY LN. 113.27 PT.
S. of N.W. Cor.
Sandberg South Addition
B. 1 - fluff Auto - Cold Storage Building
REV. nES. NO. 15 BK 162 of DOS. PC.
100 & S. 059 Pt. of that Prt which
Est. 2.0 Acx$1250/At a 52.500
Its B.W. of road.
-
Unpluttud Property
C. i - Monti Motors
Block I. lot 1
0.74 AG;1250/A[ - $925
Thomas Park Addition
U. / - River Road Plaza
Block 1. loco 5 & 6
1.02 Ac $1250/Ac • $1,275
Macarlund Plaza Addition
E. 1 - POWoVU Health Club
,
Block 3, lot 5
1.14 Au$1250/Ac - $1,425
Plaza Partners Addition
260 err Ora4a+W
MuA4 4, Oex 934
wn6d0o. NN 66302
Mr. John Badalich
Page Two
December 10, 1985
ATTACHMENT C
F. 1 - Monticello Nursing Nome
Block 19, Toto 2,4 6 $
Block 20, Iota 1,2,3,4 & 5
6.5 AcxS1250/Ac = $8,175
Block 23, lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 6 10
Block 24, lot 4 EXC. W34 Ft. s lots 5,6
& 8
Lover Monticello Addition
G. I - Monticello Country Club - cold Storage
Building
Lot 2 of Lot B of NEI/4 of NEI/4
1.76 AcxS1250/Ac = $2,200
Unplatted property
11. 1 - Walnut 7 Office - Retall nuilding
Block 6, Iota 4 & 5
0.50 Acx$1260/AC = S625
Original Plat Addition
I. I - Ambuldnco Garage
Block 24, lot 1 6 2
0.550 AcxSlM/X = $625
Lower Monticello Addition
S. i - Public Building
Monticello Fire station 1.0 AuS1250/Ac = $1,250
Block 12, Iota 2,3,4 & 5
Original Plat Addition
If you have any questions. Please feel free to contact mo.
Sincerely,
Cary Anderson
Building Official
Was Total Collected CharWS = $84,650
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
6. Consideration of a Replatting Request to Replat an Existing Lot into
Eight Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot - Applicant, Jay Miller. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jay Miller, co-owner in Colony by the Greens townhouse development,
Par West division, City of Monticello, is proposing to replat existing
Block a, Lot 9, into eight individual townhouse lots with one common
area lot. The replat is before you with the exact measurements where
each individual lot is on this existing lot. All of the minimum
requirements of setbacks and square footages have been met or exceeded
in this replat.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the replatting request to replat an existing lot into
eight townhouse lots and one common area lot.
2. Deny the replatting request to replat an existing lot into eight
townhouse lots and one common area lot.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this replatting request to replat an
existing lot into eight townhouse Iota and a common area lot.
All of the minimum requirements of the ordinance in regards to setbacks
and square, footagos have been met or exceeded.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Location of tho townhouse lot; Copy of the roplat of the existing
lot.
-6-
O
.� LTi—Tlc�nfR g
a r, I •3a �•��n�o h• �j NI
Tr
. .I 1, 1.Y j:: ��—�1•+ 1 1 :fiui Lj•1_., I—R.,.�� ' 't
r•' 'i'N•��'••8` •,',"/.+.1.1 ��1 x'1'1.\ �•",��.!":-
Repl_atting request to rcplat an existing
lot into eight townhouse lots and one common
1 arca lot. `
Jay Miller
0
... S as- 26'02' W
212.00---
-•
$IIb of 141-f oto
{ i
County of Wright
-
--R.•M•o. tr+•e;,a«+�
to lorraolng I.Stntm..t
miiLry Ibaban0 aw Vii,
8
a$
S a
i •i d 'i
aaNICW"w 4ap",'01`w em a oe-
Coe.
J ..a sWo'.
27,66 ' I
u,•
27.66 - • 24 t4
_ 22! 66
2, to
2! a6 - 211• 24.14
slot. Ylnn.aola
aOp
o*
of
C—tr of Wright
~:
8p'
:" c.:•,.OY.
rM lor.yping #not ueant
t,.•:t; ol'.
'
.a+•
Wml. Swdbocla, can!.,
:O.N
r
t'Gh o
i
tV t 2to
:'�
1 %."br coil/y t 1
to6Di7,OW.
O r w
w
"•
St
SEC01t0 J,that
foot
O p x
r t
.^ p
C
O R
•
and hona/olha if •
oa•,ctlr M,/gni/ta an t
A „
•
n
W
+_
O =
rt
�
• Vt
�. 24 D0
2400 tato
2400 Zi 00 2+M
laoo r
2600
O
slat, of SOMOSSto
to {I F'E
i
catmry of Wright
4
+
•
surrwrK,Ni�n." s� .
i
�•
Thlo of
gfo)
7
mailnjat
WO theta—1
W.ppgwarr/atww
oLo !t
Wiat d Cold
=
��
t
Nv •
ala mWOUa ill—
of
.— — •— .,��
•••S M• LG" 02- w
2i2.00---
1
S.ulnai aM .roaaa.,nat
M
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
7. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Mixed
Use (Commercial Office Space and Residential) Within a Proposed New
Zone, PZ -M - Applicant, Seestrom Company. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Several weeks ago, Mr. Wayne Seestrom approached the City to investigate
the possibility of establishing commercial office space for his electrical
company at 110 Washington Street (corner of Broadway and Washington
Street, property owned by Pastor Steve Hammer, lying directly east
of the Phillips 66 station). City staff indicated that as presently
zoned, the proposal was unacceptable, but that the proposed zoning
ordinance called for this property to be rezoned Performance Zone -
Mixed (PZ -M), and that such zoning would allow a mixed use if properly
controlled. Cary Anderson, John Simola, and I mot with Mr. Seestrom
on a number of occasions to evaluate the proposal under the terms
of the proposed zone. We indicated to Mr. Seestrom that we were new
at this and requested his patience. Mr. Seestrom was very cooperative
and very patient as we worked our way through the development plan.
Essentially, Mr. Seestrom's proposal is to convert the second floor
into a single family rental unit, and to convert the majority of the
main floor into office space. The apartment upstairs would be a rental
unit, and the downstairs office space would be utilized by his electric
company as its office center. There will be no retail operations,
nor will there be electrical work performed here. A portion of the
existing garage will be divided off to provide parking for the rental
unit, and a portion of the garage will be used as small storage apace.
Parking to conoidered adequate, and Mr. Soostrom has complied with
the acreening/bufforing requirements that we atipulated. The Planning
Commission gave approval to this proposal at its most recant meeting,
with the contingency that this approval will be effective upon the
adoption of the PZ -M zone. Further, there was no public commont in
opposition to this proposal. The only other matter noted is that
if parking should at come point became a problem along the street.
than the permit will be co-ovaluated, and Mr. S000trom may have to
add extra parking to accommodate the load.
There is really only one difficulty with this project, and it is not
in the proposal itself. Keeping in mind the struggle that to ongoing
over the zoning ordinance, there to always a possibility that the
zoning ordinance will not be adopted at this mooting. If discussion
of the zoning ordinance to continued, then Mr. Soostrom'o proposal
1s technically non-oxistont. The application to for a use under an
ordinance that won't yet exist. From a practical point of view. I
sea no difficulty with granting the approval before the zona is adopted,
especially since there wan no opposition to the proposal. However,
ouch granting of approval, when a zone doesn't exist, is setting a
dangerous precedent. The existing zone to R-1, and to allow a business
to operate in an R-1 could open the door to numorous requests for
businesses to operate in R-1. It is conceivable that since there
is no objection to data of the PZ -M zonon that approval be granted
-7.
Council Agenda - 1/13/66
on the basis that the PZ -M will be adopted and effectuated in the
area in question, regardless; of what might happen to the zoning ordinance.
Having this on the official record could, in essence, preclude granting
approval to other requests where zones are not on the verge of being
altered. Such an action would clearly be an individual case that
very likely could be found to not be setting a precedent.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The alternative actions aro somewhat relative to action taken on the
zoning ordinance.
1. If the zoning ordinance is adopted, grant the conditional use
permit for a mixed residential commercial use.
2. If the zoning ordinance is adopted, deny the request for a conditional
use - such a denial needs to be documented with reasons why the
proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
3. Grant approval to the conditional use, but attach additional. conditions -
staff has considered the establishment of conditions and worked
with Mr. Seestrom on this matter. We fool that we have attached
appropriate conditions that will mitigate any negative impact
the project may have on the neighborhood.
4. If the zoning ordinance is not adopted, postpone action on the
question.
5. If the zoning ordinance is not adopted, grant the conditional
use with a specific stipulation that the conditional use is being
granted under the terms of an ordinance that is fully anticipated
to be adopted in the noar future.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is somewhat perplexed by the situation we aro in at this time.
