City Council Agenda Packet 05-29-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 29, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Mavor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held May 14, 1984.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
OLD BUSINESS
4. Consideration of Cost Studies for Public Improvements Petitioned
for by Affected Property Owners.
5. Consideration of Granting Permission to the Monticello Lions Club
to Erect a Picnic Shelter in West Bridge Park.
NEW BUSINESS
G. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Relating to
a Request to issue Industrial Revenue Bonds - Stuart Hoglund,
` Applicant.
7. Consideration of a Request for the City to Assumo Partial
Responsibility for the Upgrading and Maintenance of the Monticello
Softball Diamonds.
8. Consideration of Amending Title 4, Chapter 1, of the City Code
to Reflect the Current Building Trades Code Requirements.
9. Consideration of an Amondment to Title 7, Chapter 1, Of the City
Code Reducing the Time Allowed for Nuisance Abatement.
10. Consideration of L'stablishing a Date and Time for a "Work" Session
on the Comproheneivo Plan.
11. Consideration of Purchasing a New Typewriter.
12. Consideration of Approval of 111118 for tlw Month of May.
13. Adjournment.
NOTE Tho Council Meeting will be hold on Tuesday duo to Memorial
C Day.
MINUTES
EI
REGULAR FIEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
May 14, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
:dembers Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Ken Maus, Fran Fair,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: Mone.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold April 23, 1984.
3. Citizens COMMents/Potitions, Requests and Complaints.
Petitions for sewer and water extensions for the Bondhua Tool
Corporation facility and the First National Bank Building were
received by the Council. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by
Maus, and unanimously carried to accept the petitions and refer
them to the City staff to prepare feasibility studies on the best
alternatives for serving these properties with utilities.
4 6 5. Public 11oarinq - Improvement of hart Boulevard and Cedar Street, and
Consideration of a Resolution Orderinq the Preporation of Plans and
Specifications for the Improvement of hart Boulevard and Cedar Street.
At the previous Council meeting, the City Engineer, John Badalich
of OSM, presented feasibility studies for the improvements of Cedar
Street and hart Boulevard with bituminous surfacing and curb and
gutter. Mr. Bodnlieh reviewed with the Council a revised feasibility
report for the above improvements with revised coat estimates, etc.
The revised foauibility report for hart Boulevard consisted of a
combination of urban and rural typo construction with an urban typo
scrcot being 33 foot in width from the medical clinic eastward to
a low point in ❑art Boulevard. From this point easterly to whore
Hart Boulevard connoctD to County Road 75, the proposed construction
would be a 2G foot bituminous surfaced street without curb and gutter.
Mr. Badalieh noted that the estimated cost of thio improvement, Including
some storm water drainage improvements, was estimated at $77,800.00.
Based on approximately 1,400 foot of assessable property, the cost
for the street improvements was estimated at $48.21 par foot and
$28.22 par foot for water main Construction that would be assessed
to approximately 365 foot of frontage.
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
•r Prior to the meeting, Mr. Badalich noted that he had met with Mr.
John IIon,hus, property owner along Hart Boulevard, and noted that
Mr. Bondhus would prefer that the curb and gutter be extended all
the way past his property to a point approximately adjacent to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant entrance. Mr. Bondhus felt that the
additional curb and gutter would help direct water flow from
entering his pond areas on his property. The additional cost
for the 500 ft. of curb and gutter on both the north and south sides
of Bart Boulevard to the Wastewater Treatment Plant property would
raise the proposed assessments for the assessable property to
approximately $50.50 per foot for street improvements.
Mr. Badalich also reviewed the improvement of Cedar Street from
the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to Lauring Lane. Thera are three
alternatives consisting of Alternate A, blacktopping existing
gravel surface of approximately 2G feet in width at an estimated
cost of $37,200.00; Alternate B would consist of widening the
surface to approximately a 36 foot width with curb and gutter at
a total cost of $79,600.00; Alternate C consisting of 6 34 foot
bituminous surfaced street without curb and gutter at an estimated
cost of $54,200.00. At the previous Council meeting, Alternate C
was tentatively recommended for consideration by the Council.
with 1,130 feet of assessable property along Cedar Street under
Alternate C. the assessment per foot was estimated at approximately
• $48.00.-M1
1
Mr, Wilbur Eck, majority property owner along Cedar Street, noted
that under the proposed nssessmont, lie would be asae3sed approximately
$32,000.00 for street improvements, which lie felt would be excessive.
Mr. Eck noted that at the present time he would still not have
nonitary sower available to his property and questioned why his
property would be assessed 100% for street improvements when in
1977, the majority of the City property improved under the street
program was only assessed 20% of the cost. tar. Eck noted that in
1978, he requested that his property along Cedar Street be improved
as part of the 77-3 Improvement Project and be assussed only 20%
like ovorybody olaei but he was denied the improvementa,aa future
utilities had to be installed along Cedar Street. Mr. Eek felt he
is being penalized because of the delay in inatalling sanitary sower
along Cadar Street, and as a result should be considered for a 20%
aasossment similar to the 1977-3 Project. Mr. Eck noted that he
will strongly oppose any assessment in tine $30,000 to $40,000
category at the assessment hearing.
in regard to the Ilart Boulevard improvement, Dr. John Kasper also
questioned not the improvement but the method of aasonamonta, as
he also was informed during the 77-1 street Project that Bart Boulevard
could not bo included in that project bocauso of future water main
extensional and he also felt the Council should consider a 20% assessment}
-2-
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
factor now that Hart Boulevard is being proposed for curb and
gutter. It was noted by Councilman Maus that possibly if property
owners along Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street were denied street
improvements in 1977 because of future planned utility improvements
by the City, possibly the City should consider an assessment policy
similar to the 77-3 Project, as it appears it is not the fault of
the property owners that the improvements were not made six years
ago. It was also noted that since the original street project
in 1977 included curb and gutter for all streets, possibly the
City should consider improving Cedar Street under Alternate B,
consisting of curb and gutter and a 36 foot width rather than
Alternate C, which was only bituminous surfacing.
As a result, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and
unanimously carried to adopt a resolution authorizing plans and
specifications be prepared for the improvement of Hart Boulevard
as discussed with the additional curb and gutter to extend to
the wastewater Treatment Plant property and to improve Cedar Street
under Alternate B, consisting of curb and gutter and a 36 foot
bituminous surfacing but without sidewalk being considered at the
present time. It was noted that at the time the bids are received,
the Council can decide whether to hold an assessment hearing and
establish an assessment roll prior to the actual awarding of the
kn contract if so desired.
i 6. Considoration of Makinq Final Payment to PAL.CO for the Construction
�j of the wastewater Treatment Plant.
At the April 23 Council meeting, the final payment request to Paul
A. Laurence Company an the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction
project was tabled to allow the staff to review existing odor
problems at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to determine if any
construction defects were causing the odors before final payment
was made.
Public Works Director, John 9lmola, reviewed with the Council his
findings relating to the odor problems at the Treatment Plant, which
lie summarized au foll.owsi 1) A possible leak in the sludge storage
tank has been found by the Wastewater Treatment Plant personnel because
the rover on the tank may be too light and raises slightly as pressure
increases, letting Vases escape into the atmosphere. The contractor
would be responsible for adding additional weight to the cover to
eliminate this problem. 2) A problem with the resource recovery
system, which consists of methane gas being supplied to a waste gas
burner. Currently, moisture collects in the line feeding the gas
burner which blocks the flow and results in gas escaping through a
release valve. A definite solution to eliminating the moisture problem
has not yet been determined but doom not appear to be the fault of
the contractor at the present time. 3) Some problems are occurring
3 O
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
in the odor control system consisting of air scrubbers that scrub
the air prior to being released from the preliminary treatment area.
Ul� The problems are with the chemicals that are being used and are sometimes
crystalizing causing the chemicals to not reach the air scrubbers.
A solution may be in the search for a new chemical that would not
crystalize. 4) Public works Director noted that there may be
some problems with the operation and how the Plant is being run
by the personnel in that the staff is currently using the equalization
tank as an aeration basin, and not as an equalizing tank as it was
originally intended for. It was noted that by using the EQ tank as
an aeration basin, an activated sludge culture is being grown
resulting in odors being emitted from this area that were not
originally designed for this purpose. In addition, currently
almost all of the sludge is being reprocessed and not being hauled
away as originally planned for. This operation procedure of
continually recirculating sludge is not condusive to controlling
odors at the Uastewater Treatment Plant.
In summary, the Public works Director felt that once the first three
items were corrected along with some changes in Plant operations by
the staff, odors could be 'reduced substantially at titc Plant, but
it should be noted that the facility will not: be 1004 odor free.
As a result of their research, the staff recommends that the final
payment to Paul A. Laurence Company be made, as any items needing
correction by the contractor would be covered under their one-year
performance bond.
As a result, motion was made by Blonigan, seconded by Pair, and
unanimously carried to authorize final payment in the amount of
$103,354.00.
7. Consideration of a Request to Extend the wastewater Treatment Plant
Grant.
Also at the April 23 mooting, tho City Council discussed the extension
of the Grant budget poriod six months to January 31, 1989. This
item was also tabled at the last meeting until the final payment
request was reviewed.
Project Engineer, Jurry Corrick of USM, explained to the Council the
primary reasons why the City should request an extension of the
Grant period to January 31, 1985. Mr. Carrick noted that although
it was learned it would not be necessary to extend the Grant budget
period for the purposes of paying back Lila CPA and PCA for legal fees
if the City should recover them through the lawsuit in process, there
were two other reasons for requesting the Grant budgut period extension.
aumbor one was that. Lila claim made by OSM for additional engineering
monios on stop 11. The Engineer ban requested additional fees relating
Lo the preparation of plans and specifications for the wastewater
Treatment Plant,and currently the EPA has ruled theca funds era
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
ineligible but is currently reconsidering its decision. The
appeal process has been time consuming; and if the appeal is
granted to OSM, and Lila Grant budget period has elapsed, the
engineering firm would not be eligible for reimbursement even
if they received a favorable determination from the EPA.
The second reason noted by Mr. Carrick for keeping the claim open
was that the City could possibly receive some additional funds
from the PCA for innovative and alternative technology funding
-for Change Orders nos. 62-96. Mr. Carrick noted that the PCA
is currently reviewing this request which could amount to an
additional $5,000.00 reimbursement to the City if approved by
tho EPA. If the Grant period is riot extended, Mr. Carrick noted
that the City would riot be able to receive this additional $5,000.00
in Grant monies.
On the other side, one reason for not extending the Grant budget
period would be that the City could apply for final payment
reimbursement from the PCA, which is currently withholding 106
of the Grant monies totalling approximately $86,000.00. By
extending the budget period to January 31, 1985, the City would
riot be able to receive this $8G,000.00 for an additional six months,
which would result in approximately $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 in lost
interest income.
li Asa result, a motion was made by Blonigen to approve applying for
IBJ a Grant budgot period extension to January 31, 1985, but to ask for
reimbursement from the City's engineering firm for the City's lost
interest income by doing the Grant extension. Tire motion died for
a lack of a second.
Motion was then made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously
carried to approve the Grant extension request to January 31, 1985.
voting in favor was Maxwell, Maus, Pair, Grimsmo. Voting in the
opposition woo Blonigen.
B. Consideration of an Raellor Adopted Resolution Authorixinq Plans
and Specifications for tiro Improvement of County Road 75.
At the April 23 meeting, Lira City Council adopted a resolution
approving the foaailrill.Ly study and ordering plana and apocificationo
for the improvement of Highway 75 contingent upon the County hoard
approval. Tho County Board, at their May 7, 1984, moo Ling, approved
the feasibility study as presented and agreed to the altornata proposal
of 0ntir0 replacement of the existing pavement chosen by the City.
It woo Lila consensus Of Lilo Council to proceed with the projact no
oriyinally planned and 110 further notion was necessary at this time,
as plans and upeclfications wore proviously authorized.
�1
Last year, Lilo City staff attempted to replace the roof on the
Community Building in want Bridge Park through a combined project
with the Lions Club. The Lions Club had initially wished to add on
to the existing Community Building by extending the roof overhang
with an open typo shelter. The Liono Club and the City were unable
to got together on the combined project and, as a result, the Public
works Director is recommending that the City replace the roof only
on the atructura at an estimated cost of approximately $3,500.00.
The public works Director has received two quotes for the roof ro-
plaeement from Blonigon Builders for $4,323.00 and from a partnership
conuiating of David Crummy and David Brinor for $3,2.26.00.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to accept Lilo low quoto for Lha roof replacement on the want Brldgo
Park warming Hausa in the amount of $3,226.00 from David Crummy and
David Brinor.
-° 0
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
The City Engineer noted that plans and specifications should be
ready for approval by the Council on June 11 with possible bids
' 1
returnable Juno 21, 1984, with construction to start as early as
the first partofJuly, 1904.
9. Consideration of a Resolution ACceptinq a Revised Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and 'Authorising Distribution.
Originally, the Meadow Oak Subdivision required an Environmental
Impact Statement because its number of units proposed exceeded
500. The developers of the Meadow Oak Subdivision reduced their
overall planned number of units from 532 to 465 resulting in the
necessity for a revised Environmental Assessment worksheet on
this Subdivision.
In reviewing and commenting on rho revised Environmental Worksheet,
which has beer,. recently completed by the developer, the goal is to
determine whether or not an Impact Statement shall be required as
opposed to what scope will be in the required Impact Statement.
lied the number of units remained over 500 within the Subdivision,
an impact statement would have been requiredi but now it can be
determined by the Council that an Impact Statement is not necessary.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
_
to adopt Resolution 1984 021 accepting the revised Environmental
Assessment workshcot and authorizing distribution of the Workshoot
to various federal, state, and local agencies. At the end of the
comment period, all comments will be assimilated and presented to
the Council for dotermination as to whether or not an Impact Statement
Will Still be required.
10. Consideration of a Proposal to noplaco the Roof on the Picnic Shelter
at Want Bridge Park.
Last year, Lilo City staff attempted to replace the roof on the
Community Building in want Bridge Park through a combined project
with the Lions Club. The Lions Club had initially wished to add on
to the existing Community Building by extending the roof overhang
with an open typo shelter. The Liono Club and the City were unable
to got together on the combined project and, as a result, the Public
works Director is recommending that the City replace the roof only
on the atructura at an estimated cost of approximately $3,500.00.
The public works Director has received two quotes for the roof ro-
plaeement from Blonigon Builders for $4,323.00 and from a partnership
conuiating of David Crummy and David Brinor for $3,2.26.00.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to accept Lilo low quoto for Lha roof replacement on the want Brldgo
Park warming Hausa in the amount of $3,226.00 from David Crummy and
David Brinor.
-° 0
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
It was noted by Councilman Maus, who is also a member of the Lions
Club, that the Lions are still considering a proposal to build an
entirely separate structure independent of the existing Community
Building that would be primarily a shelter facility.
11. Consideration of a Proposal to Replace Air Compressors at the WWTP.
Public works Director John Simola reviewed with the Council the
problems the City is having with its two air compressors located
in the basement of the digester building at the WWTP. The compressors
aro currently Worthington, three cylinder, air-cooled models that
have had numerous breakdowns during the past year. Mr. Simola noted
that apparently these air compressors are running at too high of an
RPM and too close to the maximum pounds per square inch capacity
and that possibly they were not sufficient for the needs being
generated at the WWTP. Doth air compressors have had malfunctions
and parts for repairing these compressors are becoming hard to
obtain, as the company no longer has parts available except on
specific orders. Mr. Simola noted that in checking for suppliers
for parts for the Worthington Compressors, it has been brought to
his attention that those compressors may not be best suited for
this particular application at the WWTP. As a result, Mr. Simole
recommended that the City replace either one or both of the air
compressors with a new water-cooled, piston type air compressor or
screw typo air compressor, which would be more suitable for this
application.
Councilman Maus questioned the City Engineer as to whether the air
compressors at the Treatment Plant met the specification■ and if
they were suitable for the intended operations at the Plant. John
Badalich, City Engineer, noted that the compressors wore suitable
for the intended use and have been used in similar situations at
other wastewater treatment plants, but he noted they were not originally
planned by their firm to be used a■ extensively, as they ere now by
the Plant operators. Mr. Badalich noted that additional demand for
the air compressors has been created by the way that operators are
running the Plant. in addition, he noted that they could have
specifics more expensive compressors as now racemmanded by the
Public Woks Director, but at the time the plans were being prepared
for tho WWTP, they felt• the ones specified would be sufficient and
were apiroximately half the cost.
