City Council Agenda Packet 09-22-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 22, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor. Arve A. Grimamo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held September 8, 1986,
and the Special Meeting Held September 15, 1986.
3. Citizen Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Old Business
0. Consideration of a Resolution to Either Amend the Original Petition
for the Annexation of 706 Acres to Include the Entire Orderly Annexation
Area, or Adopting a Resolution Withdrawing the Original Petition
and Filing a New Petition for the Annexation of the Entire Orderly
Annexation Area.
5. Consideration of Granting a Time Extension for the Completion of
the 86-1 Project.
New Business
6. Consideration of Adopting an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance to Allow the Development of Daycare Centers in a Commercial
Zone.
7. Consideration of Granting Approval to a Proposed Development for
Fourth Street Park.
8. Consideration of Granting Contingent Approval for a Conditional
Use for a Daycare Center in a Commercial Zone.
9. Consideration of Bills for the Month of Septamber.
10. Adjourn.
K
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 8, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve A. Crimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen.
Jack Maxwell
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the special meeting held August 25, 1986, and
the regular meeting held August 25, 1986.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Mr. John Sandberg appeared before the Council to question whether the City
will be responsible for expending large sums of money to serve the new
proposed middle school with sewer, water, storm sewer, roads, and other
utilities at taxpayers' expense. Mr. Sandberg noted that the City Council
has indicated it will be working with the school to supply utilities. and
he felt that the school district should be paying all costs associated
with roads and utilities for their school rather than City taxpayers being
responsible for the cost.
Mayor Grlmsmo noted that it was his opinion the middle school should be
in the City limits and if services are needed by the school, they would be
extended by the City, but the school would pay its fair share of the cost.
Administrator Eidem noted that the post policy of the City has been to
assess benefiting property and in this case. the school district would be
responsible for a portion of cost associated with extending utilities and
also abutting property owners, which is currently. Mr. Jim Boyle.
Petitions
City Administrator Eidem introduced a petition presented by property owners
Daniel Frie. Tom Holthous, and Darryl Veches requesting vacation of utility
and drainage easements between Lots I and 2. Block 3, in The Meadows, for
the purpose of allowing tonstruction of a zero lot line duplex.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to accept the petition and to hold a public hearing on the vacation of
the utility and drainage easements on October lb, 1986.
Because of recent complaints by residents over the number of cruisers and
kids congregating on sidewalks on Broadway on weekends, the City Administrator
had mot with the Wright County Sheriff to discuss the situation. and the
Sheriff's Department has agreed to increase foot patrol* and add additional
squads for patroling on weekends. Sheriff Department representatives were
in attendance. and Chief Deputy Jim Powers indicated that one way to attack
tho problem in through stricter enforcement of the traffic laws, etc. The
deputies noted that most of the kids cruising and congregating were not
necessarily causing a problem, but a lot of out-of-towners come to Monticello
Council Minutes - 9/8/86
for the main purpose of cruising down Broadway, etc. The Sheriff's Department
doesn't recommend at this time taking stricter action other than increasing
patrols in an effort to stop racing and squealing of tires, etc. If the
problem continues or becomes worse, other action may be necessary.
Consideration of Ordering the Improvement of Minnesota Street as Petitioned
by Installing Sanitary Sewer and Water.
Three property owners along Minnesota Street, Marvin Kramer, Tom Holthaus,
and Tom Brennan, have petitioned for extension of sanitary sewer and water
as part of the interceptor sewer project. The Public Works Director, John
Simola, noted that the project could be constructed with a shallow sewer
to serve only these three property owners with no future extension possibilities,
or the project could be installed in such a way that it could be extended
across the freeway in a southerly direction in the future at a very deep
depth to allow for gravity flow at a much greater cost. The third
alternative would be to install a shallower sewer at the present time
with the intention of installing a lift station on the south side of the
freeway in the future to serve this area by force main if needed. It was
his recommendation that a shallower sewer be installed along Minnesota
Street at an estimated cost of $31,152.00 to the property owners with an
additional $1,000.00 in oversizing being picked up by the City until it is
extended south of the freeway. At the time it would be needed on the south
side of the freeway, a lift station could be installed and connected to
the sewer on Minnesota Street. This alternative would keep the City's
oversizing cost to a minimum. The property owners have agreed to pay
the entire cost of a normal improvement and would be assessed at approximately
9% over 10-15 years as part of the interceptor sewer project.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried
to order the improvement as an additional add-on to the interceptor sewer
project with IOOi of the normal cost being assessed to the three benefiting
property owners.
5. Consideration of Approving Change Order No. 4 to Construction Project 86-1.
During the backfilling of the interceptor sever line between Cedar Street
and Washington Street next to the railroad tracks. the contractor wag
required to thoroughly compact the backfill materials to stabilize the
soil for support of the nearby railroad tracks; and as a result, is now short
of backfill material in this area. The area between Cedar and Washington
Street was originally somewhat low; and after grading the material. there
Is currently no drainage outlet in this area and some water does pond on
the railroad right-of-way during heavy rains.
Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that the proposal is to haul
in some additional fill material to raise this area slightly and to install
a small pipe underneath the railroad tracks to drain to the railroad ditch
during heavy periods of rain. The estimated cost of the change order would
be $2,450.00 for the fill material and the drainage culvert.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to
approve Change Order No. 4 on the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer Project.
Council Minutes - 9/8/86
6. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Petitions from Kent Kjellberg for
Annexation and Requesting Action from the Minnesota Municipal Commission.
Administrator Eidem informed the Council that on September 3 the City
received two separate petitions for annexation of additional lands south
of the City lying adjacent to Highway 25 from property owner Kent Kjellberg.
The area requested for annexation consists of approximately 475 acres.
The Minnesota Municipal Commission has currently scheduled a public hearing
for September 10 to consider the annexation of 704 acres originally requested
by the City; and Mr. Eidem noted that the question now becomes whether the
Council should request that this additional 475 acres from Kent Kjellberg
be incorporated into the original request before the Municipal Commission.
The other alternative would be to present the annexation request from Mr.
Kjellberg as a separate petition to the Municipal Board, which would result
in separate public hearings on the annexation request.
Elizabeth Morrisson of Howard Dahlgren d Associates, the City's Consulting
Planner, noted that the City Council must decide what area it wishes to
pursue before the Municipal Board or whether it wishes to continue accepting
annexation request petitions on a piecemeal basis. She felt in this case
it would be better to incorporate Mr. Kjellberg's annexation petition with
the petition already before the Municipal Board rather than holding separate
hearings.