The project has morit, and Mx. Soostrom has boon extremely cooperative
and patient in developing this. Staff thinks the project is approvablo.
The difficulty lies solely in the fact that the P2 -M zone has not
yet boon adopted. My inclination is that approval could be granted
with the apocific stipulation that P: -M zoning in the area is to follow.
Thio more than likely would precludo other requests to push commorcial
enterprise into an R-1 zona.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the site plan for the project: Copy of the Planning Commission
minutes.
-a_
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
4. Public Rearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow an Office Business
in a Proposed New Zone, PZ -M (Performance Zone Mixed) - Applicant,
Seestrom Commanv. .
Mr. Wayne Seestrom was present to propose his conditional use request
to'allow an office business in the proposed new zone, PZ -14 (Performance
Zone Mixed). Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to the
public Mr. Seestrom's proposed request. Acting Chairperson, Richard
Carlson, opened the hearing for input from the public. Mr. Keith
Kubert questioned as to why this request was being heard when there
is a new zone that hasn't been approved yet, and aren't we putting
the cart before the horse. Zoning Administrator Anderson answered
that even though it is a proposed new zone and is subject to adoption
by the Monticello City Council at their next City Council meeting,
January 13, 1486, the zone has been in place and there has been very
little negative response from the public; and Mr. Seestrom's request
would be based solely in anticipation of the new zone being approved.
Should the new zone not be approved, Mr. Seestrom's conditional use
request would be null and void. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
to Planning Commission members that there aro conditions that apply
to this conditional use request. He must meet the minimum parking
requirements, landscaping requirements, and also some screening requiramants
because wo aro trying to blend a business into a predominantly single
family neighborhood. Although this may not be the bast design for
off-street parking and should his business increase and wo-have more
congestion or traffic around his site, he would have to install additional
off-ar-pet parking to the rear of his garage with an entrance to that
now lot off of East Broadway.
There being no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson,
Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Motion was made by Richard Martial ascended by Joyce Dowling, to approve
the conditional use request to allow an office business in a proposed
now zone, PZ -M (Performance Zone Mixed), subject to the now zone being
approved at the next City Council meeting; and should the off-street
parking for thio site become too congested, Mr. Seastrom must install
additional off-street parking to the rear of the garage and extend
the scroen£ng tone* south along the east side property lino. Motion
carried with Planning Commission members Richard Martia and Joyce
Dowling approving, and Planning Commission member Richard Carlson
abstaining.
3
b6c K r. p
D.;A
r);. t-.. , I 4-11..
I
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and Outdoor
Storage and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone - Aoolicant.
Suburban Gas, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, and I met with the manager of the
Suburban Gas facility in Monticello. Enclosed you will find a copy
of the proposed site plan indicating some landscaping, screening,
and hard surfacing requirements which we were looking for. We are
looking at a solid, opaque screening fence in the front of approximately
60 feet in total length, and a screening fence to the west of the
existing security fence of approximately 150 feet in length. The
larger, heavy, dark spots indicate tree plantings, with the smaller
dark spots indicate shrubs. The maximum number of spaces allowed
for U -Haul trailer parking will be limited to ten. The new enclosed
area in the yellow dash marks indicates space for three U -Haul rental
trucks and also screening of an existing semi -trailer at this facility.
Depending on the interceptor sewer project time table, we would like
tho hard surfacing done at some time after or during the improvement
of 55 Street.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor
storage and rental equipmant in a B-3 Zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage
and rental equipment in a B-3 Zone.
3. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor
storage and rental equipment in a B-3 Zone with the following
conditions:
a. a screening fence of approximately 60 foot in length be installed
in the front, and a screening fence of approximately 150
foot in length be installed to tho west of tho existing security
fenced -in area in thio facility. This fence is to be a minimum
of 6 foot in hoight and no more than 8 foot in height, and
to be a solid screening wood typo of fence.
b. Some typo of tree planting and shrub planting as proposed
in the enclosed site plan.
C. A time table for those tree and shrub plantingo be not for
Juno 1, 1986.
d. Depending upon when Sy Street will be improved this summer,
the hard surfacing for the parking and driveway area of thin
facility be hard surfaced at that time.
a. Sat a completion data of no later than September 1, 1986,
for the hard surfacing of the parking and driveway area.
G15
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request with a
time limit set as to when the tree plantings and the screening fence
will be installed as indicated in Alternative H3. We also recommend
the hard surfacing be done in conjunction with the time table around
the completion of 55 Street; and there be a completion date on the
hard surfacing of the driveway and parking areas to be no later than
September 1, 1986. We do recognize that there will not be screening
in the existing smaller tanks area, which is located to the west
of the existing fenced -in area. However, Council members may choose
to include this area to be fenced -in and/or screened.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy
of the colored plot plan.
-10-
est toa
Use L canal nt °
+� Plato n°1 sto=n9e ba=, Gas
5.3 2 Ao Cent, Sux
�. ��(�j7(f�jj,', a.'a.�.,,C d'l(jJ(Jjlj�� / `•!1W r�.•� - 1 � �
��Ll l / !7 � Jq�J�j j7(,J�� •"rit(JJ _"+tL'„7 � t • pr � ��,, � � -..
1 / t: ""(`•[c,•(C;7J „�t•l:T j•�'J�,j/�j�JjtJj]j,�Jj +, . "„ •'�� r 'b. � ate" "� v
r ,�•.i •r +1 ; ! • '..' it ^'" ��� f -l" A _ ,
14
• � '(Jr Y�^ � 1!' r � I! .$� i � , � �'�': • 1 • (( r`7* r1-•� Gb', 11.
t t GM WAY // \ , � t `� \�^� ..,,2+y� r `�t�t• •
NO. 94
• ,pipg-' � ..: qo,;� ,��� ',
' 1� ^ I �f "I'I .•I � I I , I i .. p OTT PT AI j .
CROSS iii �l!I•lY '�� I�TIA�n4 �S Snu ff PERMIT WL eER
• , r,..
1.ECAL: i,.ON '-LO '•. �'•eR �? I BLOCK ADDITION
--CRIPTION °:LOT' I Ra' •• _
S0, rT. or 'SITE MC► 26A00 ••.I SO. rT. Of AREA OCCtPI ED BY BUILDI NO
INSTRUCTIOPIS TO APeLICANT
TNI, ro.. MCCo or D[ USED —EN PLOT PL -3 OR- TO SCALE ARE rILCD -ITN THE PC+NIT •Pn ICATIO..
TOR NCV CUILOINGs. ►ROvIDC rNC rOLLOw ING INrORNATIONI LOCATION Or PROPOSED rANSTRUCTION ANO EXI:
IMr.O V CMENT,. 'Now
OUILDING ,ITC ANO SCTOAC. DIMENSION,. SNOV EA. -ENT.. r..... ........ O. DRAINAGE. 1
^I.,T rLOOR [L CY AT. ].'OT.CCT CLEV AT ION AND SEVER ELEVATION. Slow LOCATION Of -ER, SEVER. CA,,
.ND ELECTRICAL SERVICE LINES. Slow LOCAT IQ N3
Or SU.VCT P1.3. ,PECI" THC USE Or EACH OUILOINC I
.NO LACN MAJOR PORTION TNC.CCI.
IINDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE I EACH GRAPH SCUARE E.UALS IO, -o" BY 10,-0"
�� I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 •'I- h=:1,11,I.I.�I, I. i 1 1 -I
'I I�I I I •I I IRI I I I I I i I..I !� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I
---j--I--1-I--t--t ��... �..�-I_..I_..I_I�L`11. I-1--I--LI :!•-I I �I I
u I I I I! I.1i
Pill i'°;the
' II tq, lwspI !-, EL
L_ L 1-!-
zz
X 1 1 I•I I I I ,I I1�� I I•I � I � I I I -I I Int I. I �
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ,'i I I I I I I I- I ISI I• I
_¢---I--i-I-I�-i--I--I-- I �-I-I-�I-�I--I-I I-II'f��-�•I � - I
I-• I_r �_1_I i .I_ r
—1— I '�k `• I
CAL, I I I I I I I I I I I
R�,°^` I l l l l l l l l l l
IIV+. C-11, EW In• YOee.ee COMI—tlRN .dl RRIAf a .e IM +o..•n.,Om +b bb N+.N Rewe .b In•1 M Cn•gN wal e• ,w•p• •meal
QI,nniry.e0-0 %tee
.... 0 SAAtb.Q!?Nf��.9s. e,uce
+I ►e+ c1TT�uec�eRLT1��
ILNED . APPROVED BY DATE
0
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
9. Consideration of a Replotting Request to Allow Construction of a
Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant, Vic Hallman. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Vic Hellman is proposing to replat existing Lots 2 6 3, Block 44,
Original Plat Addition, City of Monticello, into two new lots accommodating
a zero lot line duplex. In the replat of the existing lots, you
will note on the site plan that Lots 2 6 3, which face north and
south, will be replotted into one lot on the north part of Lots 2
6 3 and one lot on the south part of Lots 2 6 3. As you will note
on the site plan, we also have access to Broadway for Lot 2, which
will be the lot replotted in the north part of Lots 2 6 3. This
10 -foot land area strip will accommodate land ownership with Lot 2
so as not to create a land -locked lot. The proposed duplex does
meet all of the minimum setback requirements and lot area square
footage and building square ,footage requirements. The lots currently
are zoned R-2 (single and two family residential); and on the new
Comprehensive zoning Plan, they are proposed to go back to R-1 (single
family residential).