Public Work■ Director presented quotations received, from various
sul.plierq for the water-coolcJ, straw type air compressor ranging
in price from 55,736.00 to $8.245.00. Ills recommendation was that
the City still purchase at least one replacement air compressor
from Sullair Corporation in the amount of $7,101.00, which would -
have a ten-year nonpro-rated guarantee.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Dlonigen, and unanimously
carried to authorise the Public Work■ Director to purchase one Sullair
screw type, water-cooled air compressor with a ten-year warranty from
Sullair North Central for an amount not to exceed 87,101.00.
- 7 0
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
12. Consideration of a Motion Adjusting Building Permit Requirements
for Minor Building Improvements.
Building Inspector Gary Anderson reviewed with the Council a
recommended policy that be adopted regarding when a building
permit would not be required. The current policy has been that
a building permit not be required under the following five
conditions:
1. The amount of work to be done is less than $800.00 and
requires no structural change.
2. When reroofing or residing is to be done and no structural
repair will be done.
3. A portable building of less than 100 square fact is to be
placed on a lot, provided that it will be the only accessory
building in addition to the garage.
4. When driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hard surface
accessories are placed on a property.
5. For the installation of wood burning fireplaces or stoves.
Mr. Anderrcn rewamended that the policy be changed for when a building
permit is not required as follows:
4
1. Ono -story detached accessory buildings used as tool and
storage shods, playhouses and similar uses, provided the
projected roof area does not exceed 120 square fast.
2. Fences not over 6 fest high.
3. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet high.
4. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured
from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall.
S. when driveways, sidewalks, and other similar hard surface
accessories are placed on private property, except when
onto City right-of-way work must be dons in accordance to
city specifications.
6. Painting, papering and similar finish work.
7. window awnings supported by an exterior wall on residential
house and for garays when projecting not more than 54 inches.
0. Prefabricated swimming pouls in which cite poul walls are entively
above the adjacent grade and if the capacity does riot exceed
5,000 yallons.
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
Mr. Anderson also recommended that the Council establish a minimum
set fea that would be charged for inspections made by the Building
Inspector on projects that may not require a building permit but
should have an inspection done by the Building Inspector regardless.
An example was when a homeowner reshingles a roof or puts new siding
on, or replaces a picture window, etc., the Building Inspector would
like to determine the proper methods for replacement; and as a result,
a minimum fee of $15.00 to $30.00 should be charged even though a
building permit is not actually necessary.
A nation was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, to adopt the Resolution
1984 022 establishing the eight criteria for when building permits
are not required and setting a fee of $15.00 for the Building
Inspector's services as a charge when a building permit is not
necessary under the current fee schedule. The motion also included
a directive to the Building Inspector to publish in the local paper
an explanation of when a building permit is required and the procedures
for obtaining building permits, etc. Voting in favor was Grimsmo, Fair,
Maus, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition was Blonigen.
13. Consideration of. a Simple Subdivision.
Mr. Tan Chock requested a simple subdivision to divide Lot 3, Block 42,
into two equal 33 foot by 165 foot parcels with half of the lot to be
attached to Lot 4 and the other half attached to Lot 2. On Lot 4,
Mr. Chock currently has an existing 4-plex, which would make this
parcel a 99 x 165 ft. parcel; and the simple subdivision would create
another lot of the same size for a now proposed 4-plex Mr. Chock is
planning. The subdivision would create a lot that would be in
conformance with the Ordinance requirements for a 4-plex building.
Motion was made by Maxwull, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to approve the simple subdivision request of Mr. Tan Chock
to subdivide lot 3, Block 42, into two equal parcels with half to be
attached to Lot 4 and the othor half attached to lot 2.
14. Consideration of an Appeal of the Decision of the Planninq Commission
Rolatinq to a Variance for Multi -Family Owellinq.
Mr. Bill Murphy is prupusiny to build a 12 -unit apartment building on
three residential lots, Block 10, .Lots 8, 9, and 30. With the proposed
12 -unit apartment building, Mr. Murphy proposed to build eight 27bedroom
units and four 1-bodroom units, which would require the lot size square
footage to Le 33,500 square foot. The current lot size square footage
of Lots 0, 9, and 10 amount to only .32,670 sq. ft., resulting in Mr.
Murphy requesting a variance from the Ordinance for the 830 sq. ft.
shortage.
in order to be in confmwance with the present Ordinance, Mr. Murphy
would luvs to build six 2-bodroos units and six 1 -bedroom units rather
than sight and four.
V
Council Minutes - 5/14/84
a The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, recommended that
the variance request be denied because of precedences that this
would set. Previously, the Planning Commission denied a similar
variance to Construction 5 on a request of a similar nature and
the Planning Commission recommended that Mr. Murphy conform to the
City requirements.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to also deny the variance request for a reduction in the
square footage requirements and require that Mr. Murphy meet
City ordinances as established.
15. Consideration of the Quarterly Liquor Store Report.
Liquor Store Manager Mark. Irmiter was present at the Council meeting
to review the first quarter financial statements for the Liquor
Store operation. After review of the financial statements, the
report was accepted as presented by consensus of the Council.
L--- 3 GL/�/iGc.C-C."
Rick Wolfstalldf
t Assistant Administrator
- 10 0
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
`• 4. Consideration of Cost Studies for Public Improvements Petitioned
for by Affected Property Owners. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the May 14 Council meeting, two petitions for sewer and water
were presented to the City Council. One petition was received
from the First National Bank located at the corner of Fourth and
Pine Streets in Monticello. The other petition was received from
the Bondhus Corporation located on County Road 75 near the WWTP
facility.
The City Council directed the staff to prepare cost estimates for
both of the proposed projects.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK SEWER S WATER SERVICES
The sewer and water services for this particular parcel located in
the southwest corner of the intersection of Fourth Street and Pine
Street would come from Fourth Street. There is currently a 1940'8
vintage 6 inch cast iron sewer along the north side of Fourth Street.
we would extend services from this water main to tine First National
Bank property. The sanitary sewer for this property would also come
off of Fourth Street. we would extend a stub located soma 25 feet
! westof the manhole at Fourth and Pine westerly approximately another
V50 fent to a manhole. The sanitary sewer service would then be
located between this now manhole and the manhole on Pine Street.
Previous to this decision, we had contacted Denton Erickson of Moon
Motors about the extremely long sower and water services which he
currently has. Ito indicated that he is willing to take his chances
with the sewer services as they now exist and does not wish to have
main sewer and water lines extended closer to his property.
I also contacted the architects and representatives from the Security
Federal bank after the decision was mado to go down Fourth Street.
At this particular time, I have not received word back from the Security
Federal representatives as to their intentions. It would, howovar, Boom
the most cost effective way to serve the new bank building rather than
go to other far corners of the property. Bearing this in mind, I prepared
cost estimates with or without Security Federal's participation in tho
project. The cost estimates aro as followaa
1. For tho extension of sanitary sower and tho installation of 1 inch
water and 4 inch sanitary sower service to the First National Bank
itself, approximately $4,900.00.
2. For the extension of sanitary sower and the installation of a 6 inch
water service and 4 inch sewor aorvico to the First National Bank
property alono, $5,700.00.
C -
MW
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
3. For the extension of sanitary sewer service and the installation
of 1 inch water and 4 inch sanitary sewer services to both the
First National Bank property and the Security Federal property,
$6,100.00.
4. For the extension of sanitary sewer and the installation of 6 inch
,water services and 4 inch sanitary sewer services to serve both
Security Federal and the First National Bank property, $7,500.00.
It should be pointed out that the above are estimates based upon recent
pricing and the actual bid prices may vary slightly.
The First national Bank is expected to reach a decision as to whether
they will request a 1 inch or a 6 inch water service by Tuesday morning.
I will have this information for the Council at the meeting.
SEWER 6 WATER SERVICES FOR BONDHUS CORPORATION
we have investigated the water and sewer services for the Bondhus
Corporation. The Hart Boulevard project will extend 6 inch water
to the intersection of Hart Boulevard and County Road 75 at the
center portion of the Bondhus property. It would be simple to
extend this water main under County Road 75 and install a "T" and
water hydrant near the east driveway for the Bondhus Corporation.
We have estimated a 2 inch service would be needed for the Bondhus
Corporacion. This, however, has not been verified. if this project
were incorporated with the Hart Boulevard project, we would expect
construction costs, including the service and valve to tiro property
line, to total $9.1GO.00. Adding 256 indirect costs would bring it
to a total of $11,450.00.
The sanitary sower hook-up for tiro Bondhus Corporation in not quite as
simple. We currently have two options. The EPA has revised its ruling
on interceptor cowers since the time the City originally built the
interceptor sewer. Tile EPA now will allow one private connection per
1,000 fact of interceptor sewer. We, therefore, have tite option of
making a proper connection at the manhole just want of the Bondhua
property in the south right-of-way ditch of County Road 75 or extending
service from a manhole on the north end of the WWfP aouthorly through
the U ndborg property crouuing Hart Boulevard and County Road 75 and
ending up in the control portion of the Bondhua property. The first
option only requires about 30 foot of piping to got to the Bondhua
proporcy. Tho second option, going through the Treatment Plant proporty,
would require the installation of about 700 feet of sanitary sower,
two manholes, and a boring under County Road 75. It would not be
necessary to bore under Hart Boulevard, as thin would be torn up for
t.ho project this stunmor.
Council Agenda - 5/29/04
we have not been able to obtain precise cost information on either
option at this time. Our estimates for the connection to the
interceptor manhole currently range from $8,000.00 to $19,600.00.
For the second option, that of extending across County Road 75
through the Lindberg property, our estimated price is around $22,000.00.
We currently feel that the best way to serve the Bondhus property would
be through the installation of a proper connection to the interceptor
sewer. Either method chosen would provide for serving future properties
to the east of the Bondhus Corporation. I am making attempts to obtain
some firm prices for the connection to the interceptor sewer. I may
have those for Tuesday evening's meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
SEWER AND WATER SERVICES FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK
The only alternative here is whether to provide 6 or 1 inch services
for the First National Bank and whether to provide services for Security
Federal. I should be able to answer both of these questions at the
Tuesday evening meeting.
SEWER AND WATER SERVICES FOR BONDRUS CORPORATION
1. The first alternative would be to provide a sewer connection for
the Bondhus property from the interceptor sewer and provide water
C111 to the property as previously outlined by crossing County Road 75.
2. This alternative would be to provide rater services to the Bondhus
property as previously outlined, however, to provide sanitary
services through the Lindberg property.
C. STAFF RECONNENDATION:
SEWER AND WATER SERVICES FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK
It is recommended that the City Council pass a resolution authorizing
the installation of the services as proposed providing for the services
requested by First National Bank and/or Security Federal.
SEWER AND WATER SERVICES FOR RONDIIUS CORPORATION
it Is recommended that the proposed water service for the Bondhus
Corporation be incorporated with the Hart Boulevard project as
outlined in the above alternatives. It is further recommended that
we delay action on the sewer portion until we can receive firm bids
for tho connection to the Interceptor sewer. I will be attempting to
reach John Bondhuo to discuss those alternatives with him prior to
Tuesday evening's meeting.
D. SUPPORTINC DATA:
C- Copy of the resolution for adoption.
Copy of maps depicting locations of sewer and water services.
- 3 -
RESOLUTION 1984 p
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to a motion duly passed by the City Council on
May 14, 1984, the Public works Director for the City of Monticello has
prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of Fourth Street
between Pine Street and Walnut Street by the installation of sewer
collection lines and water distribution lines and has presented such
plans and specifications to the Council for approval, and
WHEREAS, a certain petition requesting said improvement was filed
with the Council on May 14, 1984.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA, THAT:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof, are hereby approved.
2. Such ing3rovement is hureby ordered as proposed in the plana and
specifications.
3. The Public Works Director for the City of Monticello is hereby
designated as the Supervisor for the making of this improvement.
Adopted by the Council this 2901 day of May, 1984.
Thoman A. I.idem
City Administrator
C
Arvo A. Grlmsmo, Mayor
D
RESOLUTION 1984 0
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE INSTALLATION
OF WATER LINE IN ADVANCE OF STREET PARKING
WHEREAS, the Council has resolved to proceed with the improvement
of Hart Boulevard between the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital and East
County Road 39 by installing hard surfacing, curb and gutter, and other
appurtenant work and has directed that plans and specifications be
prepared therefor, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that. water lines b¢ laid prior to said
street construction so that it will not be necessary to disturb the
improved roadway after its construction.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELI.O,
MINNESOTA:
1. The installation of the water line prior to the improvement
of Hart Boulevard is hereby ordered and shall be made part
of the Hart Boulevard Improvement Project.
2. The City Administrator shall serve notice upon such affected
property owner that water service is being installed, and
shall in part 01 in whole be assessed against benefiting
property.
Adopted by the Council this 29th day of May, 1984.
'Phomas A. h: i dem
City Administral.01
A
Arve A. Gi imsmo, Mayor
,CL
tc---
• RIVER
t•�7Nr-sna !:r �STgCE7 .i^! AS'�f��'''' syr•�a•'!�,7�7�.: .�•'. � �_ �'
}}F ''!! i _ + �•' �y Nr"yy_���N_.i�~ _.�7_„�-. 'iii
N N t , N'r y, FEET'• ••41
1 #' :I C '^ ,.;jl ._ •_�., �• �' /—�••^--+++,,,,,, .
r
t . x i I .i irir
/!it 1,
IL.'. t, p ..•1 S i :ItF J.°:I w {'11 1 .ir7J rS. .;f' t �k: T. 7�••�1v+•���• / a
Z{T r.�
.... .
_ e:! is i° �, `�, 4• / — ti : I +
�; a I ' 333 —• » 1 T r_ _ e # nlna,ataau 1 I
:. #-; l� ❑ g � '::7 t'7:' ►. t'rNs, r���'vinuat�..ION,.mnlnmmanuan•11''trlu `"`�Iwarrwla ! 1
---•���� h �/ awllllxillllllriwlllllxe,araexixaxrryxalxwr,ll,r
• r " 9 V:L / ..
annunmawrnrxunx+auvruaxrooxl.„xxuvlxanaalronoau•xara•xxntilm .aax,x..m^a, •' �e „qp StV"ie v.tiiij WL, kOp Txt.�..
�
y4�� _
I{'itN r I t
r tr „rte n _ _ \�✓
;;;;, t: ' fr, i ��t� 11`• S7 ti •l�'- �'"� 'j1.Q.3 7Acn• a.n: c•- nl n,,h 1�
�%
94
j/Jfj / • e M�
\�dool
C
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
5. Consideration of Granting Permission to the Monticello Lions Club
to Erect a Picnic Shelter in West Bridge Park. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, Councilmember Maus passed around photographs
of a picnic shelter that the Lions would like to erect in West
Bridge Park. lie indicated that the Lions had raised sufficient
funds and would supply labor to erect the structure. In discussing
this at the agenda meeting amongst staff, we realized that no formal
action had been taken by the City Council on this matter. As we
further discussed the issue, we covered some concerns we had about
the proposed shelter. our first concern had to do with granting the
privilege to a private service organization to work, in the City park
and put up what they elected to put up. While in fact this is public
land, you the Council and we the staff are charged by the public to
preserve its beauty and care for its property. our concern rises
from the concept that we allow one service organization who has X -
amount of available funds to come in and put something up that they
have selected. This could give rise to a situation where yet another
organization requests permission to place something in a park. If
the second organization, or third, or fourth, should be less concerned
with appearance and with budget than the first, we could conceivably
end up with some shabby equipment in various parks.
I totally support and endorse the concept of service organizations
contributing to public recreation facilities (or other public facilities
for that matter), but as the body charged for the development of those
parks, 1 think the City Council should make the determination and
selection of what equipment goes into what park and where it will
ba placed.
Another concern staff had was the creation of an inconsistent appearance.