Council members Bill Fair and Dan Blonigen noted that the City will probably
continue to receive in the future separate requests by property owners
for annexation which will result in many public hearings being necessary
before the Municipal Commission. It was their opinion that the City should
consider going back to its original Planner's recommandation based on the
study the planning firm did of the Orderly Annexation Area which indicated
that the entire Orderly Annexation Area should be considered for annexation,
which would allow the City better control over planning Its future utility
reeds, etc. It was the general consensus of the Counr.il that by accepting
individual piecemeal annexation requests, the City never really knows where
its eventual boundaries may be and that it is very difficult to continually
plan for providing services for future growth If the City does not know where
its boundaries may extend to. It was noted by the Council that because of
the original opposition by Township officials to the possibility of annexing
the entire Orderly Annexation Area, the City reduced its original scope to
only approximately 700 acres which now appears to be a mistake. Since the
Initial request was made, additional property owners have requested to be
Included in the annexation procedures which will always leave the City uncertain
over what areas to plan for in the future.
As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to return to the recommendation of the Consulting Planner who prepared
the original study of the Orderly Annexation Area and to request that the entire
Orderly Annexation Area be considered for annexation and to request the
Municipal Commission for a continuance of the public hearing for annexation
past the October 15, 1986, scheduled date.
-3- 9)
Council Minutes - 9/8/86
7. Consideration of CrantinR Approval for an Application for 3.2 Beer/Wine
License - Applicant. Kenneth S. Chew.
Motion was made by Bili Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried
to approve the issuance of a 3.2 Beer/Wine License for Kenneth Chew for
a restaurant at the Monticello `Sall contingent upon submission of surety
bond and liability insurance coverage as required.
8. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1987 Budget of the SWC4.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to approve ratification of the 1987 Budget for the Cable Commission, with
the City of Monticello's share being $4,170.00, which will be reimbursed
by Rite Cable Company.
9. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Consider the 1987 Preliminary
Budget.
A special meeting was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on September 22. 1986, for
the purpose of reviewing the preliminary 1987 Budget.
C ���,/,
Rick Wolfateller
Assistant Administrator
C7
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 15, 1986 - 4:65 p.m.
A special meeting of the City Council duly called by Acting Mayor, Fran Fair,
was held for the express purpose to consider Whether or not to sell
Lot 4, and the southeasterly 90 feet of Lot 5, in Block 34, the site
known as the Old Fire Hall. Members present Were: Dan Blonigen, Fran
Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell. Member Absent: Arve A. Grimsmo.
With Acting Mayor, Fran Fair, presiding, the meeting was called to order.
Administrator Eidem explained to the Council that Mr. Wayne Brinkman,
representing National Bushing, had given an oral indication that he
would purchase the old Fire Hall site, excluding a parcel where the
City's pump house is located, for the City's asking price of $88,000.00.
Eidem noted that certain easements would be required to be placed over,
under, and across the property in question. Councilmember Bill Fair
asked that he be brought up to date on the easements required. John
Simola, Public Works Director, explained that a utility easement would
lie across the northwesterly 54 feet of Lot 4, and that a separate utility
easement would lie across the southeasterly 18% feet of Lot 4, and that
e15 -foot alley easement would lie across the northwesterly 15 feet
of Lot 4. Simola also noted that a restrictive covenant, prescribed
by the Minnesota Department of Health in order to protect the water
quality in and around the pump house, would be required.
Councilmembor Fran Fair asked if there were any known problems with
the structure. Staff responded that the structure was sound but would
be remodeled to accommodate National Bushing. Councilmember Bill Fair
stressed that simply because the conveyance was occurring with City
acting as the sailer, there were no variances or permits automatically
guaranteed outside of the Zoning Ordinance. Eidem acknowledged that
any building permits would have to go through the regular process, and
that the Salo of the real estate provided no assurances of development
other than those guaranteed by the Zoning Ordinance itself.
Councilmember Maxwell felt that the asking price agreed upon between
Eidem and Brinkman was extremely reasonable considering the limitations
being placed on the property by both the easements and the covenant.
Councilmember Maxwell offered the following motion: I move that the
City of Monticello offer to soil to Mr. Wayne Brinkman Lot 4 and the
southeastarly 90 foot of Lot 5, Block 34, Original Plat lake the old
Fire Hall) for the soiling price of 588,000.00, and further, that prior
to conveyance there be established 1) a restrictive covenant prescribed
by the Minnesota Department of Health, 2) an alley easement across the
northwesterly fifteen (15) foot of Lot C, 3) a utility easement across
the northwesterly fifty-four (54) foot of Lot 4, and 4) a utility easement
across the southwesterly aightsan and a half (18.51 foot of Lot 4; the
City Attorney 1• hereby ordered to prepare the above described covenants
and easements along with a purchase agreement and/or dead Which the
Mayor or Acting Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to
execute in order to complete the conveyance.
03
Special Council Minutes - 4/iS/86
J
The motion was duly seconded by Bill Fair. voting in favor: Blonigen,
Bili Fair, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell. Voting in Opposition: None.
There being no other business to be conducted at this special meeting,
the meeting was adjourned.
Thomas A. Eid'em
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
4. Consideration of a Resolution to Either Amend the Original Petition
for the Annexation of 704 Acres to Include the Entire Orderly Annexation
Area, or Adopting a Resolution Withdrawing the Original Petition and
Filing a Nov Petition for the Annexation of the Entire Orderly Annexation
Area. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City's initial resolution requesting the annexation of 704 acres
was originally set to be scheduled for a public hearing on September 10,
1986. Prior to that hearing, legal counsel for Monticello Township
submitted a request to continue that hearing to a later date. The Minnesota
Municipal Board met on that request to continue the hearing and granted
the continuance. The hearing was scheduled to reconvene on October 15,
1986. On September 8, 1986, the Monticello City Council moved and seconded
that a request be submitted to the Municipal Board to further continue
the public hearing to allow for the original petition to be amended
to include the entire Orderly Annexation Area rather than just the 704
acres. On Wednesday morning, September 10, 1986, at 9:30, Mr. Terrence
Merritt and Ms. Pat Lundy of the Minnesota Municipal Board convened
the original hearing. At that time, they entered into the record the
official documents that had been submitted to date. They acknowledged
at that time that the hearing was to be reconvened on October 15, and
asked if there were any further comments. Gary Pringle, legal counsel
for the City of Monticello, submitted a motion that the October 15 date
be postponed even further to allow for the City of Monticello to amend
its original petition for annexation. Terrence Merritt, who was presiding
at the hearing, entered the motion into the record and advised representatives
of the City of Monticello that the Board would take it under consideration.