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the replotting request to allow construction of a zero
lot line duplex on existing lots.
2. Deny the replotting request to allow construction of a zero lot
line duplex on existing lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the replotting request of Lots 2 6 3
to allow construction of a zero lot lino duplex.
In the planning sense with the layout of the lots, it may not be
the best layout; but it does moot the minimum requirements
of the ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the replotting request; copy of the site
plan showing the proposed replotting of Loto 2 S 3, Block 44.
GvVT LOTL 01
Repiatting request to allow
construction of a aero lot line
�_ •Jy duplex on existing lots_.
-• Tj�t: �' b ' ! \ .� . Vic Hallman.
a
o1Pqr
NEYORS�
TA
V
•r
� 1'sy y'•4�., V
1C
sTg�q�
(
C
1
• DENOTES IRCN MONUNIENr FOUND
d DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
SCALE, I INCH • 30 FEET
OCTOBER 29. 1985
'u•,a rd 1, nl roh .ii, anYt ICRLIJI Ia_or•Ilur r, � •.
ret,.r•10 Plitt, thsreof, !rriq;Ir. emint••, ''!am•e,.•,; an!
altar par-. of 1,.•t U. pto,•L• 9, 411:11: U7101' • ;ordl?
n• ;hr •rem`a! Mar t`Irrror, urlrl.r 'aprrv,
91nnra,.ta Watch IWs roIttLeostutty of a tlAe '.. ,,ar,
fa••[ oo.It:wnararir of. Me%,Irod at rl••Id notate. to
and parol l.•1 rilh Cho nnrthlrnsterlr I1:10 of •nl.t
wt U.
1 Iwra%? eurtifv tilt this snn•vv, pldn er reevrl
vaa Itrepare,l ler re or nn:ler m• direct 4,warvi0on
o:ul that I ao o •a0v Rep.teterrd Iwnll Surreynr cinder
Clio Imnt of 00 94+to o• :llnnrsora.
cr • C'• .:: ���•P� •mss
e.•nnln v. •.1 or �- rvr. an.. ,lata
PAeCt,t 'A = 6,67 /7s srFr.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR
VIC HELLMAN
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
10. Consideration of a Replattinq Request to Allow Construction of a
Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existinq Lots - Applicant, Jerry Barthel. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In review of this replatting request by City staff, it is the recommendation
of the City staff that there be a simple subdivision of these existing
lots to allow for construction of a zero lot line duplex. There
would be no need to replat this. It would be a matter of moving
lot lines to simple subdivide these lots. With the simple subdivision
as indicated on the enclosed site plan, we note that the setbacks
have been met to allow construction of the proposed zero lot line
duplex, and also does allow for the existing residence on Lot B to
come into conformance with our existing aideyard setback requirement,
with their actual new west lot line being at least 10 feet from the
house. The front setback is more than the minimum required by
ordinance, as there are two existing houses on each aide of them
that have different setbacks, and this proposed duplex will be the
average of those two setbacks.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide existing
Lots 9 & 10 into two separate lots with separate legal descriptions.
2. Deny the subdivision request to allow the subdivision of Lots
9 & 10 into two separate building lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the simple subdivision request for Lots
9 & 10. with the simple subd ivioion of those late, it will allow
construction of a zero lot line duplex and also will allow the existing
Lot 8 residence to tomo into conformance with the minimum sidoyard
setback requirements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request,
copy of the site plan showing the proposed simple subdivision.
Mkm
aat to allow aoaation
o la iae dnpl- ones
Of a z
lots' Barthel.
Jerry
r
T-
I
h P
,DENOTES. iRDN -AdNuNiwrFOUND,
mams� mom-moNumda SET' i2
SCALE r;I �INCH -.30 FEET-
NOVEMaER,27'. 1985
V2L`3 46 T 10.�
4- /0
q bcapting ilwati If=, t6.0,941terty Vrt ofL;ot.g
to'.
Plof A'tqht �,uamiy.
14'14 011% mo*.Y. Olin w.I�ep6 -ii.
Lit,
- (ro, -
P4RTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
11. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide One Existing
Residential Lot into Four Residential Lots - Applicant, Douq Pitt. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Doug Pitt is proposing to subdivide one large existing R-1 (single
family residential) lot into four single family residential lots,
with two of the lots fronting on the Mississippi River, and other
other two lots fronting on West River Street.
As you will note, the lots do meet the minimum frontage requirement
of the ordinance, which is 80 feet, and also meats the minimum square
footage as required by ordinance, which is 12,000 sq.ft. Questions
of concern that we have would be regarding the utility easements
to service the proposed new Lots 2 S 3; and if there are any type
of restrictive covenants to go with this, we would like to see those
at this time. Also, on our existing City map, we show a portion
of thin lot being platted as a street. We are waiting for an updated
abstract to the City of Monticello as to what has happened with this
platted street and if it has been vacated. With this simple subdivision
into four lots, we would also be looking for the park dedication
fees.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide one existing
residential lot into four residential Iota.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide one existing
residential lot into four residential Iota.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide one existing
residential lot into four residential lots with the following
conditions:
a. Provide a copy of the utility easements for Lots 2 6 3.
b. Provide a list of restrictive covenants for thio proposed
lot subdivision.
c. Provide the City with an updated abstract of this property.
d. Pay all park dedication fees.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Upon review of the updated abstract to the City of Monticello, we
will determine if we still have a platted street on part of this
site. The staff recommends approval of the simple oubdivision request
with the four conditions as shown in Alternative 03.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the simple subdivision; Copy of the site
plan.
-13-
Pµ1° FggS
t
/ts AL
60 141.
� 1 iii' � :�.`��`�,� ':�•.
�•
61
t' i j '• Ij�i'�'j I t �' r JI ,T•++ r' 9 1
,,, • ��\` "tw :r f •!� ' "u,Ljj+1 � , s r reA•` 7 %ti,r
'TM'e t ` ` . d ".."''"''". +"::+i1TTT _'•.+.47 % d ` � ! rVii.
�� ..fix ..� r ,. ; •rf�r F' t.. '�
der
As
.� re
vol
4olAA4 Maq,
it
74-
V `tq.
fj irlow-w .41$140 w 4
RIVER
FRmr I Sr.)
4.1:5-71
"'000' p
sr. (FRONT
I sr) J%"-
tN
16
0.1
4.1:5-71
"'000' p
sr. (FRONT
I sr) J%"-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
12. Consideration of a Request to Rezone from R-1 to R-2 - Aoplicant,
John Sandberg. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A large, part of this discussion was covered in the agenda supplement
for Item 94, Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission's official
action on this request was to deny the request based upon the direction
taken by the City Council ordering that properties along River Street
remain R-1. Discussions that may have developed under the zoning
ordinance part of the agenda may have bearing on this item, but I
cannot anticipate the outcome of that discussion at this time. Simply
to reiterate. I believe it would be inconsistent with the Council's
own decision to leave River Street as pure R-1 under the proposed
zoning ordinance and then to grant an R-2 zone on a single parcel.
In essence, this rezoning request is very similar to a request made
by Mr. Sandberg for a different parcel approximately 25 years ago
which generated part of the zoning ordinance revision and the discussions
of performance zones residential. For that first request, it was
decided that such a zone change would be spot zoning. To maintain
assemblance of consistency. I think a similar finding would have to
be made for this request. If any housing, other than single family
housing, is desirable along the river, I still contend that the most
affective regulatory provision for the development of such housing
would lio with a performance zone. If the housing stock along the
river is to remain as single family residential only, then in order
to maintain consistency, this request for rezoning should be denied.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant the rezoning request - thin would generate neighborhood
conflict, could perhaps be charged with spot zoning, and would
run contrary to the Council's earlier directive to maintain this
area as R-1.
2. Deny the request - this may generate controversy with Mr. Sandberg,
but would be consistent with your previous directive.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the directive of the City Council, earlier discussions
of this meeting notwithstanding, it would seem inadvisable for the
City Council to grant R-2 in the midat of an R-1 zone for a single
development. It should be noted that the parcel could be subdivided
into two Iota if the rezoning request in not granted. Automatic approval
of the simple subdivision is not guaranteed, but based on other subdivision
approvals, the City might be hard proasad to justify denial of that
subdivision.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map showing the parcel in question wan included under Agenda Item 04.