The proposed shelter is primarily metal, having a metal roof. The
Council has already approved the removal of the metal roof from the
existing building to ba replaced with quality asphalt. It makes
little design sense to me. to 90 through Lha process and the expense
of installing an asphalt roof on Lila existing building and than allow
the installation of a metal roofed shelter next to it. Also, with
respect to design concepts, the existing building is rectangular in
shape, and staff thinks it would be advisable to eonsidor alternate
shapes for Lha park.
still a third concern is Lilo aLrueture itself being basically a metal
structure. The City has yono to great pains to discourage the use of
metal buildings L1-,reuylwut Lila City, and 1 think it would be inCOnsiaLOnt
to have the City itself install such a uLructure. West Bridge Park is
perhaps our second most attractive park (behind Ellison Park), but it
- 4 -
C
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
is certainly our most visible park being right on Highway 25. Last
year we installed top of the line quality playground equipment. The
year before we built a shelter for some Public Works equipment that
contains some added expense to make it attractive to the overall
enviro:unent. we are installing a new roof and upgrading the quality
of the existing shelter. We intend to make major repairs to East
Bridge Park after the completion of the bridge and highway. It is
my opinion that all of these activities lead to the erection of a
more elaborate facility in West Bridge Park.
Staff has selected an alternate type of picnic shelter that could be
erected in West Bridge Park but which would blend in with the overall
park concept. Delivery time of such a shelter and erection time would
still allow it to be done for the upcoming 4th of July celebration,
which I know is of concern to the Lions. What we propose is to have
the Lions contribute their available funds to the overall purchase
as well as contribute to the labor pool for the shelter's erection.
We also think in such a case it would be totally appropriate to mount
a plaque at or near the shelter indicating that it was erected by
the Monticello Lions in cooperation with the City in 1984 and other
information that would seem appurtenant. The shelter staff has looked
at would create the same square footage, but is hexagon in shape rather
than rectangular. If the Lions have, in fact, allocated $1,500.00 to
such a structure, the City would have to generate $4,600.00 for the
remainder of the cons LI-uction. This money can be made available
Lhrough the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund or from the non -budgeted
revenue for the sale of vacated Hennepin Street.
B. AU17ERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Give approval to the Monticello Lions Club to erect the structure
as they propose - while this is certainly creating an improvement
for the park, it is staff's estimation that we would be able to
go beyond this improvement to something more consistent with the
overall park design.
2. Deny the Lions request to install a picnic shelter - this really
provides no selaLien to the picnic shelter problem. The need that
has been identified by the Lions is definitely there, and to out-
right deny construction and make no counter plans of our own simply
does not address Lhc uuud.
3. Request the Lions to postpone any construction in 1984 - in connection
with their request to postpone, the Council could suggest that they
continue their fund raising efforts until such time as they have
accumulated the nocassary funds to arect the typo 01 shelter desired
by tlw city.
4. 1Sntor cooperative agreement with the Lions Club to erect an slLernate
atylo shelter fn 1984 - this would allow immediato construction for
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
the 4th of July celebration and would generate the desired type
of facility that will complement the whole park concept.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council allocate the necessary funds from
either Capital Outlay or from General Revenue to enter a cooperative
agreement with the Monticello Lions to construct a 28 -foot diameter
hexagon park shelter. This entire recommendation, of course, is
contingent upon whether or not the Lions are agreeable to entering
such a cooperative agreement.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
C __..b._ type -9 ,moria etiair�. crnFr roc t �...I i„,i bv-
2e1yge,m. (I will also have the catalogs showing the shelter available
at the meeting.)
E. ADMINISTRATOR'S ADDENDUM:
1. After the completion of this agenda supplement, I talked with
the Chairman of the Building Committee of the Lions Club and
explained our concerns to him. lie indicated to me that the
Lions Club had allocated $2,000.00 for both labor and materials,
and that they would willingly donate the $2,000.00 and manpower
to the City for the erection of the type of shelter that we
desire. lie indicated that there was no deep commitment to the
particular shelter they had in mind, only a commitment to building
something, and the one they had selected fit into their budget.
Once we received confirmation from the Lions that they would
willingly participate in a higher quality shelter in this park,
John and Roger wunt to work sucuring delivery estimates and price
quotes for a more desirable type of shelter. All of that information
will be definitely avallaolo by the Tuesday night meeting, and
with a little luck will have been received early enough to be
attached with this supplement.
t WEST BRIDGE PARK PICNIC SHELTER
FROM: Structural Wood Manufacturing, St. Paul, M11.
28 Ft. Ilex
South Yellow Pine Laminated Beams
South Yellow Pine Pressure Treated Columns
2" x 12" Sugar Pine Roof Decking
Complete with cupola ---- $4,691
Less $400 without shingles
36 Ft. Hex
Same as Above
Complete with cupola ---- $6,629
Loss $616 without shingles
Delivery either unit the week of June 18th.
Concrete slab - 4" -
Materials only - 28' a $650
36' - $900
TOTAL COST MATURIALSt
28 ft. a $5,341.00
36 tt. - $7,529.00
C
010111010
DAM
whom ---.-
0
mmoo WR.0-r
some
J
E
pollgon' Shelters and
Buildings give a new look to
any park The freespan
design adds a feeling of
interior space with no
center column The pre
fabricated structures are
delivered ready to assem-
ble with a minimum of
equipment needed
poligon HEX 36
r
DARK SHELTER - HEX S36
X111 SYyOghl
"12
ENCLOSED Wlt DINC. - HEX $36
p011901i�T 4Specification?
The hexagon Interior shall be 36
The eave extension shall be 2'
feet across the maximum room
3.318" beyond the exterior wall
Inside dimension,
face for Insulated buildings and
The clearance below the tension
2 8- beyond the tension ring far
ring shall be 7' 6'.
park shelters.
Height al the bottom of the
Enclosed area (Including woils):
compression ring shall be 11'
880 square feet,
7-1 R'.
Area Under the roof: 1, 134 sq. ft.
C
C
HEX 36 Park Shelter with shingles
and skylight: 9,900 lbs.
HEX 36 Enclosed Insulated Build-
ings with skylight, shingles and
Type B Insulated wall panels:
15.500 lbs.
See page 22 for specifications
�r i
PARTIALLY ENCLOSED % WOMEN STO J jMEN V,
r� MEN WOMEN \ FOR REST ROOMS —r
� I r
\� CONCESSIONS \ !� SHELTER
\ / -- _ COMBINATION REST ROOM
-- _ _ -- AND CONCESSION BUILDING \\ ` i
WALL PANEL PLANNING SHEET
ng Shoot shows 1'0" •
nents. Use It to plan
wilding.
&I
- POII90K HEX 28
The 1""'go•7 HEX 28 Is the perfect answer for situations whore an intermediate site building is required The
building is economical and easily Clustered to grow with you. A single HEX 28 has enough room for Complete
restroom facilities with space remaining for storage. concessions or similar needs
t -
7-7
c '�o •v_. ar.
OPEN PARK SHELTER — HEX S28
i
REST ROOM '
SHELTER
11 I I A t
1 rit
F�
I --I-
' I
The hexagon Interior shall be 28 foot across the
maximum room inside dunenslon
Trio clooranco oc!ow tno tuns+on ring still ne 7 o
HOight at the bottom of thu comp!-niicn ring snarl fie
1 t' 5..
The dove oxfons:on she') be 2'3 18noyonil this
extend, woil face totrn;ulcvoct bu'a'rgs ants 2' 8-
beyond Iho Tension ring fur fork shellurs
Enclosed orua (including wai s( 570 squaro foot
Area unclot Tho root 750 sq it
IIFX 28 Park Shollur with shingles and slyhghf 7.000
Us
'4 X 28 Encic eoj lnswalud BWaings with clynghi
shingles and Typo B lnsulatoa wall panols 10 000 IUs
Srw sago 22 far spoc it cono is
ENCLOSED BUILDINra _ HEX 028
10
0
Ok
0
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
6. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Relating to
a Request to Issue Industrial Revenue Bonds - Stuart Hoglund,
Applicant. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Approximately one month ago the attorneys for Stuart Hoglund submitted
the standard application packet for the issuance of Industrial Revenue
Bonds for the construction of a 32 -unit motel and requested a public
hearing. At that time, I submitted the standard City application
blank, which was completed and returned to me. The request came in
after the closing date of setting the agenda for the last meeting,
hence it is appearing at this time. I wish to note that the only
issue before you at this time is whether or not to set the public
hearing. You do not have to give approval to the request or even
initiate any further action on this item. Technically, if you find
that the program has no merit and you wish to consider it no further,
you are not even required to set a public hearing. Because this is
a bona fide request, I think we should at least go through the hearing
process.
I do wish to inject a brief updating on the status of Industrial
Revenue Bonds and why 1 have concerns at this time. I wish to
emphasize that I am not commenting, in any way, on the quality
or viability of this particular project, only on the condition of
Industrial Revenue Bonds. I will not go into an to -depth discussion
of all of the political maneuverings currently going on with respect
to IRS's, but I will attempt to give you a brief summary of what
has happened to date. If any of you are interested in acquiring
more detailed background on this information, please feel free to
stop in and we can discuss this at length.
On Lha federal level, Representative Rostenkowski of Illinois, Chairman
of the House. Ways and Means Committoo, tins inLroduced Il Ii. 4170, which
is a budget deficit reduction bill. Part of that overall bill contains
a provision that would place a $150 per capita limit on Lha issuance
of Industrial Revenue Bonds. The $150 per capita limit would be
„ppliod at the state level, hence Minnesota would be allowed to
issue 5600 million in IIiB'u if Lha bill passes. Of t118L $600
million available, Lila State would first withdraw its share for the
various programs Where they utilize IRB's. The remainder would bo
made available for cities, but riot nocosaarily at the $150 per capita
limit. This bill has become extremely conlrovornial and tins been
moving very, very olowly. It was originally introduced last fall
and has been delayed until now. Evan now, attorneys and bond counsel,
While anticipating formal action within the next Couple of weeks,
still are unsure that any definite action will take placo in 1984.
Also on Lilo federal level, the Senate has adopted a budget deficit
1'udeetiOn bill buL has not placed per capita limits on the issuanco of
IRB'a. As a result of two difforonl bills being adopted, a Tax Conference
Committee hall been formed to arrive at a solution. The rumor is that
Cthe por capita limits Will remain intact in spite of all of the Sonata
efforts to have them removed.
- 7 -
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
To further complicate this entire matter, the State of Minnesota,
anticipating that the per capita limits will pass federal legislation,
adopted a bill that creates an allocation formula for the issuance of
the available $60O million. Of the available money, after
the State has taken out everything it wants, the balance is to be
divided between two classes of cities, to wit, entitlement cities
and non -entitlement cities. Monticello will be a non -entitlement
City. As a non -entitlement city, we will be faced with entering a
form of competition for the available funds. The competition and
quality of each proposal will be judged by the Department of Energy
and Economic Development.
This brings us back to the present and Monticello's situation. Last
December the City Council gave preliminary approval to two proposals
for industrial Revenue Bonds, FST and Key Tool. The drawing of the
contracts, the closing of the bond sale, has not proceeded due to
the condition of the federal legislation and clic uncertain state of
affairs. Ilowever, whatever happens on the federal level, these two
applications can enter the formal issuance procedure in the near
future. The total of the two projects already given preliminary
approval is $1,150,000.00.
With respect to the Iloglund request, we must consider certain aspects.
You may well be aware that most of the furor over IRD's has to do
A with alleged non -industrial uses/abuses. Monticello has, in fact,
'I used 1RB's for other motels. I think it is essential, however, that
` we discuss whether or not we wish to continue using this type of
financing for commercial enterprise. As the available funds become
more competitive and more difficult to receive, we may wish to
internally place requirements on the types of developments that
are eligible.
The Stuart Iloglund request is for a bond issuance of $550,000.00.
The application indicates Lite creation of 12 new jobs at an anticipated
payroll of $150,000.00.
AS we proceed with this request, 1 encourage you to keep in mind that
preliminary approval has been granted to two industrial concerns at
on earlier data. If we elect to approve this application, I think we
should indicate that the prior applications do have priority, concern.
n. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution calling for a public hearing.
2. Do not adopt Lila resolution calling for a public hearing.
At this Limo, this is Lila only available action for you. You cannot
give approval to the projuet without the hearing. By not setting the
hearing, however, as 1 menLlonad earlier, you are essentially denying
Lha project.
- B -
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I see no difficulty with adopting the resolution and holding the
public hearing. After the hc3ring, the Council will then have to
decide whether or not to proceed with it.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of the entire application packet from the attorney as well
as the City's IRB request form, copy of the resolution for
adoption.
9
DATE SUBMITTED flay 10, 19R4
I I
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL REVENUE BOND REOUEST FORM
1, Company Name Stuart G. Hoglund and Arleen A. Hoglund Phone p 612/295-2866 - --
Address R ,r�7 i3oo�1-9, mowiccll _W-55362 --.-----_---
State of incorporation
Contact Person Stuart G,_IjocI]_und o_Lolrn R_-Gries, attorney_
2. Type_ of Business—r_Qthl--..--------------- ----- --
Products ur Services---��u�-..---_----- ----.--------
3. Site Location Minnesota
-22.D__Q j1s�1_Dl i vs._L�n�i lam.-- —----------
4. Mature of Project t g=1.15=gtjqn_.,Zn�jppirK a 32 unit motel
5. Current and Projected (5 -years) Employment: Current 0 Projected 12
Amount Anticipated Payroll Increase_ _ $150,000.00 -
fi. Present Gross Earnings or Sales of Company not in operation at this time -- --
7. Projected Gross Earnings or Sales within: Two -Years '$432,406. Five -Years 9,59R,466.
1652R
B. Size of Proposed Structure or Expansion _ _---Square fee
9. Estimated Project Cost: Estimated Size of Bond issue:
I.and S 1nn onn_nn _-_ S 550,000.00
Buildings 650,000.00 If bond issue is less than estimated projec
Equipment 150,000.00 costs, indicate balance of anticipated pro-
ject funding: A�licants to arovide bol v}ce
Other (please provide detail )-l.egaland oL„-p,; ty inrach_or-land-__._.
oontingent $50,000.00_
lU. fiscal Con, III tant/Underwriter•/Purchaser
j3�ink,----------------
Addre::_Monticcll
Contact Person pile J. I.unciv5tzPhone N 612/295-2952-
11. Legal Counsel Ramicr aixl Gries__John R. Cries
Address— 100_ East Central P.O. flax 35_,--__-• —�
_ St._MichaclA Mires -1 _55376_ -
Contact Person John R. Gries Phone p 612/497-3099
17. Anticipated Type of Offering (ch(:ck)
Publ is
Private Placement:
1) Institutional Investors_X
' ?) Individuals
13. Nature of Bond Security and Revenue Agreement (chf!ct;)
A) Lease and Mortgage with Guarantee_y__
B) Loan.Agreement with Mortgage. _
C) Mortgage
D) Other- (specify)—
'Please note any unique financing arrangement, e.g.
letter of credit, lease
arrangement, unsecured loan, etc.
ld. Bond Rating Contemplated (if appropriate). N A
15. Proposed Term of Issue 20 years__
16. Anticipated Interest Rate 9.5 percent
17. Has the company utilized tax-exempt financing elsewhere
in tlinnesota or in
other states?
IIO_Y— Yes—
I f "Yes" speci fy when and where_________._
18. Please provide maturity schedule showipg principal and
interest payment!..
19. Does your company meet the guidelines established by the City of Monticello?
Yes x No
20. If the answer to number 19 is "No", please explain the
guidelines not met helow
or on a separate sheet.
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FILING FFE: $500,00 upon submission of the application to cover the City's
Consultinq legal and professional fees, publication costs, etc.
Fee is based on actual cost incurred by City and any additional
amount -due should be paid before approval is rnn%idered Final
and dny unused portion shall be returned.
George R. Remier
John R. Gnes
David J. Lenhardt
Ramler and Grles
Attornoys at Lew
402 Park Nalion0l Bank Building
5353 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Telephone: 1612) 542.1000
May 1, 1984
City of Monticello
City Clerk
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Application of Stuart G. Hoglund and Arlene A. Hoglund for
Industrial Revenue Bond
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find the following:
1. Application;
2. Proposed Minutes;
3. Proposed Resolution;
4. Notice of Public Hearing;
S. Proposed letter to be placed on City letterhead?
6. Resolution regarding passage of Resolution;
7, Copy of Bond Counsel letter? and
8. Copy of Feasibility letter from City.
I would appreciate if you would publish the Notice and oat this
matter on for a Public Hearing as Boon as possible.