On Monday, September 15, 1986, Ms. Pat Lundy Of the Minnesota Municipal
Board called me to advise we that the Board had elected not to grant
the continuance, nor to deny the continuance, but rather waft to see
if the City submitted the amended petition. I explained to Ms. Lundy
that the City was taking the wait and see attitude about the continuance
before determining whether or not to amend the original petition or
withdraw the original petition and submit a now request. At that point,
Mo. Lundy indicated that the preference of the Board historically has
been that major amendments not occur, but rather a withdrawal and resubmittal
in the preferred option. On Thursday, September 18, I spoke with Gary
Pringle on the alternatives the City has. It is his opinion that, based
on hie conversations with the Municipal Board, the City should withdraw
its original petition to annex 704 acres in the southeast corner, and
resubmit a now resolution requesting the annexation of the entire Orderly
Annexation Area. Accompanying the City's submittal to the Municipal
Board should be a statement requesting a waiver of the filing fee since
that has already boon paid with our initial petition.
Upon receipt of the statement of withdrawal, the Municipal Board will
cancel the public hearing that is currently scheduled. Upon receipt
of the now petition, the Minnesota Municipal Board will schedule a new,
separate and distinct hearing from the original process. If the resolution
:M
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
is adopted this coming Monday evening, I will submit both documents
to the Municipal Board within a day or two following the meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Amend the original petition and increase the amount of land from
706 acres to 5,780 acres (the entire OAA). This is not the preferred
choice of the Municipal Board, and may overall compromise our ability
to present our case.
2. Adopt a resolution withdrawing our original petition to annex 704
acres. Adopt a second resolution initiating the annexation of the
entire OAA.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff confers with the staff of the Municipal Board and with legal counsel
that the original petition should be withdrawn in its entirety and replaced
by a resubmittal of a new petition to annex the entire OAA. This tends
to keep the process cleaner and eliminates any type of conflict over
the propriety of initiating amendments, etc.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the resolution to withdraw; Copy of the resolution initiating
annexation.
-2-
RESOLUTION 86-21
RESOLUTION OF WITHDRAWING A PETITION TO ANNEX CERTAIN LANDS
IN THE FLITTER OF THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MIIMESOTA,
TO ANNEX CERTAIN ADJOINING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY.
TO THE MINNESOTA MUNIC.'PAL BOARD:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution dated June 23, 1986, and numbered
Monticello Resolution 86-16, the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota,
initiated proceedings for the annexation of certain lands described
below, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414 and the rules of the Minnesota
Municipal Board, a public hearing was set by the Minnesota Municipal
Board to be convened on September 10, 1986, at 9:30 a.m., in Monticello,
Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a request to continue said hearing to a later date,
said hearing was, by Board action, continued to October 15, 1986, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a motion duly passed by the Monticello City Council
at their regular meeting of September 8, 1986, declaring the City's
desire to amend the petition of June 23, 1986, to include all of the
area known as the Orderly Annexation Area, a motion was made to the
Minnesota Municipal Board on September 10, 1986, requesting an additional
continuance beyond October 15, 1986, to allow the City of Monticello
to amend its original petition, and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Board has taken no action on the City
of Monticello's motion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
THAT:
1. The City Council hereby determines that the interests of the City
would be best served by annexing the entire area known as the Orderly
Annexation Area.
2. The City Council hereby determines that an amendment to its original
petition would be inappropriate.
3. The City Council hereby declares its desire to withdraw its petition
of June 23, 1986, said petition requesting the initiation of annexation
proceedings of the following territory:
Area A
The following described parts of Auditor's Subdivision Number One,
according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder,
Wright County, Minnesota:
Lot 16 lying northerly of Interstate Highway Number 94.
The right of way of Interstate Highway Number 94 in Lots
9, 10, 11, 12, 16. 17, and 18.
The following described unplatted parts of Section 18, Township 121,
Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota:
That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter lying
northerly of Meadow Oak, according to the plat on file in i^�
the office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota. l/ 4
Resolution 86-21
Page 2
That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter lying J
northeasterly of said plat of Meadow Oak.
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
lying west of the east 24 rods (396.00 feet).
That part of Goveracent Lot 2 lying west of the east 24
reds (396.00 feet).
Area 9
The following described parts of Auditor's Subdivision NLber one,
aecor_ine, to the plat on f_la in the office of the County Recorder,
Wright C.=%t7, Minnesota:
A11 of Lots 20 and 21.
The South Half of Lot 22.
All of Lot 23.
The cecete_ry as shown in Lot 23.
The following described unplatted parcels in Wright County, Minnesota.
In Section 13, Township 121, Range 25:
The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter.
The Bout -went Quarter of the Southwest Quarter.
The East Half of the Southwest Quarter.
Lot A of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter.
In Section 24, Township 121, Range 25:
The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.
The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.
In Section 18, Township 121, Range 24:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
lying southwesterly of the northeasterly right of way line
of County Highway trutber 118 (a.k.a. N.E. Jason Avenue).
In Section 19, Township 121, Range 24:
The West Half of the Northwest Quarter
The East Half of the Northwest Quarter lying southwesterly
of the northeasterly right of way line of County Highway 110
(a.k.a. N.E. Jason Avenue).
Tho west 5 rods of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter.
rV)
Resolution 86-21
Page 3
4. The petition of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, dated June 23,
1986, is hereby vithdravn in its entirety, and the Minnesota Municipal
Board is requested to terminate all proceedings relating to the
annexation of the above described property.
Adopted this 22nd day of September, 1986.
Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
WN
RESOLUTION 86-22
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ANNEX CERTAIN LANDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA,
TO ANNEX CERTAIN ADJOINING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY.
TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL HOARD.