-14-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
12a. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat in the Meadows (last minute ,
addition to the agenda). (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Due to some apparent mistaken assumptions, the preliminary plat
for Kealy Heights was not scheduled for review at the last Planning
Commission meeting, nor originally on the agenda for this Council
meeting. Mr. Sandberg stopped in to see me Friday morning insisting
that he had the right to be heard, and I have honored his request
by placing him on the agenda. This preliminary plat has come to
the point where Mr. Sandberg has presented his preliminary plat
in final adjusted form. He indicated to me this morning that what
is proposed here is what he is prepared to do. On the flip side
is City staff -a position that the screening and the additional street
should be required from the beginning. This issue is a point of
conflict and must now be turned over to the Council for final decision.
As has been noted several times, replotting this area is essential
to rezoning this area in staff's opinion. If the R-1 existing structures
are properly screoned and buffered, the R-3 proposal has some merit.
I in no way wish to attempt to stop this development, but only feel
that controls should be instigated that will protect the rights
and privileges of those property owners already in the area.
In the supporting data, there is a statement of issues that wan
prepared for the Planning Commission back in December when they
did not meet. I have attempted to be as objective as possible and
simply state the shortcomings based on staff review. Tho majority
of the items have boon addroosed or can vary easily be addressed.
The serious points of contention lis within the roalma of two street
extensions versus one street extension and the screening buffering
issue on the south aide. Since staff and the developer cannot reach
agreement, it is the Council who must make the ultimata decision.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat - this will indicate that Mr. Sandberg
should go to preparation of final plat and return to the Planning
Commission.
2. Deny the preliminary plat - this essentially ends this particular
project for six months. The toning ordinance question may affect
or be affected by your dociaion on this issue.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff stili finds that the preliminary plat has merit, but there
are certain design standards which should be included.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Statement of issues concerning Koaly Heights.
KEALY HEIGHTS
Preliminary Plat Isaues (Utility Design)
1. Water line from SE corner of Lot 3 easterly to cul -de -sae
is not within an easement. Need complete easement.
Internal water should be City lines, not so for sever.
2. Change round castings to rectangular.
3. Kealy Circle should be 7-8 ton design.
6. Provide engineer's statement that the pond to the east
will accommodate the run-off if fully developed as multiple
housing.
As platted - extra streets
30 homes and driveways
As proposed - total street surface reduced
7 multi dwellings
garages and parking
5. Does the ditch along the northeasterly edge of Block
need regrading or any other adjustment?
6. All utilities should go in together in the beginning.
baa
C Preliminary Plat (Land Use Issues)
1. Traffic
a. Marvin Elwood Road must be extended to river.
b. Kealy Circle must be extended to County Road 75.
C. Proposed lots 1, 2, 6 3 must use common dr iveway.
d. Proposed lots 4, 94 ro 10 must use common driveway.
e. Proposed lot 11 must access off of Kealy Circle, though
temporary access can be granted Off of Marvin Elwood Road
until Kealy Circle is built.
f. Kealy Circle construction can be delayed until a building
permit is requested for lots 4, 9, or 10.
2. Development Standards - some type of minimum design standards
should be created that can be passed through to the end developer
from which the Planning Commission and City Council can begin
to evaluate a conditional use request.
3. Screening/Buffering - beginning at the NW corner of lot 23
and extending easterly to the Sw corner of lot 15 and then
euatending northerly 100 ft. The following described screening
will have to be installed within five years ow when a building
permit is requested for lot 4, lot 9, or lot 10, whichever
is earlier:
(. Composition: plantings; troos, shrubs, atc. Fencing; architecturally
harmonious with both single family housing and
proposed multiple. At least 60% of linear footage
will be natural substances; barms may be allowed.
At least 75% of the natural substances must
be overgroon.
Haight: upon construction of lot building on lot 4,
9, or 10 screening should be a minimum of 8 feet high.
At maturity, 75% of the evergreens should be
12-15 foot. Some ovoratory trace are encouraged.
Opacity: upon construction of tot building on lot 4,
9, or 10, screening should be Cully opaque (100%).
Soo planting scheme bolo.:
PLANTED TEN FOOT ON CENTER
Property Line
Planting and erection of fencing may be phased in upon filing
of plat, but must be completed by let building: on lot 4,
9, or 10.
Individual site developers shall be required to add to the
screening efforts, as well as site and building landscaping.
Boulevard shade trees will be required of developers in both
R2 and R3 zones.
4. Open Space/Recreation - individual site developers shall be
required to install and maintain open space and playground
facilities. This can be done jointly or individually, but
must receive City approval.
Preliminary Plat (Neighborhood Issues)
1. Staging from R}- R2 -4R3 -4I2 is reasonable.
2. Is there a need for more multiple? Answer seems to be yes,
based on low vacancy percentages at existing units.
3. Traffic - adequately addressed by requiring both Marvin Elwood
extension and Kealy Circle extension. Further addressed by
requiring common drives which directs traffic to one of these
two street extensions. Also lessens conflict points on Marvin
Elwood Road.
4. Damage values of of existing homes - no evidence locally that
multiples have caused a decrease in saleability of single
family homes. If a "modern ghetto" is allowed to develop,
then this may be true, but if well controlled should have
no ill effects.
S. Increased crime - again, no evidence. Crime in City is down
4% overall. Crime is also not a land use issue, unions a
"modern ghetto" is allowed to develop. We have not allowed
such development to date.
Preliminary Plat (Financial and Other Issues)
1. City should not accept financial responsibility for public
improvements.
2. Developer is opposed to bearing cost of both street extensions;
will do one or the other, not both.
3. If required to do both, developer says he will abandon proposal,
leaving junk yard in place, no street extensions, and sell
off what he can.
d. City must ask, is that a problem. It is, after all, what
we have now. Are existing conditions considered a problem
or a nuisance? If it is a problem, then perhaps City ought
be more flexible in creating a solution. If it's not a problem,
then why compromise our standards. Ask simply - which is
worse, which is best.
a. Remain as is.
b. Develop as is.
c. Develop as proposed.
Staff Summary
I. Utility and street designs shall comply with City standards.
2. Both streets must eventually be installed.
3. Accesses must be limited and controlled.
d. Screening must comply with prescribed plan.
5. City ought not incur development expense.
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
13. Consideration of a Request for a Gambling License.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lioness Club has made application to the State of Minnesota
for a Class B Gambling License, which will allow them to operate pull
tabs within the City. They have stipulated that the site of their
operation would be the Oakwood Inn. This is another one of those
applications where a charitable organization wishes to operate gambling
devices within a liquor establishment which is operated for profit.
On two previous occasions you have ordered that a resolution be sent
to the State of Minnesota asking that the license not be granted.
The reason stipulated for those two denials wan that the City Council
did not wish to have a proliferation of gambling devices occurring
in all of the privately operated liquor establishments, but rather
felt the gambling operations should be confined to those premises
owned and operated by fraternal or non-profit organizations. The
previous requests came from a local Knights of Columbus organization
and from a metropolitan Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. This application
is local.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Take no action allowing the State to issue the license at the
expiration of the waiting period.
2. Adopt a resolution requesting that the State not grant the license.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Thera is no staff recommendation on this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-15-
Council Agenda - 1/13186
14. Consideration of Adopting a Statement of Understanding for a Temporary
Extension of the Fire Services Contract. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Back in June of 19761 at the conclusion of the annexation proceedings,
the City and Township entered a contract for joint fire services that
would last for 10 years. All of us involved asaumad that the 10 years
ran from the date of signing, when in fact the expiration date occurred
on December 31, 1985. The gap in time was brought to my attention
the morning of the 31st by Willie Farn£ck, Fire Chief. His concern
was whether or not the department could respond to fire calls outside
of the City limits in the absence ofa formal contract. According
to the City Attorney'a office, we would have had substantial exposure
to liability claims had we been involved in a tragedy beyond our corporate
limits not covered by a contract. A legal opinion issued out of the
League of Cities earlier further indicated that responding to calls
beyond your city limits without a contract can be determined to be
voluntary response, and as such, sets a precedent where the residents
beyond the corporate limits can expect to have the fire department
respond to calla without charge. In essence, the City could have
faced any number of problems had they responded to a fire call beyond
the corporate limits without a contract. Because we were faced with
such a tight time frame, I drafted a letter of understanding that
was executed by the Town Clark and myself to extend fire services
to the Township for a period of 90 days, while the fire services contract
is renegotiated and re-exacuted. I spoke with Franklin Donn. Chair
of .the Town Board, prior to executing this latter of understanding,
and he indicated that he would be satisfied with the Town Clark executing
the document provided the Town Board could ratify the agreement at
their regular meeting in January. I indicated that I would have
the City Council ratify that letter of understanding at our first
meeting in January.