Hopefully, it will not be necessary for the City to pass the
Resolution calling for the Public Hearing but rather just putting
the matter on for Public Hearing.
If you have any questions, let me k"w. ,
/HN
ru ure,
. G IES
JRG/klB
enclosures
100 East Control 9arthel Building
P.O GO - 35 21370 John muiea4 orlve
si. Michael. Minnesota 55370 Rogers, Minnesota 55374
Telephone: (0121497-3000 Talephone: (812) 420.2285 O
G
CM -00424-01
This Application must be submitted in DUPLICATE
SIAit OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Application
For Approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Project
To: Minnesota Energy and Economic Date
Development Authority
480 Cedar St., Rm. 100 Hanover Bldg.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
The governing body of Monticello County of Wriaht Minne!
nereoy applies to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority of the State of
Minnesota for approval of this community's proposed Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond issue
required by Minn. Stat. 5474.01, Subd. 7a.
4e have entered into preliminary discussions with,
Firm Stuart G. flocilUnd and Arleen A. iioolund
Address Route 3, Box 15
City Monticello State MN 55362 State of Incorporation N/A
Attornev John Grics
Address Ramier s Grids, --5353 Wayzata 13oulevard Suite 402
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
t carne of Project stlWt G. and Arleen A. itoglund Project
Tnis firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): motel operation
The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general
nature of project): acquire, construct and equip a 32 unit motel at 220 Oakwood D'
i:i the City, to be owned and operated by the Borrowers
will be located in the city of Monticello, Minnesota
:nt total bond issue will be approximately 5 650,000 to be applied toward paym
c: costs now estimated as follows:
Acquisition, reconstruction, improvement,
betterment, or extension of project E 109.000
Construction Costs 420.000
Equipment Acquisition and Installation 150,000
Fees: Architectural, engineering, inspec-
tion, fiscal, legal, administration, or
printing 25,000
Interest accrual during Construction -0-
Initial bond reserve -U-
(` Conti ngenc ies 25, no
Bond discount -n-
Other -0-
- 1
it is present iy estimated that construction wl11 begin on or about June 1
19 84 , and will be completed on or about January I , 19 85. When completed, ther
..iT be approximately I �p_ new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approxi-
mately S 150,000 , based upon currently prevailing wages. (If applicable) There are
existing jobs provided by business.
The tentative term of the financing is 15 years, commencing ,Tune 1 J 84
The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by
reference:
1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minn.
Stat. S474.02.
2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance
of its revenue bonds.
3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies
the public purpose of Minn. Stat. §474.01.
4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibil-
ity of the project from a financial standpoint.
5. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority to the
effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement, the information required by
Minn. Stat. 5474.01, Subd. 8 will be submitted to the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority.
b. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that
the project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in
the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to
be rented or used as a permanent residence.
7. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that
a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5474.01, Subd. 7b.
The statement shall -include the date, time and place of the meeting and that all
interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views.
B. Copies of notice(s) as published which indicate the date(s) of publication and th )
newspaper(s) in which the notice(s) were published.
9. Provide a plan for compliance of employment preference of economically disadvan-
taged or unemployed individuals. (See Mn. Laws 1983, Ch. 289, 113.)
We, the undersigned, are duly elected representatives of Monticello , Minnesot
and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it
.o a final conclusion.
;i;ned by: (Principal Officers or Representatives of issuing Authority; tvoe or print Mavor's
name on the line to the left of the siqnature line. Thank you.)
mayor's game Signature
itle: Signature
This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Authority or the State of the
;easioility of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be executed or the bonds t
:.e issued therefor.
Authorized Signature - Minnesota Ener Date of Approval
g Energy and Economic
.Development Authority
l0 MEEDA 070183
C
Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota
was duly held at the City Hall in said City or. ,
1984 at o'clock .M.
The following members were present:
and thr_ following were absent:
Member introduced and read in full
the following written resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR
PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, SECTION 474.01, SUBD. 7b
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
wan duly seconded by Member , and upon
vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the some:
whereupon said renolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
0
L_ STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Monticello, Minnesota do hereby certify
that the attached extract of minutes of a meeting of
the City Council of the City held , 1984, is a full, true
and correct transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to
an industrial development project to be undertaken purusant to
Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, by the City and Stuart G.
Hoglund and Arleen A. Hoglund.
WITNESS My hand and seal officially as said City Clerk
this day of 1984.
(Sc a l)
C
City Clerk
NOTICE
OF PUBLIC HEARING ON FINANCING
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ON BEHALF OF STUART G. HOGLUND AND ARLEEN A. HOGLUND
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing shall be
conducted by the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota on an industrial development project proposed to be
undertaken and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
474, by the City and Stuart G. Hoglund and Arleen A. Hoglund,
(the "Borrowers"). The hearing will be held at the City Hall in
said City on 1984, at o'clock M. The
project as proposed consists genera the acquisition,
construction and equipping of a 32 unit motel at 220 Oakwood
Drive in the City, to be owned and operated by the Borrowers.
Under the proposal, up to approximately $60',000 in principal
amount of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City of
Monticello will be issued to finance the project. At said time
and place the City Council shall give all parties who appear an
opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal
tounde rtake and finance the project. A draft copy of the
proposed Application to the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority for the project, together with all attach-
ments and exhibits thereto, shall be available for public in-
spection, following- publication of this notice, in the office of
the City Clerk, Monday through Friday, except legal holidays,
from o'clock A.M. to o'clock P.M. to and
including the date of hearing.
Dated , 1984.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/
City Clerk
N]
(Borrower's Letterhead)
, 1984
City of Monticello
City Nall
Monticello, Minnesota
RE: $550,000 City of Monticello, Minnesota Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds (Stuart G. Hoglund and
Arleen A. fioglund Project)
Dear Sir or Madam:
We submit herewith a draft Application to the Minnesota
Energy and Economic Development Authority and draft exhibits
thereto in connection with a project under the Minnesota Muni-
cipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes
(the "Act"). We request that the City undertake and finance the
Project pursuant to the Act. As a first step, we request that
the City Council give preliminary approval to the Project, after
published notice and public hearing as required by the Act, and
submit the Application to the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority for the approval as required by the Act.
We represent to you that the statements in the draft
Application and exhibits are accurate, to the beat of our informa-
tion and belief. As indicated, we believe that the Project upon
completion, will create approximately 12 new jobs at an annual
payroll of approximately $150,000 booed upon currently prevailing
wages.
We agree to pay any and all reasonable coats incurred
by the City in connection with the Project, including but not
limited to items of Project costa, whether or not the Project is
approved by the Minnesota Energy and Economic Devolopment Author-
ity and whether or not the Project is carried to completion. We
also agree that the City shall not be liable on any contracts
necessary for the, acquisition, construction or installation of
the Project. Should we pay any portion of the Project Costs in
excess of the proceeds of the Bonds, we shall not be entitled to
any reimbursement therefor from the City, nor shall we be
entitled to any diminution in or postponement of loan repayments.
Vic also agree to release the City from, and agree that
the City shall not be liable for, and agree to hold the City, its
City Council and its respective officers and employees harmless
against any and all losses, claims, causes of action, damages,
suits or liability to which the City, its officers and employees
may become subject under any law in connection with the issuance
and sale of the Bonds and the carrying out of any of the transac-
tions contemplated including any loss or damage to property or
any injury to or death of any person that may be occasioned by
any cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project or the use thereof.
we further agree to reimburse the City, its officers and employees,
for any out-of-pocket legal and other expenses (including reasonable
counsel fees) incurred by the City, its officers and employees,
in connection with investigating any such losses, claims, damages
or liabilities or in connection with defending any actions relating
thereto.
We understand that the Bonds shall be limited obliga-
tions of the City, and that principal and interest on the Bonds
shall be payable solely out of the revenues derived from amounts
payable to the City by the Borrowers pursuant to the provisions
of the Loan Agreement.
Pursuant to Minnesota Session Laws 1983, Chapter 289,
Suction 113, Subdivision 11, we shall make every effort to comply
with the requirements of said statute for the purpose of pro-
viding employment to those individuals who are unemployed or who
are economically disadvantaged and who otherwise qualify for
employment with the Borrowers.
We intend to use the Jot) Service Bureau of the Economic
Security Department of the State of Minnesota as a first source
of employment recruitment, referral and replacement.
We intend to provide such reports as may be required by
statute to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development
Authority.
STUART G. HOGLUND
ARLEEN A. HOGLUND
(City's Letterhead)
, 1984
Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority
480 Cedar Street
Room 100, Hanover Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: $550,000 City of Monticello Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds (Stuart G. Hoglund and Arleen A.
Hoglund Project)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Stuart G. Hoglund and Arleen A. Hoglund, (the
"Borrowers"), advise us that they intend to use the proceeds of
the above -referenced issue to assist in the financing in the City
of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), of a Project consisting of
the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 32 unit motel at
220 Oakwood Drive in the City, to be owned and operated by the
Borrowers (the "Project"). Enclosed please find the Application
of the City for approval of the Project, in duplicate, including
a copy of the Preliminary Resolution adopted by the City Council.
Based on the representations of the Borrowers, the City
believes that the Project will be in the public interest and
serve a valid purpose under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
including the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act"), for several reasons. First,
it is anticipated that the Project, upon completion, will create
approximately 12 new jobs at an annual payroll of approximately
$150,000 based upon currently prevailing wages. The Project will
thereby assist in halting the migration of persona out of the
City and enhancing the employment opportunities of the community.
It is therefore anticipated that the Project will assist in
preventing economic deterioration; providing for development of
sound industry and commerce to use t)ie available resources of the
community in order to retain the benefit of the community's
C existing investment in education and public service facilities;
halting the movement of talented, educated personnel to Other
arena and thus preserving t)ie economic and human resources needed
as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and
0
providing a moreadequate tax base to finance the costs of
governmental services.
i further certify, in order to provide the information
required to be supplied to the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority as Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 to the Application
to the Authority for approval of the Project, as follows:
(1) Upon entering into the revenue agreement for the
Project between the City and the Borrowers, the information
required by Section 474.01, Subd. 8, Minnesota Statutes,
will be submitted to the Authority.
(2) The Project does not include any property to
be sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of
property for sale, and does not include any housing
facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence.
(3) Pursuant to Section 474.01, Subd. 7b of the
Act, a notice of a public hearing with respect to the
Project was published in the official newspaper of the
City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City
at least 15 days but not more than 30 days prior thereto,
and a public hearing was conducted with respect to the
Project at the City Hall of the City at o'clock M.
on , 1984, at which hearing all interested parti.-;
were afforded an opportunity to express their views.
Mayor
City of Monticello, Minnesota
(� Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota
was duly held at City Hall in said City on , 1984 at
o'clock .M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
The Mayor announced that this was the time and place
for a public' hearing on the undertaking and financing of an
industrial development. project for Stuart G. Hoglund and Arleen
A. iloglund. The following persons appeared:
Aftu r all persons present had an opportunity to express
their views, the hearing was closed.
Member then introduced and read the
following written resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BY STUART G. 110CLUND AND ARLEEN A. HOGLUND UNDER THE MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL. U17VELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FOR APPROVAL THEREOF
The motion .for adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by Member , and
upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
oil
-2-
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BY STUART G. HOGLUND AND ARLEEN A. HOGLUND UNDER THE MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FOR APPROVAL THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, as -follows:
1. There has been presented to this Council a pro-
posal by Stuart G. Hoglund and Arleen A. Hoglund (the
"Borrowers") that the City undertake and finance a project
pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act") generally consisting
of the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 32 unit motel
at 220 Oakwood Drive in the City, to be owned and operated by the
Borrowers (the "Project"). Under the proposal, the Project
faCiliLiCS will be ownQd by the Borrowers, and the Borrowers will
enter into a revenue agreement with the City upon such terms and
conditions as are necessary to produce income and revenues
sufficient to pay when due the principal of and the interest on
up to approximately $:)50,000 industrial Development Revenue Bonds
of the City to be issued pursuant to the Act, to provide monies
for the acquisition, construction and installation of the
Project, and the City will pledge its interest in the revenue
agreement to secure the bonds.
2. As required by the Act, this Council conducted a
public hearing on 1 1904 on the proposal to undertake and
finance the Project after publication in the official newspaper
and a nowsparor of general circulation in the City of a notice
setting forth the time and place of hearing; stating the general
nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal amount of
bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project;
stating that a draft copy of the proposed Application to the
Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority, together
with all attachments and exhibits thereto, in available for
public inspection at the office of the City Clerk, in the City
Hall, nt all times between the hours of --- A.M. and P.M.
each day except Saturdays, Sundays and legaT holidays io--and
including the day of hearing; and stating that all parties who
appear at the public hearing shall have an opportunity to express
their views with respect to the proposal. The draft application
to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority,
together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, was on file
and available for public inspection at the place and times act
forth in the notice.
3. it is hereby found, determined and declared that
the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474.01 of the
Act in that the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof
will be to promote the public welfare by the attraction, encourage-
ment and development of economically sound industry and commerce
so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted
and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; the reten-
tion and development of industry to use the available resources
of the community, in order to retain the benefit of its existing
investment in educational and public service facilities; by
halting the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature
age to other areas and thus preserving the economic and human
resources needed as a base for providing governmental services
and facilities; and the more intensive development of land avail-
able in the area to provide a more adequate tax base to finance
the cost of governmental services in the Municipality, county and
school district where the Project is located.
4. The Borrowers have entered into preliminary
discussions with Wright County State Bank, as lender, and the
lender has reported that the Project and the sale of bonds
therefor are feasible.
S. The Borrowers have agreed to pay any and all costs
incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or
not the Project is approved by the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority and whether or not the Project is carried
to completion.
6. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by
the City subject to approval of the Project by the Minnesota
Energy and Economic Development Authority and subject to final
approval by this Council and by the purchasers of any bonds to be
issued as to the ultimate details of the Project and as to the
terms of the bonds.
7. in accordance with Section 474.01, Subd. 7 of the
Act, the mayor, the City Administrator, and such other officers
and representatives of the City as may from time to time be
designated are hereby authorized and directed to submit the
proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority and request its approval thereof, and the
mnyor, the City Administrator, and other officers, employees and
agents of the City are hereby Authorized to provide the Authority
with such preliminary information as it mny require. The
Borrowers, Faegre & Benson as bond counsel, the City
Administrator, the City Attorney, and other City officials are
also authorized to initinte the preparation of a proposed loan
agreement• and such other documents as may be necessary or
appropriate to the Project so that, when and if the proposed
Project is approved by the Authority and this Council given its
final approval thereto, the Project may be carried forward
expeditiously.
8. The Borrowers are hereby authorized to enter into
such contracts, in their own names and not as agent for the City,
as may be necessary for the construction of the Project by any
means available to them and in the manner they determine without
advertisement for bids as may be required for the acquisition or
construction of other municipal facilities, but the City shall
not be liable on any such contracts.
-5- 9
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Monticello, Minnesota do hereby certify
that the attached extract of minutes of a meeting of the City
Council of the City held , 1984, is a full, true and
correct transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to an
industrial development project to be undertaken pursuant to
Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, by the City and Stuart G.
Hoglund and Arleen A. Hoglund.
WITNESS My hand and seal officially as said City Clerk
this _ day of , 1984.
(Seal)
14
City Clerk
-6- -- - 9 -
�.�. �..�.,.�.��� .�� � � -ii�� �� ��.-iiira'.•1r---•---',per
F"AEG RE & BENSON
2 00 I ULTI.00D5.OWER
as Gout" m.*.. a*wee♦
"iR"E•oouG, ".""EGOr• GG.Oa 3604
(Date)
Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority
Division of Business Development
Room 100, Hanover Building
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: $550,000 City of Monticello Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds (Stuart G. Hoglund and Arleen A.
Iloglund Project)
Dear Sir or Madam:
We have examined the Application for Approval for the
above described project submitted by the City of Monticello under
the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, including the
Resolution giving preliminary approval to the Project, adopted by
the City Council, attached thereto. It is our opinion that the
proposed project described in the Application constitutes a
"project" within the meaning of Section 474.02, Subdivision lb of
the Art, and that, when finally and duly authorized and issued,
the bonds will be valid and binding obligations under the Act.