WHEREAS, certain territory described below is not presently included
within the incorporated limits of any city; and
WHEREAS, said territory described below has been designated for orderly
annexation to the City of Monticello is urban in character, or about
to become so, and in need of central sewer and water facilities in the
immediate future, and
WHEREAS, certain portions of said territory described below have been
petitioned for annexation by their owners; and
WHEREAS, this territory abuts upon the City limits along its entire
southerly boundary thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA
THAT:
1. The City Council hereby determines (1) that the territory described
below abuts upon the City limits and is or is about to become urban
or suburban in character; and (2) that none of the territory is
now included within the limits of any city.
2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to annex the following
territory to the City;
(INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
(ENTIRE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA)
3. Annexation proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute e1e are hereby
initiated, and the Minnesota Municipal Hoard is requested t0 not
a time and place for a hearing upon annexation of the above described
property.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, this
22nd day of September, 1956.
Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidam
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
5. Consideration of Granting a Time Extension for the Completion of the
86-1 Project. Q .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The specifications for Project 86-1 call for completion of the blacktopping
on the project by October 15, 1986, and completion of the entire project
by October 31, 1986. The L 6 G Rehbein Company, Inc., has applied for
an extension on the bituminous portion from October 15 to November 1,
1986. They request this extension only for Sixth Street and Maple Street.
They have requested completion date for the remaining work and final
hookup of the lift station and interceptor sewer from October 31, 1986,
to December 15, 1986. They also request time in the spring to complete
the turf restoration.
Rehbein gives as their reasons for the extension the extremely wet weather
experiencedthis summer and fall, and the four change orders for which
additional time has not been allocated. A copy of their request is
enclosed for your review.
we have asked the L S G Rehbein Company to complete the eastern portion
of the job, that from Suburban Gas to Washington Street, without request
for extension. We anticipate having service use of this line for Suburban
Gas and the Sixth Street Station project early in October. The City
staff, therefor%, feels that no extension should be granted for the
eastern portion of that job. We, tharefor o, would consider an extension
only from that portion of the job at Suburban Gas vest to Elm Street
and then the lift station and actual hookup of the lift station. I
feel their request is within reason, as there has been a significant
amount of wet weather this year, coupled with four change orders and
the enormous amount of problems Rohboin has had dowatering the project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the extension of time
as allotted for the western portion of the job vast of Suburban
Gas, with no extension for the eastern portion.
2. Alternative number two would be to not make an extension of time
on the job. I believe this is not practical, and the contractor
would have legal recourse.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council authorize extension
of the completion dates as outlined in Alternative $I.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Rahbain's letter of September a, 1986.
-3-
L. & G. REMBEIN, INC.
6805 20th Avenue South
Centerville, MN 55038
612/426-1345
September 4, 1986
Mr. Chuck LePak
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & ASSOC., Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Re: Monticello Interceptor Sewer
Project 86-1
Subject: Completion Date.
Dear Chuck:
We hereby request an extension to the completion dates as
specified in the general requirements. The dates we request
are as follows:
Bituminous Pavement-.
All bituminous pavement should be placed by the original
date of October 15, 1986 with the exception of the cross-
ing at Sixth Street and Maple Street. we request the
completion date be extended to November 1, 1986 for these
locations.
Turf Restoration:
Restoration from Washington Street to Pine Street will be
completed within 30 days of testing and acceptance of the
pipe. Restoration is complete on Chestnut with the excep-
tion of the lift station area. All 'other turf restoration
will be completed as weather permits. we request adequate
time in the spring to complete what ever work remains.
Lift Station:
The lift station should be completed by the specified date
of October 31, 1986. Weldor Pump indiciated that the con-
trols will be complete approximately September 12. Our
electrical subcontractor is ready to start his portion of
the work anytime. We should be able to complete PUMP
installation within the next 2 weeks.
AN AFFIRMArVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Assoc., Inc.
Page 2
Interceptor Sewer
We will make every attempt to complete mainline instal=
lation by the specified date of October 31, 1986. how-
ever in the event complications arise, we request the
completion date be extended to December 15, 1986.
Our justification for time extensions is based on two
major areas. First, the abnormally wet weather we have
experienced the entire construction season has hampered our
operations with downtime and a higher than normal water
table.. Second, we have completed several change orders for
which_ additional time has not been allotted.
Please review our request and notify us with your re-
sponse at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
L. 6 G. Rehbein, Inc.
CL4ice 2_�Gn9�
urence E. afaon
Estimator/Manager
LEG/jb
cc: John Simola
City of Monticello
1
ON
9
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
6. Consideration of Adopting an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
to Allow the Development of Daycare Centers in a Commercial Zone. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ken Catton is proposing to amend the Monticello City Ordinance to
allow a daycare center as a conditional use in a B-3 (Highway Business)
Zone. Mr. Catton is suggesting that other suburban communities have
allowed a daycare center in some type of business zoning. we did receive
information from other suburban communities which have allowed daycare
centers in some type of business zoning. City staff did assemble an
ordinance amendment with conditions attached and is so noted in your
supplement. The Planning Commission did, however, amend and delete
certain parts of the proposed ordinance amendment with the conditions
as submitted by City staff. The Planning Commission did also strike
number five, which as a condition was not to allow another daycare center
within a one mile radius of an existing daycare center.
Mr. Catton did wish to pursue the conditional use process also at the
Planning Commission public hearing. The motion by the Planning Commission
members was to amend the ordinance to allow a daycare center with the
conditions as amended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Catton decided
also to pursue his request to have the Planning Commission members consider
his conditional use request to allow a daycare center in a B-3 Zone.
Commission members felt very uncomfortable acting on the conditional
use request when the ordinance amendment had not been accepted by the
City Council and had not been submitted to the newspaper for official
publication. Therefore, the Planning Commission members did deny Mr.
Catton -a request for a conditional use permit to allow a daycare center
in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. Planning Commission members felt
that ordinance due process was in order and that Mr. Catton should come
back before the Planning Commission members at their neat regularly
scheduled meeting to hear his conditional use request if the ordinance
in amended by the City Council at their September 22, 1986, meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the request to amend the Monticello City Ordinance to allow
as a conditional use a daycare center in a B-3 (Highway Business)
Zone.
2. Deny the request to amend the Monticello City Ordinance to allow as
a conditional use a daycare cantor in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone.
3. Approve the request to amend the Monticello City Ordinance to allow
as a conditional use a daycare cantor in a 8-3 (Highway Business)
Zone and not consider the conditional use request.