This letter of understanding to not merely an extension of the old
contract but is merely an arrangement for us to provide fire service
for the next 90 days while a now contract to discussed. Members of
the fire department. Rick Wolfatoiisr, and I all feel that certain
provisions of the fire contract should be re-evaluated before ro-entering
a now contract. Primarily, the action needed at this meeting is to
ratify the 90 -day letter of understanding extending fire services.
The formal fire contract will coma to you at a later data.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Do not ratify the letter - this moans that you wish to discontinue
providing fire service beyond the corporate limits, or that you
ars willing to assume the liability and the expense of fighting
firos in the Township.
-16-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
Z. Ratify the letter - this means that our insurance will stay intact,
and that the Township will pay to the City the fees as stipulated
to cover our expense of responding to fire calla.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the letter of understanding be ratified.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
COPY of my letter to the Monticello Town Clerk; COPY Of the executed
letter of understanding.
-17- j
C
Ottka at the
city Adtniniwraw
city of monticefo
December 31, 1985
pnene: (6121295-2711
McVo! (612) 333-5139
Ms. Darlene Sawatzke, Clerk
Town of Monticello
Monticello Town Hall
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mo. Sawatmko:
According to the City's copy of the joint faire contract, the
contract shall expire at midnight tonight, December 31, 1985.
It is my understanding that with the contract expiring, the
city Volunteer Fire Department no longer has a contractual obligation
to respond to fire calls in a:onticello Township.
Based on information provided by the City Attorney's office,
the City would be substantially exposed to liability claims
as well as other possible charges and claims of impropriety
if wo extended protection without some type of agreement. For
that reason I think it is beneficial to both governments to
extend fire services temporarily while a new contract is negotiated.
In itou of a now contract, I am proposing that the City and
Town execute a letter of agreement for a period of 90 days while
we resolve this contract matter. For thin 90 day period, the
fire department will respond to calla as usual for the following
foe:
$200.00 base fee per call, plus
S 8.00 par hour par man responding to the call
The baso foo reflects our fixed coat whilo the hourly foo is
actual expense boned on our 1985 budget. You can gat this breakdown
in grantor dotail by calling Rick Wolfatellor. The mechanics
of the billings can be worked out right after the Crow Year holiday.
Since it in impoosiblo to negotiate a now contract at this time,
I am asking that you take the necessary stops to mature authorization
to accept our proposal for a period of ninety 190) days. This
will ensure unintorupted fire service for the Township, protect
the City from undue liability claims, and provide moniaa to
cover operating exponae related to Township calls. Two atatamontn
of agreement and signature pages aro attached to thin latter.
Pinson execute both copies and return one to me.
250, East Broadway a Monticetto, MN 55362.9245
Ms. Darlene Sawatzks
Page Two
December 31, 1985
In order to expedite this matter I will accept the statement
signed by either you or the Chair with formal ratification to
follow at your next meeting. in my estimation this agreement
is crucial to providing uninterrupted fire protection to Township
residents, without exposing the City to litigation.
Please call if you ,have any questions.
Ve truly yo s,
Thomas A..Eidem
City Administrator
TAE/bs
Enclosure
J
A FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, that Joint Fire Contract, executed by and between.
the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello on the 3rd day of
June, 1976, does expire at midnight on December 31, 1985, and -'
WHEREAS, a new contract/agreement for fire protection has
not yet been executed, and
WHEREAS, the Township finds it essential to provida fire protection
for its residents at all times, and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to limit its exposure to liability
claims and any other possible claims that'may arise from charges that
the fire department was not duly authorized to respond to calls beyond
the corporate 11mits, and
WHEREAS, the City and the Town find it desirable to maintain
a fire services agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND
THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO THAT: ... .. _
1. This statement of understanding shall remain in force until midnight,
March 31, 1986, unions it is superseded by the execution of a now
fire protection contract. -'
2. The City of Monticello Volunteer Fire Department shall provide continued
fire protection as if said service was under formal contract.
3. The Town of Monticello shall pay to the City of Monticello the following
foe: "
5200.00 baso Coo per call, plus
S 8-00 per hour per firaf ightor responding to the call.
Executed this 31st day of December, 1985.
Town of Monticello City of Monticello
9
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
1 15. Consideration of Bids for Floor Covering for the New Fire Nall. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On January 8, 1986, at 2:00 p.m., bide were received for the purchase
and installation of resilient floor covering and carpeting in certain
areas of the now Fire Station. Bids were received and were under
what was projected to be the total Cost for this installation. The
bids are indicated on the attached sheet.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the low bidder for the floor covering installation.
2. Deny the low bid for the floor covering installation.
3. Stay with the local bid, which is the second low bid, for the
installation of the floor covering.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
we would like to sae the City Council look at the local, second low
bidder of this floor covering installation. There is a 5276.75 price
difference between the two bide.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the bid tabulation for resilient floor covering and carpet
installation.
-1e-
BID TABULATION
FIRE HALL FLOOR COVERING
January B, 1966 - 2:00 p.m.
1. K jellbevg Carpet S Interiors, Inc.
7 NE 8th Street
Buffalo, MN 55313
2. Golden Valley Furniture
155 West Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Base Bid 1 S 168.00
Base Bid 2 $1,362.00
Total $1,570.00
Base Bid 1 $ 199.75
Base Bid 2 $1,645.00 _
Total $1,844.75
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
16. Consideration of Sewer Rate Adjustment. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Early indications are that the total operating costa for the WWTP
and sewer collections systems for 1985 will be $273,289.00. This
is approximately $17,939.00 over the 1985 Budget. This -could have
been a serious shortfall. However, because of excess revenues from
users and hook-up charges, we actually end up with a surplus of $4,910.00
going into 1986.
In preparing the 1986 Budget in late summer of 1985, we estimated
an excess revenue of $11,525.00 for 1985, so we do have a small
shortfall going into 1986. The 1986 Budget at the WWTP and collection
system is set at 5267,150.00. Based upon predictions of flows for _
our industrial users and commercial, residential, and institutional
users, if we were to continue the 1985 sewer rates into 1986, we
would end up with a surplus at the end of the year of approximately
S4,888.00.
One of our goals has been to obtain uniform user rates at the WWTP.
In the past years, we have had to adjust rates each year up or down
alightly to match the revenues and expenditures. It is my fooling
that we are close enough this year not to adjust rates and a rate
assessment could occur again at the and of 1986. There is, however,
one bookkeeping item dealing with the rates that should be adjusted.
Currently, our minimum is $8.00 for the first 500 cu. ft. of sewer
usage. Five hundred cubic foot of sower usage at today's rate costa
$6.45. This loaves $1.55 per quarter for the motor reading, bookkeeping,
bill processing, mailing, and accounting for sower billings. We
have not had an increase in the minimum billing since 1981, at which
time it was $5.00. We propose at this time to raise the minimum
billing to $10.00 par quarter. This minimum billing of $10.00 is
on a par with the minimum monthly billing for natural gas and lose
than the minimum monthly billing for telephone and electric. This
would than provide approximately $3.55 par billing period for the
billing related Costa. This is closer to actual costa, but may have to be
revised in the future.
The following is the proposed 1986 rate schedule for oanitary sower
use in the City of Monticello.
Individual Industrial Discharge Rates
Flow: 50.688 par 100 cu.ft. ($10 for the tat 500 cu.ft. or part thereof)
BOD: $0.095 par pound
TSS: $0.165 par pound
-19-
Combined Rate
Rete for residential, commercial,
and institutional properties
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
$10.00 per quarter minimum billing
for the let 500 cu.ft.
or part thereof.
Additional cubic feet at
$1.29 per 100 cu.ft. or part thereof:.
1. Alternative 11 would be to adopt the 1986 Sever rate as outlined
above.
2. Alternative 12 would be to adopt the sewer rate for 1986 as outlined
abovo except to keep the minicun sewer billing at the current
$8.00 for the 1st 500 cu.ft. or part thereof.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the
1986 sewer rates as outlined abovo under Alternative pi.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 1986 Budget for the WWTP.
-20-
C ,
1986
5240,000.00
0.00
10,000.00
750.00
375.00
300.00
4,200.00
0.00
$255,625.00
SEWER FUND
yy
`L
1986
BUDGET
FUND N0.
61
1985
REVENUE
3076
User Fees
$239,200.00
3077
Special Customers
0.00
(Wrightco-Payments for Equipment)
3075
Hook-upa
4,000.00
3078
Penalties for Late Payment
600.00
1601
Special Asaessments Including Interest
450.00
3583
Miscellaneous
400.00
4085
Lindberg - Rental House
4,200.00
2554
CE -A Reimbursement
6,500.00
TOTAL REVENUE
$255,350.00
C ,
1986
5240,000.00
0.00
10,000.00
750.00
375.00
300.00
4,200.00
0.00
$255,625.00
•,r
' J
SEWER rUND
'• y,
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
1986 BUDGET
,
FUND NO.