Very truly yours,
C
0
C
right County State Bank
P. 0. Box 729
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
G. S. Pmnios. Chairman 16121 2952952
Dae J. Lungwllr, President
111.. eBoymen, AssrSlanl VC0 Presidonl
T om Lindquist. Assislanl Vice Presrdenl
Mrs, 0081 $Idles. Assistanl Vice Presoent
Judy D SloLes. Operations Manager
April 24, 1994
Dennis Suedaeek. Cashier
Kevin Dory. ASSrStahl Cashier
Mrs, Arlene MetnUre. ASS318n1 Castuer
Mrs, Jean Michaelis. Assglant Cashier
We Elsa Petersen. A ssislahl (ISMO,
!Ionticallo City Council
Nonticcllo, "C7 55362
RE: City of !Monticello Industrial Development Revenue Bond Project
$650,000.00 Stuart C. Hoglund and Arleen A. Iloglund
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the Wright County State Bank has reviewed the plans
of the above-mentioned Stuart and Arleen Iloglund to construct a motel in
the city of Monticello. After reviewing the plans, our Board of Directors
feel that this project 1s feasible, and is deserving of our consideration.
We will, therefore, consider an application for financing of this project.
If you should have any specific Questions of us, please a,;vioe us, and we
will be happy to answer them for yuu.
S
incerely.
,� Data J. Lungwitr
President
DJL / lw
M[MD[A FEDERAL O[P091T IN8{A1A1ICf COaPOWATaDN 9
CIV of / "Itice[[o
I
\ G:, ecmm,:nda
4 May, 1984
Mr. John R. Cries
Ramiers Cries
402 Park National Bank Building
5353 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnr.apolis, MN 55416
fear Mr. Cries:
Ph ne I6t21 295-2;.141
Morro, 16121 333.59
This is to acknowledge receipt of the Hoglund application
for Industrial Revenue Bonds. I am also returning a copy
of the City's policy n.suluticnn and a copy of the City's
applicaLion form. '19rc::e are matters that were adopted under
my producessor, and which I was not made aware of until
ceCcntly.
Upon receipt of the completed form and other required information,
1 will submit the resolution setting a public hearing to the.
Council. Upun adupLiun, 1 will notify you of the time and
date out for the hearing.
Please call if you have any Questions.
Very truly yours,
� II
Tli Oman A. Eidom
City Administrator
TAE /k o d
Enclosuron
cc: 0-30-33
250 East Broadway • Rt, 4, Box 83A 9 Monticello, MN 55362 O(v
C
council Agenda - 5/29/84
7. Consideration of a Request for the City to Assume Partial
Responsibility for the Ul>gradinq and Maintenance of the Monticello
Softball Diamonds. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Softball Association has requested that the City of
Monticello assist the Association with the upgrading and maintenance
of the softball fields located on that property west of town leased
from Northern States Power. A copy of the request is enclosed for
your review.
I will attempt to present cost data based upon the different requests
that the Softball Association has made.
1. The first request is that the City bring Lila fields up to good
or excellent standards and maintain those fields with the use of
the 4 inch well on the property. we have tested the pumping
capacity of the existing well and find it to be unsatisfactory
to support an adequate watering system. It would be the staff's
proposal to use the above ground watering system which we acquired
from the school several years ago. In order to operate this
system, it would require approximately three times of the existing
well capacity now as a minimum. I contacted McAlpine well Company, as
they were the ones who originally drilled the well at the site.
The following costs were approximate costs indicated to upgrade
Lila 4 inch well. First, the well pump would have to be pulled
and the capacity of the well determined. This would cost
approximately $150.00. More than likely, the existing well on
this site could be salvaged with the addition of a larger screen,
costing approximately $500.00. A largo enough pump to supply
adequate capacity for the watering equipment would cost approximately
$1,000.00. Adding $350.00 for some additional piping and wirinq,
we come up to an approximate coat of $2,000.00. This would provide
adequate capacity so that the A acro fields could be wdtered in
approximately 5 hours.
An far as the condition of Lha fields themselves, we find that thora
is adequate black dirt and that the addition of moisture and
nute'ienLS along with additional souding should bring tho. fields
back to good or excellent condition. Thera is possibly some
additional limo rock that could be added at this time. It is
estimated that approximately $500.00 in materials and $300.00 in
labor and equipment COOLS would bring Lilo fields up to good
condition. These COOLS total now,with the wall and the upgrading
of Lila fioldo,approximatolyt$2,800.00.1,
2. Tho second request is that Lilo City keep up the fields in future
years and do the nocossary mowing and maintenance.
- 10 -
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
I have estimated the yearly cost to keep up the fields and the
adjoining areas. The cost of materials, such as yearly fertilizer,
weed killer, grass seed, lime rock, and miscellaneous sprinkler
and hose upkeep, is estimated at $509.00 per year. In addition
to the materials cost, there are certain labor and equipment
costs. we estimate that it would take approximately 5 hours to
mow and trim the fields. Figuring $15.00 per hour for labor
and equipment, it would cost about $75.00 each time. If we
did this approximately 16 times a year, the cost would be about
$1,200.00 for mowing. Every other time that we mow the fields
themselves, we would need to spend about 1S hours on the outside,
mowing the adjacent area. Figuring this at $15.00 per hour,
it would cost approximately $22.50 per time, times eight times
per year equals $180.00. Adding this to the $1,200.00, we come
up with a total of $1,380.00.
In addition to this work, we estimated that we will have to
water at least eight times a year to keep the grass moist. we
estimated it would probably take about 5 hours for each of
the waterings for both fields. If we use $6.00 per hour for the
cost of labor and benefits, this runs up to about $30.00 per
time, or a total of $240.00. In addition, we esLimaLed that we
would spend about 6 hours per year with the grader at, loader out
there leveling and blading the immediate area and roads and
driveways in that. area. Estimating $40.00 per hour for the
operator and loader or road patrol, it would come to about $240.00.
C Adding the figures together for labor and equipment, it comes to
a total of $1,8G0.00. Adding this to the estimated cost of
materials per year of $509.00 brings us to a total upkeep per
year ofi$2,369.00.1 This, of course, is an estimate.
3. The Softball Association has also requested that the City continue
paying for the satellites and the dumping of the satellites as
we have done in the past. This cost is ranged from $500.00 to $600.00
per year. In addition, Lila City has payed the electrical bill at
the site, which is approximately $70.00 per year. This elecu ical
cost would be higher with the additional load on the well.
4. The Association has requested that Lila City take over paying for
the regular garbage dumping needed from year to year. From
estimates provided by the Association, this garbage pickup
costs approximately $200.00 to $250.00 per year.
5. The Association has also requested that all of the above costs in
yeLting the property up to standard and maintaining it year after'
year he borno on an equal basia between Ute City and Lha Softball
Association. It appears that the Association is requesting that
the City will lose in Lila first few years on this proposition, but,
howovor, may gain in Lila long run.
c
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
Our total yearly costs are currently approximately JS920.00.1 This
is estimating the $70.00 for electricity, the $550.00 for satellites
and dumping them, and $300.00 for labor and equipment for the minor
mowing that we currently do.
In discussing this subject with City Administrator, we felt that
some long range costs for the overall development of the ball fields
might be considered. These costs would possibly involve the
installation of restrooms and an on-site disposal system, the
installation of a lighting system, and possibly the installation of
an additional field at a later date. The City currently has a
building sitting out at the site, which was removed from the Riverview
Clinic. This garage, which is 22 x 26, could easily be placed on
a slab, partitioned, and dressed up to make a nice shelter and
concession and storage building for the ball fields. The following
is an estimate of some of the costs:
On-site disposal system $ 2,500.00 - $ 3,000.00
Restroom facilities 12,000.00 - 15,000.00
Conversion of 22 x 26 garage 975.00 - (materials only)
Lighting 7,500.00
(The cost of lighting both
ball fields could easily
exceed $7,500.00)
R. ALM.11NATIVC ACTIONS:
Prior to discussing alternative actions, it should be noted that
current City staffing and anticipated work loads will not allow us
to perform the above referenced work and still complete other tasks.
It would, therefore, be necessary to look at additional summer help
in order to take over additional duties at the ball fields.
1. Alternative 01, of course, would be to enter into an agreement with
Lila Monticello Softball Association in that we take over the major
maintenance of Lha field and that they only lx: responaiblc for
dragging Lha infield and litter pickup and such. In dddition,
a decision would have to be made as to how much of Lho initial
dovolopmont of the park would be done and how it would be funded.
2. This Alternative would be to upgrade the park and have Lilo Monticello
Softball Association contract with aealConC else to maintain the
fields.
3. This Alternative would he to only do a portion of the above work or
negotiate with Lilo Monticello Softball Association so that they
continuo to do some of the work and we do Dome of the work.
4. This Alternative would be to do nothing but proceed as we currently
aro, and that is to pick up Lila electricity, the toilets, and minor
mowing.
• 12 -
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
l The City staff feels that it is the Council's decision as to
- whether we wish to get into a sumer recreation program separate
from that of the Joint Recreation Program with the school.
Although the City is involved in a variety of different parks
with different themes, we are not active in any recreation program that
is specifically City maintained at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from the Monticello Softball Association.
E. ADMINISTRATOR'S ADDENDUM:
With respect to Alternative #1 that John has highlighted above, it
should be noted that other cities who enter cooperative agreements
for maintenance and upkeep generally have an Association fee.
Please note from page 4 of the Softball Association's memo that
Buffalo, Annandale, and Elk River cacti collect a League fee. They
do note that the City, out of the fee, pays for maintenance and
umpires. They do not indicate if there is a League -operated concession
stand for other revenues. It would be my contention that if the
City assumed the maintenance and upkeep, the City would charge a
minimum of $250.00 per team that is entered in the League. Willi
only 10 teams, that would generate $2,500.00, which is in excess of
John's estimated annual maintenance cost. The Softball Association
would then be expected to pay their own umpiring fees and equipment
fees, etc. From my previous experience, it was also a common practice
for the City to assume maintenance but charge an entry fee.
The upgrading of the fields is, however, a different question. It is
something that must be discussed to determine whether or not we wish
to put the money into the upgrading. It usually is considered a
legitimate City expense. While John does reforuuce plans for future
growth and development in the area, I wish to unphasizc that the
current aituatlon is what must be addressed at this time. Whether
or not we accept long range planning obligations will have to be
determined at a future date.
C
TO: THE MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
0
FROM: THE MONTICELLO SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION
Please find enclosed a proposal for some help from the City of Monticello in maintaining the
softball fields. in the post the city has been some help on different expenses that the
softball assoc. has had. At the present, the softball fields are in very poor conditions an
the league lies just started these past few years, losing teams to other leagues. And as
citizens of Monticello we have always had pride in the facilities that the City of Monticell
has had.
The reasons for the difficulties the league has had, the reasons why some of the teams are
leaving this league, and what some of the other leagues are doing to maintain good fields
are explained in a short outline that follows.
The softball fields are used in most cases by the league. But you will also find that other
people are involved out there. The necessary improvements needed will not benefit just the
softball league.
The following is a proposal that the league would like to present to the city:
1. That the city maintain and bring up to good or excellent standards, the softball
fields. This being with the help of the 4" well that to on the property.
2. That in the future years the city be Involved with there quality equipment and peopi
in keeping the fields in excellent shape.
3. That the city maintain the costs of the satellites and dumping in which they have
done In the past.
4. That the city maLntene the costs of regular garbage dumping which is needed from
year to year.
5. That the costs of all above be barn on an equal bests between the city and the soft—
ball association. Knowing that for the first few years that the city may not to—
calve enough funding from the association, but that the balance of the future years
the amount received from the association may more than cover the costs to the city,
some thought must be retained on how that would be handled in the future.
1 We hope to have moat of the questions you may hove, answered in the outline or with out
presence at the next meeting. Thank you very much for your time.
Cary L. Holten President
Kenneth Ka lway 1145$ 1D)m r'
Crag Rask Vice President
Mike Offerdahl Secretary
C
NORM NEEDED ON THE FIELDS
FIELD #1
I. This summer
a. regular fertilizing as deemed necessary.
b. regular mowing of fields with,city to be notified.
c. regular watering to be done as per the above necessities.
2. This fall
a. black dirt to be hauled in to make fields smoother, especially right field.
b. seeding where necessary especially in the outfields.
C. fall fertilizing.
3. Future years
a. regular fertilizing as deemed necessary.
b. fence repair all atound.
1. fix holes.
2. tighten fence.
3. repair gates.
FIELD N2'
I. This summer
a. regular fertilising as necessary.
b. regular mowing of field.
c. regular watering.
2. This fall
a. black 'dirt to be hauled in to make fields smoother, especially in outfield area.
b.- seeding as necessary.
e. fall fertilizing.
3. Future years
a. regular fertilizing.
b. minor fence and gate repair
OTHER AREAS
1. The driveway around the fields needs sometype of fill to eliminate the potholes that
c so bad. This has boon attempted already this year by the league. Other work already done by
e leaRuo wa■ IIII brought in to langthen the bases and Ilme brouRht In to kill the Rrass of ex-
nded infield.
0
FINANCIAL HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE
A. 1979 -----Net loss of $24.55
C- 1. Expenses
a. Umpire fees paid $2276.75
b. Softballs $426.57
c. Concession expenses $1558.59
d. 'Mist. (bases, sanction fees, beer license, satellites etc) $945.00
c. Total expendatures $5206.91
2. Income
a. League entry fees, tournament, billboards, concessions.
b. Total $5182.36
3. Note--che city covered the dram shop Ins. for the above year.
B. 1980 -----Net profit of $1,247.83
1. Expenses
a. concession expenses $3173.22
b. softballs $381.46
C. well repair $305.87
d. Rarbage pickup $218.75
e. Olson and Sons Electric (1978 repairs--) $642.82
f. Misc. expenses (beer llc., Sanction fees, billboards etc) $826.65
G. Total $5548.77
2. Income
n. Entry fees, tournament, billboards, concessions, etc. $6,796.60
3.- Note, city paid Dram shop Ins.
C. 1981 -------Net profit of $1138.43
1. Expenses
a. Concessions $2943.59
b. Dram shop Ins. $912.00
c. Bases $328.91
d. softballs $510.14
a. Misc. $682.87
f. Well repair (pressure tank) $191.10
g. Gas (for hauling eaulpment for black dirt on fields) $295.20
h. Crass seed and field mxntanence $505.21
1. Garbage pick up $t25.00
J. Total $5994.02
2. income
n. Entry face, tournament, billboards, concessions
b. Total $7192.45
D. 1982 -----Net profit of $83.67
f 1. Expenses
9fi a. softballs $577.15
b. garbage $225.00
c. Misc. $275.18
d. Trophies 1209.00 O
a.
Total
on faa• $380.00
T
1. 7'o tel !1666.33
2. Income
a. Entry fees, Billboards
b. Total $1750.00
In 1982 only 1 field was used because of the seeding that had taken place the year b.,.l
Because of only I field we held no league tournament and did not open concession stand
because of reduced nightly ascendance.
E. 1983 ---Net Loss of $633.70
1. Expenditures
a. umpire sanctioning $300.00
b. faint supplies $171.77
C. Trophies (tournament and League) $305.96
d. Misc. $658.32
C. Garbage $220.00
f. softballs $1310.58
g. league sanction and tournaments $523.50
h. concession supplies $999.28
i. Total $4489.31
2. ,Income
a. entry fees and tournament
b. Total $3855.61
In 1983 the Monticello J.C.'s took over the concession stand and ran it for the year wl,
a profit to them of approx. $1200-1400 with no return to the league, but the monies put
to good use by the JC's.
0
A
(4)
WHAT OTHER LEACUES ARE OOINC
t A. Buffalo League
1. Maintained by the city
2. $250 entry fee from each team goes to the city for maintanance and the city pays
for the costs of umpiring.