-4-
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of amending the Monticello City Ordinance
to allow as a conditional use a daycare center in a B-3 (Highway Business)
Zone, with the conditions as laid out on an attached amended proposed
amendment to the Monticello City Ordinance. City staff will also go
along with the recommendation of the Planning Commission members to
not hear the conditional use request at this time, as we are dealing
with two separate isaues; and we feel that flue process is in order that
a separate meeting be held on considering the conditional use request,
as an amendment to the City Ordinance has not yet been approved by the
Monticello City Council, nor has said ordinance amendment been published.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed ordinance amendment; Copy of the
proposed amendment to the Monticello City Ordinance; Copy of the amended
proposed amendment to the Monticello City Ordinance.
-5-
10-13-4:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Ol Daycare centers provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for children
served and that said children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. An outdoor fenced play area exclusively used
as such, not to be located in the front yard,
of a minimum size of 2,000 sq. ft. or, in
the alternative, 75 sq. ft. per child at
licensed capacity, whichever the greater figura,
is a part of and is immediately adjacent to
the facility. The fence shall be provided
and shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height.
3. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota
Department of Public Welfare, public welfare
Manual 113130 as adopted, amended and/or changed,
are satisfactorily met.
4. A written indication of preliminary pending
or final license approval from the Regulatory
welfare Agency is supplied to the City.
5. No other daycare facility is located within
a radius of one (11 milo.
10-13-1a:
AMENDED
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
101 Daycare centers provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for children
served and that said children are delivered and
removed daily.
2. An outdoor recreational facility shall be appropriately
separated from the parking lot and driving areas
by a wood fence not leas than a feet in height,
or Council approved substitute, and shall be located
continuous to the daycare facility, and shall
not be located in any yard abutting a major thoroughfare,
and shall not have an impervious surface for more
than one-half of the playground area, and shall
extend at least 60 feet from the wall of the building
or to an adjacent property line, whichever is
lase, or shall be bound on not more than two sides
by parking and driving areae. A minimum size
of the outside recreational facility shall be
2,000 sq.ft. or in the alternative, 75 sq.ft.
per child at licensed capacity, whichever is the
greater figure.
3. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services and Department of
Health, Public Welfare Manual 113130 as adopted,
amended and/or changed, are satisfactorily met.
a. A written indication of pre}iminary, pending,
or final license approval from the regulatory
agencies is' supplied to the City of Monticello.
Council Agenda - 9122/86
Consideration of Granting Approval to a Proposed Development for Fourth
Street Park. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the past years, Fourth Street Park has been used predominantly by
the Hockey Association. The hockey rink and the berm around the free
skating area have limited the use of the park due to their placement.
For a time, a small tot lot existed in the northwest corner of the park.
This was torn down several years ago due to its deterioration and questionable
safety. A small softball field was located in the southeastern portion
of the park. This was an extremely small field due to the angled placement
of the hockey rink.
For the last few years, we have budgeted for a new set of playground
equipment for the park but have hesitated installing this equipment,
as we felt the park really needed reorganization. In addition, we knew
at some time the interceptor sewer would come through and require temporary
use of a major portion of the south end of the park.
with the onoet of the intercaptor sewer project, approximately 20% of
the hockey rink was removed, as well as the backstop and much of the
playing field of the softball field in the southeastuan portion of the
park. For 1986, we placed an amount of $5,000.00 in the 86-1 project
to rebuild the southern portion of the park removed for construction
of the interceptor sewer. we did not make the contractor responsible
for this restoration, but simply left a $5,000.00 escrow amount. For
the other portion of the park, we budgeted approximately $6,000.00 in
1986 for the relocation of a hydrant and much needed playground equipment.
During staff meetings, Tom Eidem suggested that we prepare an overall
development plan for the Fourth Street Park to include a multi -use site.
After much discussion and several redraftings of the plan, it is ready
for your review. One of the biggest drawbacks of this park has been
the placement of the existing hockey rink. it was placed at such an
acute angle that we really limited the other uses*of the park. In addition,
the free skating area was relatively small, and there was no adequate
on -alto parking.
The park itself consists of one entire City block and an 80 -foot etroot
right-of-way for Wright Street on the western side of the park. In
the early 70's, the City Council allowed the Klatts to place a fence
on this Wright Street right-of-way due to ball players trespassing from
the park onto tho Klatt's property. At that time, home plat* for the
ballfieids was located in the southwestern portion of the site, and
the hockey rink did not exist. Thin fence was located approximately
20 foot onto the City right -of -way. During staff discussions, it was
brought out that this property is needed to further develop the park.
It was suggested that the fence be moved at City expense to the Klatt's
property. Current policy requires that fence installation be a mower -s
width inside of the owner's property so that he may stand and maintain
the fence on the other aide without trespassing onto his neighbor's
property. It to my understanding that the Klatts may feel vary strongly
-6-
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
1
that they have rights to the City property, as they have used it for
over 10 years. There is, however, no adverse possession against the
City or government agency in any way, shape, or form: and the City is
totally within its rights to relocate this fence for the benefit of
all the citizens of Monticello, not just the Klatts.
The following is a tabulation of the estimated development costa for
the Fourth Street Park.
ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Hockey Rink Relocation
Light relocation 6 board relocation (Assoc. with City help) $5,000.00
Hydrant relocation 400.00
TOTAL $5,400.00
Ballfield Rebuildinc; (materials only)
Replace backstop 6 field fence $ 250.00
Lime 2,000.00
52,250.00
Playground (materials only)
Equipment $5,100.00
Sand (washed) 200.00
Border (treated wood) 325.00
TOTAL $5,625.00
General Improvements (materials only)
Grading (fuel b oil) $ 200.00
Seed 200.00
Class v 2,000.00
Blacktop (includes placement) 7,200.00
Trees S shrubs 1,000.00
Curb cut 400.00
Ponca relocation Klatts (concrete only) 100.00
TOTAL $11,100.00
We would propose to do the improvements over a period of three years,
doing enough in 1986 to be able to use the hockey rink for the 1986-67
season, doing enough in 1987 to have a playable ballfield and playground
equipment, and to complete the park in 1988 with the paving. The proposed
schedule is as follows:
1986
1. Light relocation
2. Board relocation
3. Hydrant relocation
4. Fence relocation (Klatts)
5. Curb Cut
6. Purchase (playground equipment)
As budgeted, estimated 1986 costs $11,000.00
.7-
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
1987
1. Grading 6 lime
2. Backstop 6 field fence
3. Sand 6 border for playground equipment
a. Seed
5. Claes V
6. Trees 6 shrubs
Estimated Costs $6.175.00
1988
1. Blacktop $7,200.00
TOTAL $26,375.00
The staff believes this plan would make the most use of this park for
many years into the future. It allows for a much broader base of use
and also allows room for some creative changes in the future.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the proposed development
as planned and to authorise the expenditures of the S11,000.00 budgeted
this year, and to place an amount of 56,175.00 in the budget for
1987.