61
-
1985
1986
Personal
Services
--'-
7611
Salaries, Regular
$14,400.00
$15,350.00
7612
Overtime, Regular
1,650.00
1,750.00
7613
Salaries, Temporary
1,350.00
1,850.00
7615
PERA
900.00
800.00
7618
Insurance, Medical & Life
11850.00
1,800.00
7619
Social Security
1,150.00
1,400.00
521,300.00
$22,950.00
Supplies
7623
General Operating Supplies
950.00
1,500.00
7624
Motor Fuels & Lubricants
600.00
1,000,00
7625
Clothing Supplies
300.00
200.00
7626
Maintenance of Equipment Supplies
1,250.00
950.00
7627
Maintenance of Vehicle Supplies
150.00
150.00
7622
Small Tools and Minor Equipment
100.00
100.00
S 3,350.00
3 3,900.00
Other Services and Charges
7636
professional Services
4,200.00
_3,000,00
7638
Travel-C onforence+Schools
225.00
200.00
7642
Utilities, Electrical
1,300.00
1,700.00
7644
Maintenance of Equipment
2,150.00
1,300.00
7646
Maintenance of Vehicles
500.00
300.00
7648
Dues. Memberships, Subscriptions
25.00
50.00
7637
Communication - Phone, Postage
200.00
200.00
S 8.600.00
5 6,750.00
Capital outlay
,
7660
rurniture and Equipment
1,500.00
0.00
TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTE:75
534,750.00
$33,600.00
SEWER FUND
PLAVT G LAB
1986 BUDGET
FOND NO. 61. -
1985 1986
Personal Services
7711 Salaries, Regular 581,500.00 S 86,400.00
7712 Overtime, Regular 4,400.00 4,000.00
7713 Salaries, Temporary 7,500.00 7,500.00
7715 FERA 4,700.00 4,100.00
7716 Inaurance, Medical 6 Life 6,800.00 7,100.00
7719 Social Security 6,700.70 7,40.00
$111,000.00 $116,550.00
Supplies
7721 Office Supplies 1,900.00 11900.00
7723 General Operating Supplies 11,500.00 15,500.00
7724 Motor Fuels 6 Lubricants 5,500.00 3.700.00
7725 Clothing Supplies 3,600.00 2,950.00
7726 Maintenance of Equipment Supplies 11,000.00 11,000.00
7727 Maintenance of Vehicle Supplies 1,300.00 1,300.00
7728 Maintenance of Building Supplies 1,600.00 1,650.00
7722 Small Tools and Minor Equipment 1,250.00 11800.00
537,650.00 $39,800.00
Other Services and Chargee
7736 Professional Services 3,900.00 4,000.00
( 7737 Communications 2,000.00 2,250.00
l 7738 Travel -Conference -Schools 1,000.00 11000.00
7742 Utilities, Electrical 36,000.00 39,000.00
7743 Utilities, Beating 21,100.00 23,000.00
7744 Maintenance of Equipment 1,600.00 5,000.00
7746 Maintenance of Vehicles 800.00 800.00
7747 Rental of Equipment : • 350.00 350.00
"748 Dues, Memberships. Subscriptions 100.00 100.00
7751 Books 150.00 50.00
7755 Miscellaneous 75.00 -'75.00
7745 Maintenance of Building 300.00 300.00
{including Lindbarg! '
7753 :axea 6 Licensea.. 1,275.00 1,275.00
56$,650.00 $77,200.00
C.,p_tal 01 lay
7759 t=ciocemer.i other Than Buildings 800.00 0.00
7760 iurniture end Equipment 2,500.00 0.00
S 3,300.00 S 0.00
TOTAf: PLL!' hN6 LM $220,600.00 $233,550.00
Ll 3. E /(�
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
17. Consideration of Maintenance Agreement with Wright County for County
State Aid Highways in Monticello. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For many years now, the City of Monticello has each year entered
into an agreement with Wright County to maintain certain County State
Aid Highways in Monticello. In the past few years, our amount of
maintenance under the contract has been reduced to the following:
CSAH 39 - From the Public Works Building to CSAH 75 (Broadway) -
258 of snow and ice removal.
CSAR 58 - Walnut and 7th Street from CSAR 75 to Highway 25 - All
maintenance.
CSAR 59 - Locust and 4th Streets, from CSAR 75 to Highway 25 - All
maintenance.
CSAR 75 - From Willow Street on the west to County Road 118 on the
seat - snow and ice removal only.
The County reimburses us each December an amount based upon the types
of maintenance we do and the number of road miles calculated at the
County -o actual cost per mile for the previous year. We, therefore,
receive a chock in December of 1985 for the work performed in 1985
but based on County coats in 1984.
We generally receive between $4,000 and $5,000 for the above maintenance
($5,433.19 for 1985). The County reimburses us for all types of
maintenance that we do, with the exception of snow removal by hauling.
A copy of the proposed 1986 Maintenance Agreement is onelosed for
your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
i 1. This alternative would be to approve the Maintenance Agreement
as presented.
2. This alternative would be to release the maintenance back to
Wright County for all or a portion of the above referenced streets.
This alternative may not be feasible, as the level of oorvica,
in my opinion, would drop.
3. This alternative would be to request a higher dollar amount per
mile than in currently being offored by the County. This alternative,
I believe, would not be succooeful, as the County astablichoo
I their coats and uses those Coate to administer contracto with
variouo townships and municipalities throughout the County.
-21-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you approve
the 1986 Maintenance Agreement as outlined in Alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Maintenance Agreement.
-22-
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of
Monticello hereinafter referred to as the -City" and the County of
Wrloht hereinafter referred to as the "County".
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate
certain roads and streets within the City as County State Aid Highways, and
WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State
Aid Highway within its limits as identified in County Board's resolutions
Of August 28. October 8, November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and
January 7, 1958, and
WHEREAS, It is deemed to the beat interest of all parties that the duties
and responsibilities of both the City and the County as to maintenance on
said County State Aid Highways to be clearly defined,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard t0 said County State Aid Highway
maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the
following highways.
A. CSA" 39 - From City Pub. Work.. Bldg. to W. Jct of CSAR 75 0.32 mi
8. CSAH 58 - From T.H. 25 to CSAR 75 0.465 mi
C. CSAR 59 - From Walnut Street to CSAH 75 0.234 mi
D. CSAH 75 - From Willow Street to E. Jct. of CSAR 39 3.74 mi
(Includes four lana portion.) TOTAL 4.759 m1
That theroutine maintenance shall consist of the following for the above
listed sections.
A. (CSAR 39) - 25% of the snow and ice removal
B. & C. (CSAR 58 a 59) - Patching, crack -sealing, drainage maintenance,
snow and ice removal, and tree trimming 6 brush removal.
D. (CSA. 75) - Snow and ice removal
A
That when the City deems It desirable to remove snow by hauling, it shall
do so at its own expense.
That the County will be responsible for all other maintenance .
That in December of 1986 , the City shall receive payment from the
County for their work. Thia amount shall be based on the 198 5 average
annual cost per mile for routine maintenance on Municipal County State Aid
Highways. The average annual Cost par mile will ceflact only those costs
associated with the areas of routine maintenance for which the City is
rosponaibla.
ADOPTED:
19
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
CERTIF ICATION
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of e
resolution duly passed, adapted and approved by the city Council of said
City on , 19—_
City Clark
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
� Name of City
COUNTY OF
Chairman Of the UOOrtl
ATTEST: '
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
� 18. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments. IT. E.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of the new year
certain appointments be made. Past practice has been to pass a single
motion adopting all appointments at the end of discussion. This strikes
me as the most efficient manner. Hence, I am submitting to you a
list of the required appointments and requesting that at the completion
of discussion, a single motion be passed making the appointments.
a. City Depositories. This past year, you designated four official
depositories. They are: Wright County State Bank, Security Federal
Savings and Loan', First National Bank of Monticello, and First
Bank of Minneapolis. I suggest that the came four be appointed
for 1986. In addition, Minnesota Statutes now allow a governing
body to authorize the Treasurer or Chief Financial Officer to
exercise the powers in designating a depository of the funds.
Technically, in the past we should have purchased investments
only from the four official depositories. Frequently, a financial
institution other than the four which have been officially designated
offer batter returns. In order to purchase those investments
yielding the better interest rates, the institution should be
made an official depository for City funds. Since our investments
frequently rotate on a 30 -day basis, it would necessitate us coming to
a Council meeting every month to ask for a now designation of
an official depository. Under the existing Statute (MS 239),
the governing body may authorize the Chief Financial Officer to
dosignato an official depository. By authorizing Rick to designate
an official depository, he then has the latitude to shop for investments,
and upon finding the most advantageous opportunity make the designation
and tho investment. The action we aro requesting is the official
designation of the four named depositories and, in addition, empowering
the Finance Director for the City to designato additional official
depositories for investment purposes.
b. Official Newspaper. Monticello Times.