3. If they get at least IO teams this year the entry per team will be $200.
4. The city or league gets the concessions
B. Montrose League
I. All team fees go to the Montrose Softball Inc. of three men who take care of the
fields themselves
2. They also run the concessons.
C. Rockford League
1. 1.041I;UC maintal»e new league formed
2. One time Joan to League of $10.000. to be paid back to the city, time unknown.
3. They run and collect from their own concession stand
1). Big lake League
1. Property owned by school
2. Malntanined by the school
3. Expenses to the league unknown at this time. f
E. Annandale League
L 1. City collects 52754300 from each teas for maintenance
2. Iles lights and fields expenses paid by city
3. City out of League fee pays for umpires
4. Pays city extra $ 50.00 for cost to run tournament for lights
5. No concessions
6. Due to post payments to city the city was currently running ahead in payments made
league, until the city just installed new lights.
F. F.Ik River League
1. City owns fields and mnintalns
2. Lengue fee gees to City (approx.=290)
3. League has lights.
4. Unk what else.
C. Becker I.cngue
I. Unk what happens but the land we believe belongs to the Legion club who operates t)
conces:tion !,Land.
C
191
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
B. Consideration of Amending Title 4, Chapter 1, of the City Code
to Reflect the Current Building Trades Code Requirements. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In looking over the Ordinance, Title 4, Building Regulations,
Chapter 1, I noted some changes that needed to be made in this
particular section. Basically it is updating and also incorporating
additional codes, appendices, standards, and supplemental material
to this particular chapter of the Building Code. The intent of
this updating is to bring this particular section of the Monticello
City Ordinance in date with changes which have happened within the
different building codes adopted by the State and also by the Uniform
Building Code. Once these changes are made, we will have a section
in here incorporating any additional changes that will be made in
years to come without going through another, Ordinance amendment when
these changes become necessary in the building codes. As you will
note in this supplement, you will see where different changes have
been made. Basically, they have stayed the same, only there are
changes in the years of the editions of the code books when they
were enacted, adding other sections to address accumulative
supplements to the different codes which are referenced in the
building code section of our Ordinance. As a change takes place
in years to come, any action to be taking place will be Council
review of any change in wording of a particular code section or
an updating with a new manual. When the date becomes effective,
�- they will be so noted and a separate copy will be sent out to you
With the proposed changes to take place. Therefore, it will not
necessitate an Ordinance amendment.
I
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
There is really only one alternative action, which would be to approve
the Ordinance amendment to certain sections in Title 4, Chapter 1,
as presented. Merely what we are doing is keeping up to date with
the different changes in the codes and reiterating them into the
code books and updating our Ordinance accordingly. This should be
the only updating that should take place that we foresee in the
future.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the changes in the Ordinance amendment
to Section 4, Chapter 1, of the building code as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the current Ordinance: Copy of the Ordinanco showing language
changes.
- 14 -
4-1-1 4-1-2
CHAPTER 1
` BUILDING CODE.
SECTION:
4-1-1:
Intent and Purpose
4-1-2:
Building Code
4-1-3:
Organization and Enforcement
4-1-4:
Permits, Inspections and Fees
4-1-5:
Fire Zone Districts
4-1-6:
Violations and Penalties
4-1-7:
Effective Date of Ordinance
4-1-1: IurENT AND PURPOSE: An Ordinance adopting the Minnesota Building
Code;. providing for its administration and enforcement: regulating
the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal,
demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and main-
tenance of all buildings and/or structures in the City of Monticello: pro-
viding for the issuance of permits and collection of fees.
4-1-2. BUILDING CODE: The Minnesota State Building Code, one copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Administrator, has
been adopted by Minnesota Statutes 16.851 (1977) as a uniform building code
applicable throughout the State. Such codu is hereby confirmed as the build- _
,r 3119 code of the City of Monticello and incorporated in this ordinance as
completely as if set out In full.
A. The 1900 Edition of the State Building Code adopts by roference the
following codes:
1. 1979 Edition of the. Uniform Building Code, identified as "UDC";
2. 1970 Edition of the National Electric Code, identified as "NEC";
I. 1978 American National Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumb-
waiters, Escalators and Moving Walks, identified as ANSI A17.1 -
1978 and Supplement, ANSI A17.1a - 1979.
4. 1979 141nnanota Plumbing Codu, identified as WID 120 through
MID 135.
5. "flood Proofing Regulations", June 1972, Office of the Chief of
F.nginouro, U.S. Army.
G. Minnesota Boating, ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
Code, identifieA an SDC 7101 through SBC 8505.
7. "Donign and Evaluation Criteria for Energy Conservation in Now
Buildings, Additions and Itumodelod Elements of bnildingo and
Standards for Certain Existing Public Buildings", identified no
2MCAR Section 1.16001 through 2MCAR Section 1.16006.
0. State of Minnesota Mobilo Ilumo Installation Standards 1977,
Idoncified no 211CAII 1.90450 installations and rolatod definitions
in 21-ICAR 1.90101.
4-1-2 4-1-3
• 9. Standards of Performance for Solar Energy Systems and Subsystems
t .sl Applied to Energy Need of Buildings, 1977 Edition, identified as
2MCAR 1.16101 through 2MCAR 1.16108.
B. In addition to those items listed above, certain Appendices, Standards
and Supplemental Materials referenced in the Code are hereby adopted by
reference as part of the Building Code of the City of Monticello and
incorporated into this Ordinance as completely as if set out in full,
including but are not limited to the following&
1. Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters, identified as
SEC Appendix "A".
2. Variations in Snow mads, identified as Minnesota State Building
Code, Appendix "B".
3. 1979 Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 35.
4. Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendix "B".
C. The following Appendixes, Standards and Supplemental Materials are
not mandatory part of the Coale but are adopted by reference for the
City of Monticello and are incorporated into this Ordinance as completely
as if set out in full.
1. Minnesota State Building Code Appendix "C". Abbreviations and
addresses of Technical organizations.
2. 1979 UB% Appendix, Chapters 12, 3n, 48, 49, 55 and 70.
3. Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendixes C s D.
4. Flood Proofing Regulations, Sections 201.2 through 200.2.
5. 1979 UBC Chapter 12, Section 1214, is amended to require that doors
between a garage and dwcllirg unit should M oolf -closing by use of
an approved closing device. (6/22/81 0103)
4-1-3 ORGANIZATION AND ENFORCEMENT: The organization of the Building
Department and enforcement of the code shall be conducted within
the guidolinco established by Chapter 2 of the Uniform Building Code
1979 Edition. The Cade shall be enforced within the incorporated limits of
the City of Monticello and any extra -territorial limits permitted by law.
Extra-torritorial limits shall be any area, incorporated or unincorporated,
designated under a Joint Powers Aqreemcnt entered into by the City of
montieollo and any other township/villarye/tiny/county.
The Building Department shall be the Building Cccdo Department of the City
of Montieollo, The Administrative Authority shall be a State Certified
"Building Official" so designated by the Appoint Authority. The Appointing
Authority shall be the City Council of the City of Monticello.
11
C
4-1-4
4-1-4: PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND FEES:
4-1-7
A. The issuance of permits, conduction of inspections and collections
of fees shall be established by the City Council. (7/13/61 #104)
B. Surcharge - In addition to the permit fee required by Item A above,
the applicant shall pay a surcharge. of $.50 per permit. (7/13/81 0104)
4-1-5: FIRE ZONE DISTRICTS: All areas within the City of Monticello
shall be in Fire Zone 03.
4-1-6: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: The penalty described in the Uniform
Building Code, 1979 Edition, Section 205 as amended, shall be
in keeping with Minnesota Statutes 609.031 which provides for a maximu.9
fine of $500 or imprisonment for 90 days, or both.
4-1-7: F.FFECTIVF. DATE OF ORDINANCE: The effective date of thin ordinance
shall be
99
Ef
C
4-1-1 NFW l ANC IAU 1S IINDfRLM 4-1-2
CHAPTER 1
BUILDING CODE
SECTION:
4-1-1:- Intent and Purpose
4-1-2: Building Code
4-1-3: Organization and Enforcement
4-1-4: Permits, Inspections and Fees
4-1-5: Fire Zone Districts
4-1-6: ViolaLions and Penalties
4-1-7: Effective Date of Ordinance
4-1-1: INTENT AND PURPOSE: An Ordinance adopting the Minnesr.-+ Building
Code; providing for its administration and enforcement: regulating
the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal,
demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and main-
tenance of all buildings and/or Structures in the City of Monticello: pro-
viding for the issuance of permits and collection of fees.
4-1-2: BUILDING CODE: The Minnesota State Building Code, one copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Administrator, has
been adopted by Minnesota Statutes 16.851 (1977) as a uniform building code
applicable throughout the State. Such code, its supplements, amendments,
additions, addenda, alterations, subtractions, revisions as currently
adopted and which may in the future be adopted and incorporated as part of
the code, is hereby confirmed as the building code of the City of Monticello
and incorporated in this ordinance as completely as if eat out in full.
The Administrative Authority for the City of Monticello as snocificd in 4-1-3
of this code shell maintain on file in hin/her office a record of All
adopted supplements, amendments, etc., and shall utilize in the enforcement
of the building code as if set out in full in this section.
A. The 1960 Edition of the State Building Code adopts by reference the
following codes:
1. 1982 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, idontified as "UBC"r
2. 1984 I?dition of the National Electric Coda, identified as "NEC":
3. 1978 American National Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumb-
waiturs, Escnlatoru and Moving walks, identified as ANSI A17.1 -
197U and Supplement. ANSI A17.1a - 1979.
4. 1979 Minnesota Plumbing Code, identified as M11D 120 through MIID 115.
5. "Flood Pruofing Rcyulationa", June 1972, Office of the Chief of
Enginoers, U.S. Army.
b. Minnesota Iloating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
Code, identified as SBC 7101 through SBC 8505.
a
4-1-2 4-1-2
7. •"Design and Evaluation Criteria for Energy Conservation in New
Buildings, Additions and Remodeled Elements of Buildings and
Standards for Certain Existing Public Buildings", identified as
2MCAR Section 1.16001 through 2MCAR Section 1.16006.
8. State of Minnesota Mobile Hame Installation Standards 1977,
identified as 2MCAR 1.90450 installations and related definitions
in 2MCAR 1.90103.
9. Standards of Performance for Solar Energy Systems and Subsystems
Applied to Energy Need of Buildings, 1977 Edition, identified as
2MCAR 1.16101 through ,2MCAR 1.16108.
B. In addition to those items listed above, certain Appendices, Standards
and Supplemental Materials referenced in the Code or which may, in the future,
be adoeted and/or referenced in the Code are hereby adopted by reference as
part of the Building Code of the City of Monticello and incorporated into
this Ordinance as completely as if set out in full, including but are not
limited to the following:
1. Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters, identified as
SBC Appendix "A".
2. Variations in Snow 'Loads, identified as Minnesota State Building
Coda, Appendix "B".
3. 1979 Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 35.
4. Minnesota Plumbing Coda Appendix "B".
5. 1983 One and Two Family Dwelling Code.
1
J
G. 1983 Model Energy Code.
7. 1982 Uniform Fire Code.
0. 1983 Uniform Building Code Standards.
9. 1979 Uniform Mechanical Code.
10. 1982 Uniform Housing Code.
11. 1984 Accumulative Supplement to the;
A. Uniform Building Code
n. Uniform Building Code Standnrds
C. Uniform Mechanical Code
D. Uniform Building Sccurit,r Coda
E. Uniform Fire Code
F. Uniform (lousing Code
12. Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 55.
C. Tho following Appendices, Standards and Supplemental Materials aro
not mandatory part of the Coda but are adopted by reference for the
City of Monticello and are incorporated into thin Ordinance as complotely
as if sot out in full.
1. Minnesota State Building Code Appendix "C". Abbreviations and
addresses of Technical Organizations.
l
2. 1979 UB% Appendix, Chnptera 30, 49, 55, and 70.
V
c
4-1-2
3. Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendices C 6 D.
4. Flood Proofing Regulations, Sections 201.2 through 208.2.
5. 1980 UBC Plan Review Manual.
6. 1981 Life Safety Code Handbook. (6/22/61 010 3)
4-1-7
4-1-3: ORGANIZATION AND ENFORCEMENT: The organization of the Building
Department and enforcement of the code shall be conducted within
the guidelines established by Chapter 2 of the Uniform Building Code
1982 Edition. The Code shall be enforced within the incorporated limits of
the City of Monticello and any extra -territorial limits permitted by law.
Extra -territorial limits shall be any area, incorporated or unincorporated,
designated under a Joint Powers Agreement entered into by the City of
Monticello and any other township/village/city/county.
The Building Department shall be the Building Code Department of the City
of Monticello. The Administrative Authority shall be a State Certified
Class II "Building Official" so designated by the Appointing Authority. The
Appointing Authority shall be the City Council of the City of Monticello.
4-1-4: PERMITS, INSPECTIONS A14D FEES:
A. The issuance of permits, conduction of inspections and collections
of feet shall be established by the City Council. (7/13/81 0104)
B.Surcharge - In addition to the permit fee required by Item A above,
the applicant ahall pay a surcharge. The surcharge comeutation is based
on the value of construction. Surcharge equals .0005 of the total value
of construction or 500, whichever Is greater. (1/13/81 0104)
4-1-5: FIRE ZONE DISTRICTS: All areas within the City of Monticello
shall be in Fire Zone 03.
4-1-61 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: The penalty described in the Uniform
Building Code, 1979 Edition, Section 205 as amended, shall ba
in keeping with Minnesota Statutes 609.031 which provides for a maximum
fine of $500 or imprisonment. fot 90 days, or both.
4-1-7. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCES The effective date of this ordinance
shall he
G
C
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
Consideration of an Amendment to Title 7, Chanter 1, of the City_
Code Reducinq the Time Allowed for Nuisance Abatement. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The time period allowed in the current Ordinance for the abatement
of defined nuisances is 30 days. The process the City utilizes to
get property owners to take care of their nuisances is to submit a
form letter to the property owner indicating the nature of the
nuisance and the time period they have allowed to complete that.
If at the end of the 30 day period they have not taken care of the
nuisance, then we have the City Attorney submit a letter with a
slightly more threatening overtone. we have elected to follow that
course to avoid the actual issuance of citations and pursuing through
court action. The problem with this procedure is that we grant 30
days to remedy the issue, then the Attorney grants an additional 15-20
days to remedy the matter. Thus, anywhere from 45 to 60 days may pass
before we're at a point of being able to issue the citation. In order
to expedite the nuisance abatement, it is staff's opinion that the
Ordinance should read 14 days to remedy the matter. Then at the end
of the 14 day period the Attorney will submit the additional letter
again referring to a 14 day periud. Consequently, allowing for the
mail time, 30 days will have passed before we formally issue Lila
citation. We also feel that we will definitely begin issuing the
citation to show that we are serious about nuisance abatement. Granted,
we will end up paying additional legal fees that we will not recover
through the fine, but I think it is time to take a definite position
on this regardless of the cost.
By utilizing this new method, we believe we Will get better response
in the 30 day period, which really Was the original intent of Lha
Ordinance.
If adopted, Utia Ordinance will appear in Lha papar on Lhe following
Thursday and become effective upon that publication.
11. ALTERNAT11/1? ACTIONS:
1. Adopt Lha amendment - this will apead up the abatement protean
but will still provide ample time for a person to remedy whatever
nuisance they have.
2. Maintain the original Ordinance - this would allow Lha 30 -day
abatement period to remain intact. we may Wish to consider
eliminating the second letter from the City Attorney and go right
to citation issuance at the end of Lila 30 -day period.
3. Propose an amendment to the Ordinance selecting a time period other
than clic 14 -day period - thio may be arrived at due to considerations
that Coma up at Lila Council meeting in terms of adequate Lima limits
for nuisance abatement.
- 15 -
f Council Agenda - 5/29/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the proposed amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
copy of the current ordinance, copy of the Ordinance showing the
language change.