2. The second alternative would be to put the park back as it currently
exists with no additional improvements whatsoever. The cost of
doing thin would be estimated at lase than $5,000.00.
3. The third alternative would be to redesign the park or plan for
some other uses.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public works Director,
and the Park Superintendent that the Council authorise improvements
as outlined in Alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed plan.
-8-
R�, a
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
8. Consideration of Granting Contingent Approval for a Conditional Use for a
Daycare Center in a Commercial Zone. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A short time ago, Mr. Ken Catton came before the City Council during
the Citizen Comment section in an effort to gauge the Council's sentiment
for amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow daycare centers as conditional
uses in commercial zones. At that time, the Council indicated there
was no overwhelming opposition to such a proposal. The question of
the amendment was then sent through the proper procedure according to
ordinance. At the September 9 meeting of the Planning Commission, a
public hearing was held on the proposed ordinance amendment and was
recommended for approval. Earlier this evening, I suspect you have
approved that amendment.
At the same Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held on
Mr. Catton -0 specific conditional use request. There was considerable
debate revolving around the issue of whether or not the permit could
be granted when, in fact, the ordinance amendment had not yet been enacted.
The end result was that the Planning Commission specifically denied
the conditional use permit request which then provided Mr. Catton with
the legal remedy to carry his permit request before the City Council.
After reviewing Mr. Catton's proposed site plan. I called him and informed
him of a number of deficiencies that I had identified. I indicated
that it seemed to me to be impossible to address his request prior to
the 14th. He requested that the Council consider his conditional use
and perhaps grant contingent approval with final design elements getting
their final approval from staff. As is the case every autumn, we are
faced with the developer's urgency to gat under construction before
the weather turns bad.
I informed Mr. Catton that he was taking the primary risk by asking
for contingent approval since the City staff does not carry the flexibility
to bond on the regulations that the Council has. I indicated to him
that if the City were to grant contingent approval, they were in essence
putting the final determination on design elements in the hands of City
staff. if that is the case, then he will be expected to comply with
staff's design requirements. Mr. Catton indicated that he had ovary
intention to comply and felt that there would not be a problem in establishing
all the design elements that staff would require with respect to the
Zoning Ordinance. It is noted by both parties that it a design conflict
arises that cannot be resolved, final approval will not be considered
to be granted, ano he will have to bring the Issue back to the City
Council.
with those considerations in mind, I don't have a lot of trouble with
granting the contingent approval. My main concern is that this is not
the best procedure for us to follow, but we were put in somewhat of
an awkward position by the Planning Commission's denial as opposed to
postponement. This may warrant a protocol explanation for the Planning
Commission for future issues of this type.
-9-
Council Agenda - 9/22/86
In the supporting data I have attached a sheet of the design elements
I believe need to be covered in the site rendering. You may wish to
make your motion granting approval contingent upon the satisfactory
completion of all the design elements listed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Refuse to hear the request and direct Mr. Catton to appear before
the Planning Commission on the 14th.
2. Grant approval contingent upon compliance with all design elements
with the final approval authority being delegated to City staff.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no strong recommendation on the action the Council should
take but can respond to either alternative.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the drawing of the existing site layout; List of the design
elements that need to be addressed before final approval will be granted.
-10-
PROPOSED DAY CARE CENTER
DESIGN ELEMENTS NEEDING REVIEW
Drawing
1. Show neighboring properties and uses within 350 feet of site.
2. Label streets - show R -O -W line and existing developed street
lines (curb).
3. Driveway, traffic flow patterns, parking lot (include curb line,
all dimensions, handicap space(s), pick-up and delivery - kids
and supplies).
d. Location of trash areas (if any - dumpster).
5. Total fence line - describe type of fence (height, materials,
etc.)
6. Show sidewalks and pedestrian routes.
7. General play area layout, e.g., equipment, etc.
S. Sign - size, type, location. Illustration should be included.
9. Detailed landscape plan, including planting schedule. Include
sizes at planting and at maturity.
10. Any future plane.
BRIEF narrative statement covering anticipated number of kids, hours
of operation, expansion time table, etc. The usual stuff.
n
�U
`•� � �� �' .. `333 �� � �
S 86052'12 W
uid
r '
ODi I
N I
206.85 �
1986 -- GENERAL FUND -- SEPTEMBER
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Burlington Northern R. R. - Easement
825.00
22971
1986 Star Cities conference - Reg. fee for 0. Koropchak
65.00
22972
Professional services Group - Operation of WWTP - Sept. paymt.
22,083.35
22973
Continental Safety Equip. - Regulator alarm - Fire Dept.
161.80
22974
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
99,000.00
22975
Dept. of Employee Relations - Medicare W/H
46.80
22976
Dave Stromberg - Animal control contract
287.50
22977
Beverly Johnson - Animal contract payment
250.00
22978
Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial services
206.25
22979
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
90.04
22980
ICMA Corp. - Employee's Ret. cont.
74.67
22981
Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment
6,203.00
22982
Anne Carroll - Computer consulting services
1,500.00
22983
Beverly Johnson - Animal control payment
25.00
22984
Citizen's State Bank - Interest on Tax Increment Bond
1,440.00
22985
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
51.00
22986
Dept. of Net. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
22987
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
40.00
22988
Monticello Family Practice Clinic - Med. for L. Block
5.75
22989
Wright County State Bank - Purchase of investments
260,000.00
22990
Sean Hancock - Contract services at WWTP
790.00
22991
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall
337.50
22992
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
529.17
22993
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
22994
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
22995
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
22996
William Fair - Council salary
125.00
22997
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
22998
Social Security Ret. Div. - FICA W/H
2,911.82
22999
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT taxes
2,394.00
23000
Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes
2,601.00
23001
PERA - Pero W/H
1,537.80
23002
Public Employees Ret. Assoc. - Ins. premiums
18.00
23003
Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary
49.50
23004
Janette Leerssen - lnf. Center salary
49.50
23005
Sean Hancock - Contract payment for WWTP
730.00
23006
Moon Motors - Generator for City Hall - Civil Defense exp.