C. Health Officer. Historically, Dr. Maus has served as the City
Health Officer. The duties and service of the health officer
have boon oxtromoly limited, and I suggest you simply renew the
appointment.
d. Housing and Rodavolopmant Authority. Ono appointment is required
for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. HRA appointments
aro made by the Mayor with ratification by the City Council.
HRA terms are for a poriod of 5 years. Mr. Bon Smith, who accepted
an appointment to fill the vacancy of one of our departing members,
ham agreed to accept an additional 5 -year Corm. All other HRA
momboro are in mid-torm and have given no indication of plana
to vacate their moat. Mr. Smith has boon a dedicated member,
and staff recommends the reappointment of Ban Smith for a full
5 -your term.
-23-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
e. Acting Mayor. Annually, one person on the Council must be stipulated
to act as Mayor in the absence of the elected Mayor. This past
year, this rose has been filled by Fran Fair.
f. Representatives to Other multi -jurisdictional Bodies. These three
appointments are simply a matter of selecting the City representative
to serve on each of the following bodies: The Community Education
Board, the Jo int Fire Board, and the OAA Board.
g. Library Board . There are two, 3 -year appointments required for
the Library Board this year. Those people are Donald Maus and
Pat Schwartz. According to Warren Smith, who serves on the Board,
both individuals have agreed to accept reappointment for another
term. The Library Board, by ordinance. requires a Mayoral appointment
with Council ratification.
h. Parking Committee. This committee has not mot in the last two
years. In fact, in -1985 the Parking Committee was reduced from
five members to three members. In the last two years, we have
soon parking requirements regulated most effectively by the zoning
ordinance. Eurther, the now zoning ordinance has incorporated
into the text substantial now material on parking; and since the
ordinance will regulate the parking requirements for developmont.
I believe that the discretionary committoo can be disbanded.
By regulating parking through the zoning ordinance, we tend to
apply more objective standards to parking requests. Like any
other zoning evaluation, the Planning Commission and the Council,
as tho Board of Review, will still exercise discretionary judgement
at a point of conflict. Under this system, the Parking Committee
becomes aimply another level of review which hoe no decision making
power. If a serious parking conflict arises, both the Planning
Commiaoion and the City Council certainly would have the power
to create an ad hoc committee for the sola purpose of evaluating
the parking roquost. In my estimation, those procedures would
allow for careful and fair review of parking controversies, thus
making the Parking Committoo as a permanent body unnecessary.
I recommend that the final appointing motion carry a mention of
the dinoolution of the Parking Committee.
I. Planninq Commission. The Planning Commission in made up of five
members eary ing one year appointments. For 1986, three Planning
Commission members have agreed to accept reappointment, while
two members have declined. Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, and
Richard Martio have agreed to accept another year appointment,
while Jim Ridgeway and Ed Schaffer have declined. Thio leaves
two vacancio a that require now persona for appointment. As wo
have done in the past when faced with a vacancy, we have attempted
to solicit i ntarsatod parties rather than post a general help
wanted typo ad in the paper. The names ouggootod by staff and
Planning Commission members aro as follows: Roger Hodtko, owner
of Snyder Drug. Mr. Hodtko currently servos on the HRA and has
three more years remaining in his appointment. Only with Don J
Cochran have we duplicated membarchipo on the HRA and Planning Commission. •v
-24-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
Dan Carlson, owner of Foster Franzen Carlson Insurance Agency.
Dan declined the invitation to serve based on his recent acquisition
into the business, as well as other assorted business interest
in the community that will take his attention. Dan Carlson would
like to be kept in mind for future consideration, but finds this
particular year to be inopportune. Warren Smith, owner of Monticello
Office Products. Warren has indicated a willingness to accept
an appointment and stated that he feels Planning Commission would
be an excellent entry into greater community involvement. Warren
has his Bachelor's Degree and is a many year resident of the
community with his family. Barbara Koropchak (no relation to
011ie) is the director of Social Work Services at the Anoka State
Hospital. She resides in the MacArlund Plaza townhouses. She
has a Master's Degree in Social Work. She is extremely interested
in governmental functions, but has not taken an active role in
Monticello as yet. The invitation to accept an appointment has
been extended to her, but she is as yet undecided. we will receive
a definite decision from her by Monday evening.
Essentially then, we have Warren Smith who is committed to accepting
an appointment and Barb Koropchak who may accept an appointment.
If Barb Koropchak declines the appointment, then we may wish
to either solicit other interested people or place an ad in the
paper calling for interested persons. If it is not possible
to complete the appointment process, this need not be considered
a problem since the Planning Commission will not meet again now
y until February. The Council would have two more meetings to
discuss a potential fifth person for the Planning Commission.
-25-
Council Agenda - 1/13/86
The following appointments are not required to be made annually by
Statute. Each of them are designated to perform services on an ae-needed
basis and may or may not be finalized with a contract. In the past,
you have made a practice of making these appointments'at the annual
meeting.
J. City Attorney. Gary Pringle has filled this office for the City
for several years. In 1985, the Council made the official designation
of Smith, Pringle and Hayes as City Attorneys. I suggest this
appointment be made in the same fashion.
k. Consulting Planner. Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban (formerly Howard
Dahlgren & Associates) has been the City's planning firm for a
number of years. Again, while this need not be a formal appointment,
such an appointment can be made at this time. Such -an appointment
does not preclude the Council from engaging other consultants
at any time they wish.
1. City Auditor. This, again, is not a required annual appointment
but can be done on an ae-needed basis. Historically, we have
used Gruys Johnson to do our audit. As I have mentioned in previous
years, when we automate our accounting system, it probably will
be beat to prepare bid specifications for auditors. At this time,
however, we have only asked Gruys Johnson to submit a formal quote
on preparing our audit. Rick Borden responded that without detailed
specifications upon which they might quote, they cannot roport
a specific dollar amount, but he did indicate that he will guarantee
that tho 1986 audit (for financial year 1985) will not exceed
the dollar amount expanded in this past year for auditing services.
This statement will be provided in writing. Audit services last
year coat $9,975.00. If you wish to have formal spocificationa
prepared, we can do so on Council direction, and this would allow
us to bid the audit this year. If you wish to go to detailed
bid proposals, then this appointment should not be made at this
time.
m. Consultinq Engincer. For the pact two years, we have not made
the annual appointment for Consulting Engineer within the context
of this agenda item. Rather, we have evaluated and analyzed the
contract cervices with OSM as a separate and distinct agenda Stam.
Since we have not yet mat with OSM on any of the torms and conditions
in the engineering contract. I suggest that wo simply pass over
the ongincoring aspect and plan to have this matter tomo before
the Council at a later meeting. No appointment would oven be
u nocoaoary during this interim period.
S
a The attached chest, as supporting data, lista all of the appointments,
— v
both required and aiocrotionary, for this yoar'a mooting.
c.
e
J
ii Y /J
-26-
Official Depositories:
Official Newspaper:
Planning Commission:
(1 year appointments)
HRA:
(ataggorad 5 year appta)
Library Board:
Parking Committee:
Other Jurisdictions:
(1 year appointment)
Acting Mayor.,';
i
City Attorney, � '� �' �• � � '
i
Consulting Planner:
Auditor:
Health Officer:
(1 year appointment)
ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS
1985
Wright County State Bank
tet National Bank of Monticello
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
lot Bank of Minneapolis
Monticello Times
Jim Ridgeway
Ed Schaffer
Richard Carlson
Joyce Dowling
Richard Martio
Kan Maus (to fill remainder
of Cochran's term)
Bud Schrupp
Joel Erickson
Warren Smith
Dennis Seitz
Morh Flicker
Bud,Schrupp
�i
Community Education -Bill Pair
Fila Board -Rick Wolfatollor
OAA-Arvo Grimomo
Fran,Fair
i;deV!Pringle/Smith, Pringle, Hayes
Howard Dahlgron 6 Associates
Gruya Johnson 6 Associates
Dr. Maud
4
1986
Wright County State Bank
tet National Bank of Monticello
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
lot Bank of Minneapolis
and empower Finance Director
to dooignato additional depositories
Monticello Times
Warren Smith
Richard Carlson
Joyce Dowling
Richard Martis
Dan Smith
Dr. Maus
Pat Schwartz
Dissolve
Community Education
Piro Board
OAA
Gary Pringle/Smith;, Pringid, Hayas
V
Dahlgran, Shardlow6,Uban
Gruya Johnson 6 Associates
Dr. Maus
BALANCE OF DECEMBER BILLS
GENERAL FUND __
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D.
525,000.00
21625
Q3ept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
152.00
21626
Bridgewater Telephone - Fire phone charges
17.06
21627
Simplex Time Recorder Co. - Repair of city hall clock
466.08
2L628
Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
40.00
21629
Dept. of Natural Resoruces - Dep. Reg. fees
322.00
21630
Dept. of -Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
27.00
21631
Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages thru 12/12/85
1,776.00
21632
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal Imp. expense
35.00
21633
Thomas Eidem - Mileage 6 mist. meals for Dec.