A
l\
7-1-1
CHAPTER 1
C PUBLIC NUISANCES 1
SECTION:
7-1-1: Activities, Business Prohibited
7-1-2: Exceptions
ACTIVITIES, BUSINESSES PROHIBITED: Subsequent to the enactment
hereof, the following acts, conditions, activities, business or
businesses are hereby prohibited except as hereinafter permitted:
(A) ::o unwholesome substance, garbage, refuse, offal, or similar substances
shall be brought, deposited, left, dumped or allowed to accumulate within
the City. For purposes of this Section of the City Ordinances entitled
"Public Nuisances", refuse shall include but not be limited to the following
or si.^;ilar items storLior parked outside: Passenger automobiles, station
wagons, trucks and other vehicles not currently licensed (if applicable) by
tl;e State which are because of mechanical deficiency incapable of movement
under their own power; household appliances such as but not limited to wash-
ing machines, dryers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, television and radio
sets, phonographs, and similar items, vehicle parts, old machinery, machinery
parts, tires, tin cane, bottles, building materiels (unless current building
permit for their use is in force), wood (unless used for fire wood and neatly
stacked), metal or any other materiel or teat off material, and similar items.
(1-12-76 15)
Ct(D) A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the Stets
and consists in unlawfully doing an act or ommiting to perform a duty which
an act or omission shall;
1. Annoy, injure or andangdr the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any
considerable number of persons.
2. Offend public decency.
1. Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct or tend to obstruct or condor danger -
Otis for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream canal or basin or a
public park, square, street, alloy or highway or
4. in any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or
the uno of property, and as t;uch nuisances ara hereby prohibited.
(C) In any nrcn the CxiatCnCe of any noxious or poisonous vegetation such
.a puinun ragweed, or other poiuonoua plants, or any wood, grass, brush or
plr,ntn which are a firs hazard or utherwiao detrimental to the health or
app,•arance of tl,e neighborhood.
(n) In any area, within 100 feet of the nearest building, the existence of
weeds or grass in excess of six (6) Inches in height or any accumulation of
dead woods, graso or brush.
7-1-1 7-1-2
(E) In any area, on an occupied lot, the existence of weeds or grass in
excess of six (6) inches in height or any accumulation of dead weeds,
grass, or brush.
(F) No person shall hereafter engage within the City in any trade or em-
ploy%nent which is hurtful to the inhabitants or dangerous to the public
health, or injurious to neighboring property, or from which obnoxious odors
arise, or undue noise eminates, and specifically no person shall operate a
dump or garbage dumping area or rendering plant or trailer court except
such specific activity be authorized by the issuance of a permit as herein-
after provided.
(G) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit garbage, tin cans or
refuse to be thrown or scattered upon any street, alley, highway, parkway
or boulevard or real estate.
(11) The owners and occupants of lands shall remove such substances des-
cribed in subsection (A), (C), (D) and (E) from ouch land, or eliminate
the nuisance existing on such land or in default of removal therefrom with-
in thirty (10) days of a written notice from the Zoning Administrator or
other authorized representative of the Council. The Zoning Administrator
may order the removal at the expense of the owner or occupant, which expense
shall become a lien upon the property to be collected as a special assess-
ment. In lieu of such elimination, the Council may require the removal by
appropriate court order or by criminal prosecution or by both.
'7-1-2: .EXCEPTIONS: The provisions of this Chapter do not apply to the J
hauling or accumulation or spreading or manure, for tho purposes
of agriculture, nor to the natural and usnnl accumulation of rubbish from
one residence on the owner's own premises, provided the public licalth is
not adversely affected thereby.
Ordinance Amendment 11/23/111 010')
4D
0
7-1-1 7-1-1 - %1
CHAPTER 1
+~� PUDLIC NUISANCES 1
� art-rzoa:
7-1-1: Activities, Business Prohibited
7-1-2: Exceptions
7-1-1: ACTIVITIES, BUSINESSES PROHIBITED: Subsequent to the enactment
hereof, the following acts, conditions, activities, business or
businesses are hereby prohibited except as hereinafter permitted:
(A) NO unwholesome substance, garbage, refuse, offal, or similar substances
shall be brought, deposited, left, dumped or allowed to accumulate within
the City. For purposes 'of this Section of the City ordinances entitled
"Public Nuisances", refuse shall include but not be limited to the following
or similar items storud or parked outside: Passenger automobiles, station
wagons, trucks and other vehicles not currently licensed (if applicable) by
the state which are because of mechanical deficiency incapable of movement
under their own power; household appliances such as but not limited to wash-
ing machines, dryers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, television and radio
sets, phonographs, and similar items, vehicle parts, old machinery, machinery
parts, tires, tin cans, butt] es, building materials (unless current building
permit for their use is in force), wood (unless used for fire wood and neatly
ntacked), metal or any other material or cast off material, and similar items.
(1-12-76 95)
(711 •,t (n) A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the state
and consists in unlawfully doing an act or ommitinq to perform a duty which
an act or omission shalle
r-.
I. Annoy, injure or andangetr the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any
considerable number of persons.
2. Offend public decency.
3. Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct or tend to obstruct or render danger-
ous for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream canal or basin or a
public park, square, street, alley or highway or
e.. In any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or
chc use of property, and an much nuisances are hereby prohibited.
(C) In any arch the existence of any noxious or poisonous vegetation such
.,m puiuon ragwuod, or other poisonous plants, or any wand, grass, brush or
plants which are a fire hazard or otherwise detrimental to the health or
appearance of the neighborhood.
(n) in any area, within 100 feet of the nearest building, the existence of
wee+ln or grass in excess of six (6) inches in height or any accumulation of
dead woods, grass or brush.
\1�
7-1-1 7-1-2
(E) In any area, on an occupied lot, the existence of weeds or grass in
excess of six (6) inches in height or any accumulation of dead weeds, J
grass, or brush.
(F) No person shall hereafter engage within the City in any trade or em-
ployment which is hurtful to the inhabitants or dangerous to the public
health, or injurious to neighboring property, or from which obnoxious odors
arise, or undue noise eminates, and specifically no person shall operate a
dump or garbage dumping area or rendering plant or trailer court except
such specific activity be authorized by the issuance of a permit as herein-
after provided.
i
(G) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit garbage, tin cans or
refuse to be thrown or scattered upon any street, alley, highway, parkway
or boulevard or real estate.
(N) The owners and occupants of lands shall remove such substances des-
cribed in subsection (A), (C), (D) and (E) from such land, or eliminate
the nuisance existing on such land or in default of removal therefrom with -in
fourteen (14) days of a written notice frum the Zoning Administrator or
other authorized representative of the Counr•il. Thu &ming Administrator
may order the removal at the expense of the owner or occupant, which expense
shall become a lien upon the property to be coll,;ctacl as a special assess-
ment. In lieu of such elimination, the Council mny require the removal by
appropriate court order or by criminal prosecution or by both.
7-1-2: EXCEPTIONS, Tho provia(onn of this Chapter do not apply to the 'I
hauling or accumulation or spreading of manure for Ulu purpooes
of agriculture, nor to the natural and uncal Accumulation of rubbish train
one residence on the owner's own premises, provided the public health i:;
nut adversely affected therchy.
Ordinance Amendment 11/23/01 0109
]P
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
10. Consideration of Establishinq a Date and Time for a "Work" Session
on the Comprehensive plan. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I think it is crucial that the Council set a session wherein we can
meet in the Conference Room and start through the goals and policies
section of the Comprehensive Plan. The HRA and the Planning Commission
have already met and reviewed staff comments as well as introduced
their own comments. Copies of staff suggestions have been submitted
to OSM for their response and to Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates for their
review. Wu anticipate receiving their comments shortly. What 1 would
like to see happen at this point is for the Council to sit down in their
own work session and address the same goals and policy issues as the
others have addressed. When that work session is complete, staff will
assemble all of the data that has come in from the various concerned
parties and then request a joint work session of the Council, HRA, and
Planning Commission to reach agreement on final draft. When that work
session is complete, staff will begin putting the goals and policies
section into final form and concurrently will begin the review of the
guide plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, staff is
currently processing the inventory section of the Comprehensive Pian.
The inventory section we have not had meetings on, since it is largely
a data collection program that does not require subjective comment. When
both the goals and policies and the guide plan portions have been
completed, they will be assembled into the final document for adoption.
Again, concurrently to that compilation staff will commence work on the
Zoning Ordinance and will present to the various bodies options for
ongoing work sessions. The action required for this coming Monday
evening is to pick a time and place where we can sit down and go to
work on the goals and policies section of the Pian.
One final note: The City advertised and held three meetings open to the
general public, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one in the
evening. No person attended any of these three maetings.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The alternatives for this issue are as varied as your schedule allows.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
seleCL A time and date no Inter than 10 days away.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
No supporting data at this time.
- 17 -
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
{ 11. Consideration of Purchasing a New Typewriter. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Near the end of 1983, our last fiscal year, the Council approved the
purchase of a Xerox Memorywriter. At that time, the purchase price
was approximately $1,000.00, and the budget carried a $1,500.00 figure.
Shortly after the approval, I cancelled the order, not because the
typewriter was not a quality machine, nor berause we didn't need it,
but rather because of the poor treatment we received from the Xerox
people and the Xerox representative handling our account. Because I
cancelled that order, obviously we did not address our need for a
quality machine. Shortly after the first of the year, we investigated
other electronic typewriters and had demonstrated to us by the people
at Marco a Panasonic 708 Electronic Typewriter. I had Karen work on the
Panasonic machine for a little while, and she found it to be very
suitable. The magazine "Office Administration and Automation" gave a
brief review to the Panasonic product and said it was a quality machine.
I would like now authorization to place an order for a Panasonic 708
at a purchase price of $1,390.35. This is approximately $400.00 higher
than the Xerox 610 Memorywriter that we originally looked at. Ilowever,
the Panasonic 708 is a typewriter closer to the equivalent of the
Xerox 620 Memorywriter, which sells for $1,772.00. with the initial
purchase we will also receive two print wheels, which are valued at
$24.50 each, one dozen ribbons -alued at $37.70 per dozen, and a dozen
lift-off tapes valued at $16.00 a dozen. The 51,390.00 price reflects
/�. a 79 discount from the list price of $1,495.00. The added items thrown
in equal $78.00 in value. The sale price also includes complete training
on the machine.
A couple of Lite extra features that the Xerox 610 did not have is the
expandability. In the future, should we need to add extra memory
boards we can do so for less than $200.00. We can also add a magnetic
tape dump for under $400.00, which can create a word processing storage
System. I do wish to note that the purchase of Lhis machine is not
intended to replace our need fora wordand data processing sysLcm. liven
in the future, should we be able to allLOMaLe through computer syetumn,
it is still essential to have a basic Lypewriter that in available.
One final note that hClped us indicsLC our preference for the Panasonic
machine. Marco Products in St. Cloud is the service organization for
the machine, and they have boon very responsible and responsive to our
needs over the years that they have serviced our existing machines and
copying machine. The sorvice contract for the Panasonic amounts to $175.00
per year with a 50• reduction during the first year of ownership. The
Xerox Memorywritur service Contract would have cost us $291.00 per year.
I.antly, the not -vice technician from Marco has indicated that our machine
that we currently consider our bent machine is about out of life. Ila
Council Agenda - 5/29/84
C
- 19 -
indicated that lie is now spending in excess of two hours on a
service call making adjustments and refinements to keep the
machine working. He indicated that it is simply a matter of age
and that either it would need a major overhaul or should be
replaced. We have not, at this time, evaluated whether or not
to trade it in, or to utilize the machine in another department
that does not require the quality or the quantity of typing that
we demand here in City Hall. It is conceivable that the Library
or even the Senior Citizen Center would be able to utilize our
present machine.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the purchase of a Panasonic 708 utilizing the 1983
budgeted amount that was carried over.
2. Do not authorize acquisition of a new electronic typewriter -
this will keep us using the same Remington system that is
currently in City Ball.
3. Instruct staff to do yet further comparison and study and return
with the results.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This recommendation is largely from myself and from Karen. We think
the Panasonic 708 will suit our needs and would be an excellent asset
to bring into City Hall. We respectfully request you authorize the
purchase.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
No supporting data on this item.
NOTE: This typewriter needed repairs while preparing this agenda
only IS weeks after the last repairs were made.
C
- 19 -
I
MAY --------GENERAL FUND ----- MAY
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
205.00
18788
MIL State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
4.00
18789
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - water
220.00
16790
Wright County Journal Press - Ad for bids for pumphouse
18.48
18791
Greys, Johnson - Computer costs - Feb. 6 March
580.00
18792
Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies for all depts.
592.39
18793
Equitable Life Assurance - Ins. - K. Hanson 6 Matt T. (Retmb.)
40.00
16794
League of MN. Cities - Payment share of LMC building
138.00
18795
MacQueen Equipment - St. supplies
133.49
18796
Warren Engineering - Lift cylinder
66.94
16797
Goodin Co. - Pipe, primer, cement - wwTP
32.26
18798
Autocon Ind. - Repair and labor - water Dcpt.
154.40
18799
OSM - Engineering fees - March
702.89
18800
Bridgewater Telephone - Utilities
857.12
18801
Machine Tool Supply - wrench Set, punch 6 chisel sur
147.88
18802!
Share Corp. - Plastic bandage
60.02
168031
Century Laboratories - Wd. killer-664.60,concrete sial - 219.80
Soap, etc.
1,092.82
18804
U. S. Postmaster - Stamps
370.00
18805
Dorn Communications - Sub. to Corporate Report
21.00
16806
State Capitol Credit Union - Withholding
125.04
18807
Department of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
154.00
18808
MN. Star Citiea Conference - Al Pelvit's conf. reg. fee
40.00
18809
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
137.50
18610
Gwen Bateman - Animal Control - April
666.00
16811
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract
4,529.00
18812
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/li
1,502.27
18813
James Preusse - Cleaning City Hall
27,',.00
1
18614
YMCA of Mpla. - Contract payment
312.50
18815
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
18816
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
18817
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
18818
Ken Maus - Council salary
125.00
16819
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
18820
Wright County State Bank - FWT - April
4,035.70
18821
Commissioner of Revenue - State W. H. tax
2,516.00
18822
State Treasurer - Social Security Fund - FICA W/Il
2,378.63
18823
Wright County Treasurer - Property taxes - Saxen h Lindberg
776.63
18824
David Kranz - Fire Dop[. seminar in Duluth
143.94
1BB25
Willard F'arnick - Seminar in Duluth
196.28
18826
Gene Jensen - Seminar in Duluth
173.00
18827
Wayne Iz Broe - Seminar in Duluth
137.28
1RBLB
Govt. Fimmnce Officer's Assoc. - PamphIuL 011 miCrocoml)utels
13.00
18829
League of MN. CtLies - Advance rey. for Leaguo conference,
380.00
18830
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
325.Ou
18831
MN. State Treasurer - Uep. Reg. fees
4.00
18832
Thomas Eidem - Lodging oxpenae for MCMA eonfatence
122..08
1R833
NSP - ULilitiva - Apr 11
7,786.59
18834
North Central Public Service - Gas - April
2,532.10
18835
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. feco
196.00
IRB36
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fens
4.00
10837
Monticello Dep. Reg. 02 - TiLle/Rog. fot 1984 Dodge pickup
10.75
18838
Country Chryaler - 1904 Dodge pickup
10,053.00
18839
7'11omas Eidem - Car allowance - May
300.00
18840
Burlington Northorn R. R. - Pipe line croaaing - Parwoot
600.00
18841
State Capitol Clodit Union - Payroll W/li
125.04
1BB42
Jerry lies -moo - Janitorial aerviean at Library
137.50
18843
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
348.00
18844
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,526.33
18845
State Treasurer - Social Sec. Div. - FICA W/I1 - 5/1 - 5/15
2,413.31
18846
State Treasurer - Reimb. State for overpayment on WWTP
1,983.00
18847
Commissioner of Revenue - Certification fee - Bd. of Assessors
6.00
18848
Wright County State Bank - Investments
1,232.61
18849
St. Cloud State University - Seminar for Karen 11anson
59.00
18850
Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages thru 4/20/84
1,182.00
18851
Wright County State Bank - Investment
160,000.00
16852
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repair lights at City Hall
29.52
18853
National Bushing - Parts , helmet, paint, oil filters, etc.
90.91
16854
liarry's Auto Supply - Pad, paint, sheet, spark pl., etc.
147.29
16855
Flicker's T -V - Transformer 6 clips
3.70
16856
Moon Motors - Repair saw
23.20
18857
Mobil Oil Corp. - Gas
45.45
18858
Seelye Plastics, Inc. - 1 March pump
93.25
18859
Earl F. Andersen - Playground equipment in Hillcrest Park
4,195.00
18860
Satterleo Co. - Sturdevent kits - Mtco. Bldg.