1,456.70
23007
Dept. of Nat. Res. -Dep. Reg. fees
55.00
23008
Dept.of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
23009
Gary and Diane Miller - Variance refund - cancelled
25.00
23010
Gordon Link - Gas for St. Dept.
1,485.75
23011
Thomas Eidem - Reimb. expenses
28.43
23012
Mrs. Fern Anderson - Election judge
57.50
23013
Mrs. Peter Becker - Election judge
51.25
23014
Mrs. L. Clausen - Election judge
32.50
23015
Mrs. Gene Fair - Election judge
42.50
23016
Mrs, Lloyd Grossnickle - Election judge
38.75
23017
Mrs. Les Harstad - Election judge
53.75
23018
Mrs. Roger Bost - Election judge
68.75
23019
Mrs. Leona Kline - Election judge
37.50
23020
Mrs. Kenny Link - Election judge
70.00
23021
Mrs. Lloyd Lund - Election judge
51.25
23022
Mrs. Vince Mayer - Election judge
51.25
23023
Mrs. Yvonne Smith - Election judge
48.75
23024
Mrs. Cliff Soltau - Election judge
26.25
23025
Mr. Don Nagel - Election judge
52.50
23026
--I--
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Mrs. Al Toenjes - Election judge
31.25
23027
Mrs. Lee Trunnell - Election judge
70.00
23028
Northern States Power - Utilities
9,528.04
23029
North Central Public Service - Utilities
905.30
23030
Dept. of Employee Relations - Medicare W/H
43.28
23031
Dave Stromberg- Animal control contract
287.50
23032
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
206.25
23033
Thomas Eidem - Car allowance
300.00
23034
ICMA Corp. - Employee's Ret. Cont. -
74.67
23035
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
90.04
23036
Allied Blacktop Co. - Seal coating project payment
20,520.81
23037
Water Products Co. - Meters and materials for softball fields
7,255.53
23038
Barton Sand 4 Gravel - Gravel for softball fields
8,666.29
23039
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
43.00
23040
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg, fees
36.00
23041
Monticello Fire Dept. - Firemen wages
1,113.00
23042
L 4 G Rehbein, Inc. - Payment 95 - Inter. sewer project
105,267.06
23043
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
385.000.00
23044
Monticello Township - } of annual payment - annexation
13,750.00
23045
Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes
3,631.00
23046
PERA - Para W/H
1,556.07
23047
Social Sec. Ret. Div. - FICA W/H
3,593.70
23048
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
1,441.79
23049
Safety Kleen Corp. - Equipment maintenance
59.60
23050
E L Marketing - Election programming coats
150.00
23051
Cruys, Johnson 6 Assoc. - Computer charges
290.00
23052
The Plumbery - Softball fields expense
161.49
23053
Curtin Matheson Scientific - WWTP supplies
28.73
23054
State Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - Coveralls, nuts,
31.30
23055
Monticello Times - Adv. 4 Progress section fee - $369.00
992.96
23056
Banker's Life - Group Ins.
4,296.04
23057
Karen Doty - Misc. mileage
31.97
23058
Bio Cycle - Subscription fee
29.00
23059
N. S. Mechanical - Furnace repair at library
265.00
23060
OSM - Engineering fees
13,704.91
23061
Layne MN. - Seal. well 02
755.00
23062
MN. Govt. Finance Officer's Assoc. - Reg. fee for R. W.
75.00
23063
Coast to Coast - Parte and supplies - Tarp, paint
303.57
23064
A T 4 T Inf. System - Fire phone charges
3.96
23065
Bentec Eng. - Professional services at WWTP
439.39
23066
P 4 H Warehouse Sales - Irrigation system for softball field
9.649.05
23067
Gould Bros. - Towing services
25.00
23068
Dahlgren, Uban, etc. - Annexation study expense - August
1,044.08
23069
Harry's Auto Supply - Washer - 300.00 4 filters, etc.
703.11
23070
Seitz Hardware - Misc. supplies
87.42
23071
Davis Electronic Service - Pager repairs - Fire Dept.
97.42
23072
Unocal - Cas for Fire Dept.
61.57
23073
Service Plus Foods - Dog food
25.38
23074
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expense
$0.00
23075
Maus Tire - Tire repairs
16.50
23076
National Bushing - Parte and supplies
93.36
23077
Den Franklin Store - Toilet tissue for Parke
28.56
23078
Big Lake Machine - Steel for St. Dept.
7.00
23079
Big Lake Equipment - Repairs for mowers
341.60
23080
J. M. Oil Co. - Can
875.15
23081
Maus Foods, Inc. - Supplies for all Depts.
139.64
23082
_2_
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Central McGowan - Cylinder rental
15.95
23083
Automatic Garage Door - Extension springs for WWTP
20.71
23084
Audio Communications - Service work for Water Dept.
27.00
23085
Sentry Systems - Alarm agreement - Water Dept.
90.00
23086
Mr. Paul Weingardner - Prof. services for OAA Board
180.00
23087
Amoco Oil Co. - Gas for WWTP
19.44
23088
National Life Ins. - Ins. premium for Tom Eidem
100.00
23089
Biff's, Inc. - Latrine rental - ball. fields
85.50
23090
Marco Business Products - Typewriter ribbons
73.00
23091
Monticello Printing - Envelopes
60.55
23092
Smith, Pringle, Hayes - Professional fees - August
2,296.00
23093
Local 849 - Union dues
105.00
23094
Elk River Machine - Steel scraper for WWTP
27.90
23095
Linden Electric Co. - Electrical work at WWTP
108.00
23096
A. M. Leonard - Supplies for WWTP
283.00
23097
State Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - Membership fees
30.00
23098
Morrell Transfer - Freight charges
30.00
23099
Ranger Products - WWTP supplies
141.23
23100
Feedrite Controls - Chlorine, potassium, etc.
1,794.13
23101
Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental
238.20
23102
Braun Engineering - Compaction insp. for sewer project
864.00
23103
Millerbernd Mfg. - Light pole
924.00
23104
Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees
74.00
23105
Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees
54.00
23106
Monticello Office Products - Misc. office supplies
170.89
23107
Flicker's T. V. - 5 fusee
3.25
23108
Ashwill Ceramic Tile - Fire hall supplies
29.00
23109
Wright County Treasurer - Copies of MOAA information fee
35.00
23110
American National Bank - 60 Imp. Bonds 6 issuance fee
28,175.00
23111
Wright County Treasurer - Police contract for Sept.