319.30
21634
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
225.04
21635
David Stromberg - Animal control services
212.50
21636
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services as Library
172.92
21637
M. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,608.91
21638
State Treasurer - FICA W/H
2,977.90
21639
Olive Ko ropchak - Mileage and meals expense for 1985
45.44
21640
Fullerton Lumber Co. - Payment A5 for Fire Hall
18,335.00
21641
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
3,688.63
21642
Greg Vet sch Construction - Payment on city hall roof
6,772.00
21643
VOID
-0-
21644
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
120.00
21645
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage
61.50
21646
Mark's Realcy - Purchase of Wilbur Eck property
137,468.65
21647
Wright County - Fees on Eck property
3,607.60
21648
McDowall Co. - Repair of furnace at Library
1,412.95
21649
Dept.of Not. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
150.00
21650
Dept. of Nat. Res. -Dep. Reg. fees
15.00
21651
_'"'Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
21652
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded.
88.00
21653
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
6,006.50
21654
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
21655
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
21656
Dan Blon igen - Council salary
125.00
21657
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
21658
William Fair - Council salary
125.00
21659
Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense
250.00
21660
YMCA of Mple. - Monthly contract payment
458.33
21661
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall
308.35
21662
Williams on-Kotsmith, Inc. - Prints of River Road Plaza Imp.
32.25
21663
Persian's - Dictating machines and cassettes
716.50
21664
Power Process Equip. - Parte for meter at reservoir
180.25
21665
Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental fees
140.80
21666
Little Mountain Electric - Smoke detectors in city's house
160.00
21667
State Treasurer - File cabinets and tools - Mtce. bldg.
84.50
21668
Phillips Petro. Corp. - Gas
23.24
21669
Mobil Oil - Cas - Fire Dept. b Water Dept.
258.15
21670
Nelson Oil - Cas - Mtco.
120.12
21671
Cordy Link - Cos - (Doisel)
551.69
21672
Dahlgren, Shardlow, ate.- Planning fees for Nov.
1,218.75
21673
James Kellogg - Manuals for truck repair
134,00
21674
Lindberg Decorating - Paint and brush
6.47
21675
J. M. Oil - Gas - St. Dept.
1,524.00
21676
a `-?i.rst Bank Mpls. - Public fund chargee
4.00
21677
sed Rite Controls - Sample
10.00
21678
Flicker's I. V. - Frig. repair at Library
28.95
21679
Tom Eidem - Supplies for City Hall
5.82
21680
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Adams �est.Control - Contract at Library
39.70
21681 -
1' $Ig o*e Equipment - Repairs
54.21
21,,C
AsecPil - Gas
14.3 1
21683
-Scat 'f-MM.-Boiler inspection ar WWTP
20.00
21684
'n:Pace LRboratorles - Labanalysis at WWTP
162.00
21685
,sjpavis �lecgronic,- Pager batteries for Fire Dept.
67.00
21686
E=:Willard Farnlck,-:Travel expense for Fire Dept.
33.50
21687
(.F191ive �Coropchak;- Ind. Dev. expenses
33.52
21688
!L:a1Y b T,Inf;r$yatema.- Fire phone charges
3.77
21689
_L':-,State pf MN..:r lM7; State Plumbing Code book
10.50
21690
Fnvirex, Inc,&C!2.!bronze Worm gears
82.00
21691
:Qruys' Johp9on :-Computer charges for Nov.
290.00
21692
l;r Nation`1 Buabin% - Misc. supplies
83.99
21693
Oept. bf Nat,;Res. -'Dep. Reg. fees
196.00
21694
-1Aept. bf Nat,:.Res. -Dep. Reg. fees
18.00
21695
13ational Bushing„ Parts and supplies
45.75
21696
4El ftnticello d'ime's - Misc. publishing and printing
1,319.50
21697
0-�?:Pitney( Bowes,- Postage machine
65.59
21698
!t.JJright County HIghway Dept. - Salt and culverts
2,556.40
21699
_ !Feed Rite Cgntmla - Sample
10.00
21700
1*IZleglec, Inc.!- Cutting plow blades
313.56
21701
_aI'MBCQue�n Equip'. - 2 blade savers
354.37
21702
__113nrco Products- 2 blades
455.08
21703
t. Cloud Appraise! - Appraisal fees for interceptor sewer
1,100.00
21704
:'State Capitol' Credit Union - Payroll ded.
225.04
21705
6=_.David Stramberg - Animal control payment
212.50
21706
'*!.Jerry Hermes.- Janitorial services at Library
172.92
2I7��+
J:!Monticello•Tovnship Clerk - Govt. Aid payment
72,000.00
217x`--
' F,lrst National Bank of Monticello - C. D. purchase
75,000.00
2170:
Wright�County State Bank - C. D. purchase
340,000.00
21710
Wright CountyState Bank - FWT - Dec.
4,246.00
21711
Commissioner of Rev. - SWT - Dec.
2,252.00
21712
:.State Treaswer, - FICA W/H
2,609.97
21713
Z:I:MN. Se tecTroaaurer 1 PERA W/H
1,393.94
21714
>!,Dept. of Otm.-, Ras. -IDep. Reg, fees
36.00
21715
e I:D t. f If t-.!Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
39.00
21716
:.:Dept. f Nat;.;;Roe. - Dep. Reg. fees
368.00
21717
n;:Wright CougtyIRacor - Postage 6 handling foes
2.00
21718
.T
I6_:CurtinIMathoson Scielcific - Supplies at WWTP
58.71
21719
:rl!Automotic Ggragq'Door - WWTP mtce.
30.00
21720
'Smith, Pringl'o,�6 Hayda - Legal through Dec.
I,I46.00
21721
.0.:2leglei, Ing:'T.Fan resistor
32.92
21722
"•_1Johnsod'a,•Dgpt.; Store - Coveralls
84.00
21723
66.:Transp4rt:CJear.ing -:Freight on snow plow blades
43.31
21724
'•::Maus F.ods•�($uppli.en for all Depts.
122.96
21725
88Jnear aia$'ai0ffica Supply - Calculator repair
49.20
21726
(elWnryAnder+8oap- Mile go - Dec.
63.19
21727
0:151 I OO.e;
Payroll 1 for Docambel'
28,971.20
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR DECEMBER
$1,254,519.76
LIQUOR FUND
BALANCE OF DECEMBER DISBURSEMENTS - 1985
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
Eagle Wine - Liquor
Quality Wine - Liquor
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
Quality Wine - Liquor
Twin City Wine - Liquor
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
State Treasurer - FICA W/H
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for November
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
Ed Phillips & Sons - Liquor
Eagle Wine - Liquor
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
Twin City Wine - Liquor
Ed Phillips - Liquor
Twin City Wine - Liquor
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
St. Cloud Refrigeration - Ice machine repair
Roosevelt Road Liquor - Freight charges
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
Wright County State Bank - FWT - Dec.
Cimmissioner of Revenue - State W/H
State Treasurer - FICA W/H
State Treasurer - PERA W/H
Cruys, Johnson - Computer charges - Nov.
Frito-Lay, Inc. - Misc. mdse.
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse.
Coast to Coast - Store expense
Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdse. "
Joe Hartman - Reimb. for exit sign lights
Vern Reiman - Repair pumps
Scromquist Dist. - Misc. mdse.
Monticello Office Products - Supplies
Quality Wine - Liquor
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse.
Thorpe Dist. - Beer, etc.
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse.
Maus Foods - Store supplies
Yonak Sanitation - Monthly contract payment
Gary Reitan - Security at Liquor Store - Dec. 24
Berlyn Birkholz - Security at Store - Dec. 31
Payroll for December
(1
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - DECEKBER
AMOUNT - CEItCK
246.08 '111127
1,467.53:_, - 12128
2-.07C64- - - 12129
110.00 ' "- 1'2130
-' 165:27-'--' 7 1213I-
1 . 182.744' =' 12132
10,158,16• •12133
-153.80 12134
262.88 "12135
7,035.72 .3-12136
444,39' 12137
3,475.59 - -`12138
750.89 ' 12139
7.000.62 12140
4.379.59 12141
1,6.01.23 = -(2142
603.737 X1.2143
170.00 .12144
- 75.45 12145
131.25 12146
25,000.00 12147
497.00 12148
181.00-' • ?' 12149
236.86 -'- 12150
138.58 1-2151
110.00 12152
63.13 12153
286.05 12154
107.11: .12155
•114.M -1 1 .132156
17.50 :42157
14.78- 12158
95.75 - ' 12159
17.70' ' 12160
37:98 --N N 161
1.172:54 - 12162
321.45- ' '?2163
3,471.67 =12164
671:56- 12165
340:25 V2 166
-' 16.861 12167
-9t. 50 L2168
-90.00 v, '1..1)2169
75.00 12170
3. 209.75
179.700.36