67.70
18861
Sears, Roebuck - 1 grinder - Mtce. Bldg.
195.02
18862
Bergstrom's Lawn 6 Garden Equip. - Filter and decals
92.42
18863
Automatic Garage Door Co. - 2 overhead doors and transmitters
1,071.00
18864
at Mtce. Bldg.
Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies
30.02
18865
Our Own Hardware - Misc. supplies
261.84
18866
Ted Farnam - Travel expense for sominar to Pipcstone
239.35\
18067
Centra Sots Coop. - 2 loots, 2 rake, 4 sn.rps - WWTP
72.80
188GB
Davis Water Equip. - Irrigation material for Vita Course
702.65
18661.)
Maus Foods - Library -34.83, Dog -102.48, WWTP-105.08. Other
244.24
18870
Ind. Lumber Co. - Lumber for City Hall remodeling
69.51
16871
Central Contractors Supply - Puller sot. - MLCe. 111d1j.
218.27
18072
Goodin Co. - Supplies and parts - WWTP
41.03
18873
VWR Scientific - Filters - chlorine teat. kit - WWTP
56.76
18874
Monticello Times - April publications - April
11610.78
18875
G s G Industrial Supply - Drill press vise., 40 ton press - Mteo
509.49
18876
Monticello Office Products - Map measure - 55.50, ti mist.
207.26
1BB77
Leof Bros - Uniforms
158.25
18878
Banker's Life - Group Ins.
3,887.76
18879
Flexible Pipe Tool Co. - Cutting tools for roddei - Sewer Dept.
172.45
18680
Davis Electronic Service - Repairs and Parts for Fire Dept.
100.75
18801
Bridgowatei Telephone - Toluphono - April
054.61
18882
Monticullo Printing - Sower/water postals, acct. forms, etc.
350.20
10883
Foster Franzen AOo:cy - Renewal of license for Ilrway R -of -Way
30.00
18884
Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. - 1974 Parking Facility sonde
12,491.G4
181385
Griofnow Sheet Metol - Repair furnace at Saxon home
26.50
IBBBG
Mr'. M. V'Cpnnpr - Legal fees for Union negotiat.ions
440.00
18887
Moody'u investors - Municipal bond rating - F. S. 1.
11000.00
18888
Ilolmos s Graven - Tax Increment - F.S.I.
1,222.50
18889
Lindberg Decorating - Wallpaper - City Hall
80.32
18890
Howard Dahlgron Assoc. - Planning services for April
489.90
18891
Midway Industrial Supply - Streetwalker with hand gun assembly
2,911.45
18892
6 50' hose - St. Dept.
O. K. Itaidw'aic - Parts and aupPllea
32.15
18893
Water Products Co. - l" Rockwell motor with 1Cm01.0 control -WALL:
230.66
18894
Moya products - IU Ills. rolled 111.001
3.00
16895
Viking Industrial Center - Clothes- coveralls I. glOves - W'WPI'
56.12
10896
Rexnurd - Probo for WIJTP
257.23
18897
Northern Liquidators, Inc. - 2 Cutting wheals - WWI'P
44.00
18898
Nasco - Watur core sampler - WWTP
47,02
18899
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO
D. B. Industries - Supplies for WWTP
145.23
18900
Northwestern Bell - Fire Phone - April
39.16
18901
Vance's Service Center - Gas for Fire Dept.
58.76
16902
R. L. Gould - vita Course materials - Park Dept.
387.09
18903
First Bank Mpls. - Public fund charge
4.00
18904
Gruys, Johnson - Computer costs - April
290.00
18905
AT 6 T Information Systems - Fire 'phone charges
3.40
18906
Wright County Auditor - Tax receipt d roll printout
30.30
18907
Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Police contract
9,494.38
18908
Thomas-Patco Co. - 10 traffic cones - St. Dept.
70.00
18909
State Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - Jack and shop coat
8.25
18910
Sherburne County Equip. Co. - Lamp and switch
26.25
18911
Safety-Klcen Corp. - Supplies
33.00
18912
Suburban Gas Co. - Gas 6 parts
199.18
18913
Snyder Drug - Misc. supplies - City Rall
12.77
18914
St. Cloud Newspapers - Ad - bid for pumphouse
26.41
18915
The Plumbery - Pipes
1.73
18916
Phillips Petro. Corp. - Gas - Water Dept.
33.00 -
18917
Braun Eng. Testing - County Road 75 bituminous testing
1,125.63
18918
Marco Business Products - Office supplies
137.80
18919
MN. Fire Inc. - Float dock strainer for Fire Dr.PL.
223.06
18920
National Life ins. - ins. - T. Eidem
100.00
18921
Maus Tire Service - Tires for WWTP vehicle
134.69
18922
Novack, Inc. - Televising sewer lines
2,752.25
18923
J M oil Co. - Diesel fuel
389.88
18924
Kjellberg's Develop. Co. - Ripped out cement corner by Metcalf/
Larson new bldg. for handicapped ramp.
70.00
18925
Local 049 - Union dues
114.00
18926
Gould Bros. Chev. - Repairs to Van 6 Fire Depart. truck
295.00
18927
Fair's Garden Center - Grass seed and weed ki3let a
121.00
18928
Heinen 6 Mason - Temp. gauges for WWTP air compressor
58.91
18929
Double "U" Electric - Hooked up garage floor openers 1. connected
• new air compressor at Mtco. Bldg.
363.37
18930
Central McGowan - Cylinder rental
2.411
18931
Karen Doty - Travel expense 6 mileage - Jan. thrnt April
44.50
18932
Audio Communications - Batteries for pagets for fire Dept.
58.50
16933
SpringsLed, Inc. - Services for Tax Increment IMnds - 1984
5,045.00
18934
Buffalo Lock 6 Key - Clean dour locku at Librcuy 6 re -key
28.50
113935
VOID
-0-
18936
Rick WolfeLellar - Mileage
27.50
18937
Viking Press, Inc. - 200 city maps
200.00
18938
Itayden Murphy - Washers - St. Dept.
7.50
109391
3 M - Paper for copy machine at MLeo. Bldg.
144.CO
18940
Equitable Life Assurance - Ins. for K. Hanson s M. Theisen
40.00
18941
Allen 1101vit - Mileage
82.15
18942
Feed Rita Controls - Feed Rite 05, chlorine, hydro. acid, ate.
11688.88
16943
In Lei'nALienAl City MgmL. Assoc. - Dues T. Cid em
264.00
10944
Gary Andorson - Mileage
102.75
10945
Payroll for April 25,402.20
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTSFOR MAY $301,523.30
c
LIQUOR FUND
LIQUOR MAY DISBURSLM EMTS - 1984 AMOUNT CHECK NN.
NO.
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - March
5,457.24
11190
Gruys, Johnson - Computer Costs - Dec. - 83 - thru March - 84
440.00
11191
Beverage Journal - Sub. 3 years
10.00
11192
Foster Franzen Agency - Liquor Liability ins.
66.00
11193
Twin City wine Co. - Liquor purchase
1,217.45
11194
Ed Phillips & Sons - Liquor pw chase
5,542.60
11195
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor purchase
3,601.02
11196
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - 1.iquor
3,893.12
11197
State Capitol Credit Union - Withholding
20.00
11198
I-ain City Wine - Liquor purchase
1,749.36
11199
Wright County State Bank - Fed. W/II tax
422.80
11200
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/II
194.25
11201
Commissioner of Revenue - State w/II tax
256.00
11202
State Treasurer - Social Security Div. - FICA W/11
264.78
11203
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
5,776.47
11204
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
2,520.64
11205
Twin City Wine - Liquor
507.33
11206
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
3,481.87
11207
I:orth Central Public Service - Gas
133.29
11206
Northern States Power - Electricity
430.53
11209
State Capitol Credit Union - Withholding
20.00
11210
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
1.419.46
11211
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine purchase
911.10
11212
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
3,122.88
11213
MG. State Treasurer - PERA W/I1
167.32
11214
State Treasurer - Social Security Div. - FICA W/11
241.30
11215
Internal Revenue Service - Federal liquor stamp
54.00
11216
Commissioner of Revenue. - Sales tax - April
5,536.20
11217
Day Dist. Co. - Beer
1,480.95
11218
7 Up Bottling - Mise. mdse.
110.25
11219
Slifka Sales - Misc. mdso.
69.41
11220
MOnLiee110 Times - Advertising
330.60
11221
Gruaslein (leverage - Beer
9,575.05
11222
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
4,485.40
11223
Coast to Coast - Garbage can
0.99
11224
Judu Candy t Tol,acco - Misc, mJse.
564.78
11225
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdx,..
500.85
11226
Monticull0 OiiiCu PI'OdUetn - Oft ice nupplius
0.85
11227
Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - (leer
17,555.36
11228
Thorpe Dist. Co. - BCer
3,547.80
11229
MM. State Treaa111'e1 - fond handler's license
25.25
11230
Selmbcl Bevarago - Bear
2,239.50
11231
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdue.
166.68
11232
City of Monticello - Sower/water - lot qts'.
137.21
11233
Yonak Sanitation - Contract
82.50
11234
Bridgewater Telephone - Tolephono
44.40
11235
Gruys, Johnson - Computer costa - April
110.00
11236
nankor'a Life Iris. - Group Iris.
361.26
11237
Loifort Trucking- Froight
378.34
11230
Ed Phillipa i Sono - Liquor
5,474.07
11239
Twin City Wine - Liquu&
1,705.64
11240
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdoo.
274.35
11241
Rick Doorr - 8horiff'o Dept. - repair of oquipmont (Alarm)
163.09
11242
Payroll for April
3,823.76
TOTAL DISOURSEMENTS - KAY
9100,690.17
FFFG
-
INDIVIDUAL PEEMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
SURCHARGE
n
SURCHARGE,
MONTH OF Anril
1984
$ .50
149.00
.50
24.70
�ERMIT
.50
DESCRIPTION
PFI
NAME/LOCATION-
[VALUATION
27.00
UMBER
.50
.50
PERMIT
3.50 !
- -
19.75
23.00
.50
94-595
Upper level over basement
SF{ Michael Seherber/1048 West River St.
$ 31,700.00
$ 200.30
84-5%
house
24 -unit Plumbing
P IAnderson Plumbing, Inc./511 Washingtc' St.
.50
B4-597
Single Family Dwelling
SF I Quintin Ianners/105 Craig Lane
49,400.00
271.30
84-598
Single Family Dwelling
SF! Floren Philippi/1604 W. River St.
50,000.00
283.00
48.00
84-599
New Bank Building
C First National Bank/407 Pine St.
298,900.00
930.25
23.00
84-600
I
Storage Shed
AD Dale Kazeck/1505 Hilltop Drive
1,000.00
10.00
I
Scree -led Deck Enclosure
ADI Toa Lindquist/1208 Sandy Lane
1,000.00
10.00
I84-601
84-602
Attached Garage
P.G.! Rick Haugeto/37 Fairway Drive
7,000.00
62.50
84-603
Single Family Dwelling
SF! Marvin George Builders/22 Fairway Dr.I
39,500.00
235.75
84-604
'Single Family Ddelling
ISF: Marvin George Builders/35 Fairway Lh.I
42,300.00
248.35
84-605
!Single Family Dwelling
SFf Marvin George Builders/31 Fairway Dr.I
44,700.00
259.15
• 84-606
Single Family Dwelling
SF; Marvin George Builders/28 Fairway Dr.!
40,700.00
241.15
84-607
(House Addition
AD Larry Nolen/1701 W. River St.
24,000.00
164.50
84-608
-4 Assembly Buildings
I IRI, Inc./1401 Industrial Drive I
720,000.00
1,983.00
84-609
1Datached Garage
IPG Merrill Magnuson/513 E. Third St. `
1,000.00
! 10.00
84-610
Self Service Gas Station/
C Samuel Properties/1200 Hwy 25 S.
100,300.00
433.80
!Convenience Store
'
84-615
'Detached Garage
RG Ml Wolters/211 Marvin Elwood Rd.,
5,400.00
51.70
�j 84-616
Single Family Dwelling
SFi Conquest Const. Co./1602 W. River St.
•42,300.00
248.35
84-618
Convenience Store Addition
C1 Pump-N-Munch/306 W. Broadway
32,800.00
205.60
84-619
IOotached Garage
RG: Gordan Link/503 Vine St.
7,000.00
62.50
84-620
(Removal 6 Replacement House ADi Harold Scherber/213 'Vine St.
I No Charge
(Shingles
TOTALS ;$1,539,000.00
i$ 5,911.20
PIAN CHECKING
84-599
04ev Bank Building
C First National Bank/407 Pine St. i
604.66
84-608
14 Assembly Buildings
IIXI, Inc./1401 Industrial Drive i
1,288.95
84-610
Self Service Gas Station/
C Samuel Properties/1200 Hwy 25 S.
281.00
'Convenience Store
1 84-618
jConvenience Store Addition
C, Pump-N-Munch/306 W. Broadway
133.64
I
J
TOTALS
$2,308.25
�
- -
-
I
I• TOTAL IZLVELiIJE
$9,470.25
FFFG
-
SURCHARGE
PLUMBING
SURCHARGE,
S 15.65
$ 15.00
$ .50
149.00
.50
24.70
23.00
.50
25.00
23.00
.50
149.45
27.00
.50
.50
.50
3.50 !
19.75
23.00
.50
21.15
23.00
.50
22.35
23.00
.50
20.35 !
23.00
.50
12.00
360.00
53.00
.50
.50
50.00
48.00
.50
2.70
21.15 I
23.00
.50 I
16.40
22.00
.50
3.50
I
$769.35
$475.00
I
56.50
i,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Monthly Building Department Report
PERMITS and USES
Month of April 1984
PERMITS IS5ITED Last
This
Same ;bath Last Year
-11.1s Year i
Month March
Month April
Last Year To Date
To
Date
RESIDENTIAL
Number
7
16
15 19
29
Valuation 5
236,400.00
5 387,000.00
$1,018,500.00 S 1. 296, 868. 00
$1,510,500.00
Fees
1,336.55
2,358.55
4,142.00 5,403.61
7,867.01
Surcharges
118.15
193.50
507.30 646.10
745.15
OOMMr'RCIAL
1
Number
1
3
1 7
12
Valuation
30,000.00
432,000.00
11000.00 412,925.00
693,700.00 1
Fees
318.45
2,588.95
17.50 1,534.28
4,544.50
Surcharges
15.00
215.85
.50 206.35
346.70
INDUSTRIAL
Number
1
1
;
1
Valuation
720,000.00
500,000.00
720,000.00 f
Fees
3,271.95
1,197.45
_
3,271.95 i
Surcharges
360.00
250.00
360.00
PLUMBING
Number
5
13
6 7-
23
Fees
122.00
475.00
128.00 193.00
855.00
Surcharges
2.50
6.50
3.00 3.50
11.50
OTHER$
Number
1 2
Valuation
3,000.00 7,420.00
Fees
70.00 150.00
Surcharges
1.50 1.50
TOTAL NO. FERMITS1
13
33
23 38
65
TOTAL VALUATION
266,400.00
1,539,000.00
1,022,500.00 2,217,213.00
2,924,200.00
TOTAL FEES
1,777.00
8,694.45
4,357.80 8,478.34
16,538.46
TOTAL SURCHARGES (
135.65
775.85
512.30 1,107.45
1,463.35
CURRENT MONTH
IPERMIT
vWv1%
Number
to
Date
NATURE
Number
PSValuation T 50=G5 This .year
Last vent
Single Family
8
5 1,987.35 5
170.30 5 340,600.00
13
9 y
Duplax
0
1
0
Malti-family
0
1
3
CormierCial
3
2,568.95
215.85 432,000.00
6
7
Industrial
1
3,271.95
360.00 720,000.00
1
1
Res. Garages
4
186.70
10.20 20,400.00
6
4
Signs
0
2
Public Buildings
0
0
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
Dwellings
4
184.50
13.00 26,000.0Q
8
3
Commercial
6
0
Industrial
0
0
PLUMBING
All types
13
475.00
6.50
23
7
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Swimming Poole
0
0
Docks
0
0
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
0
0
TOTALS �_ 33 8,694.45 775.65 1,539,000.00 65 36