10,357.50
23112
Monticello -Big Lake Hospital - Med. supplies for Fire Dept.
35.99
23113
Northern States Power - Utilities
11.39
23114
Biff's Inc. - Latrine rental - ball fields
45.60
23115
Gary Anderson - Mileage
69.84
23116
Rick Wolfateller - Mileage
43.75
23117
Mobil Oil - Gas - Fire 6 Water Depts.
62.10
23118
Quintin Lannere - 2 cedar gates for new Fire Hall
263.78
23119
Beckman Instruments - P H Monitor for WWTP
359.00
23120
Payroll for August 31,101.44
TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER $1.085.462.31
C
LIQUOx FUND
AWUNT
CF -'CX
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER - 1986
NO.
City of Monticello - Postage reimbursement
167.00
12594
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
1,996.66
12595
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
501.10
12596
Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor
4,849.64
12597
Twin City Wine - Liquor
741.45
12598
Quality Wine - Liquor
407.92
12599
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for July
8,852.71
12600
Twin City Wine - Liquor
694.95
12601
Lovegren Ice - Ice purchase
376.00
12602
Social Security Ret. Div. - FICA W/H
324.56
12603
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H tax
203.00
12604
Wright County State Bank - FWT tax
278.00
12605
James Electric Motor - Labor and repair of cooler
35.00
12606
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll W/H
170.00
12607
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
251.33
12608
Wright County State Bank - Purchase investments
30.000.00
12609
PERA - Para W/H
187.25'
12610
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
2.771.57
12611
£d Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
1,603.11
12612
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
5.233.94
12613
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
97.25
12614
Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor
3.219.87
12615
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
382.05
12616
Twin City Wine - Liquor
2.023.29
12617
VOID
-0-
12618
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
1.786.65
12619
Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer, etc.
17.081.62
12620
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse.
152.08
12621
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
747.25
12622
Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdse.
134.00
12623
Stromquist Dist. Co. - Misc. mdse.
42.05
12624
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
556.10
12625
Monticello Office Products - Store expense
20.49
12626
Groselefn Beverage Co. - Beer, etc.
10,746.82
12627
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer, etc.
2.356.20
12628
7 Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse.
117.25
12629
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
7,792.12
12630
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse.
344.55
12631
Maus Foods - Supplies
18.96
12632
Day Dist. Co. - Misc. mdso. 6 beer
1.048.06
12633
Yonak Sanitation - Contract for garbage
91.50
12634
St. Cloud Refrigeration - Repair ice machine
82.83
12635
Minnesota Sheriff Assoc. - Adv.
$5.00
12636
Persian's Office Machine - Repair calculator
47.25
12637
Northern States Power - Utilities
878.34
12638
North Central Public Service - Utilities
6.75
12639
Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor
4,802.50
12640
Social Security Rat. Div. - FICA W/H
347.34
12641
Wright County State Bank - FWT
302.00
12642
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
170.00
12643
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
704.26
12644
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
201.67
12645
LIQUOR n=
AMOUNT
cl'�,'CK
NO.
PERA - Para H/H
200.40
12646
Bridgevater Telephone - Telephone
63.86
12647
Service Sales Corp. - Exchange of pricing guns
33.24
12648
Gruys, Johnson b Assoc. -Computer fees
110.00
12649
Banker's Life Ins. - Group ins.
321.94
12650
Olson b Sons Electric - Bulbs and repairs
93.90
12651
Liefert Trucking - Freight
473.99
12652
Maus Foods - Store supplies
5.18
12653
Century Laboratories - Store expense
113.83
12654
Payroll for August
3,539.75
TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER - 1986
$120,957.38
ER!t i 7
.UMBER
86-874
86-935
88-936
86-837
86-938
86-940
B6 -$et
86-947
86-94)
86-944
916-91:16
86-946
a6-947
86-948
86-9148
86-950
DESCRIPTION
Attached garage
Detached gtraga
$croon porch replecemant
out lding sdditl0n
Commercial building
we
Two family dlling
Root raplacaewnt
Dot Chad garage
Detached 9arag.
/our -pias
NOW. demallehed
Bingla,taslly d *lling
Single family dwslltnp
Detached Oarap.
00". reshingl.
Manufacturing building
r
INDIVIDUAL Pr,:MIT ACTIVITY REPORT
. MONTH OF AUGUST , 193 6
P NAME/LOCATION VALUATi ON
PC
8teue 8amueloon/325 prstrl. Road 8
4,500.00
R
Gordon i Jeanine Hoglund/114 Last'
4,000.00
C Gil.s Lantsoisr/114 West 3rd St. 5
Oakwood Or lve
8644
Ar
Us GODW609 West 4th 8t.
t,q0. 00
AC
Monticello VPW/620 Cedar 8t.
25,000.00
C
Giles Lonaular/114 West 3rd 8t.
494,800.00
0
Dayle VechesConstruction/231 6 233
84,600.00
39.00
Mery Ln Llwaod Road
1,589.83
12.30
Moaticoilo AsurtCanLegion/304 Llm G[.
7,300.00
R
John Adams/342 Cut 3rd et.
2,000.00
0.
Doug 4 Carol Pitt/225 Last 4th at.
2,000.00
M
DAY"Veches Construction/217 6 249
144,000.00
1.00
251 { 253 Marvin .Road
DJames
rui Ur1800 Wat Draadway
.00
8
Roger he lsaas/9 RLversida ClrCls
139.700.00
8
chn/218 Jury Liatert Dr.
Oruca tims
!4,700.00
R
go 1 Domke/431 rest DROsdway
4.000.00
Af
Do id Brous ilud/10] North Locust 8e,
(,430_00
I
Electra Industries/2150 W. 111101 Bt.
•100,500.00
TOTALS 811069.960.00
•
.PLAN RCut LW
ISUPCHAarr
0 47.50
86-9-978
C00Im.tC 101 building
C Gil.s Lantsoisr/114 West 3rd St. 5
953.81
8644
ur
Po -pies
M3 Doyle Vsohas Construction/247, 249,
14.30
.70
251, 6 753 marvin 11w0o15 to.
352.95
96-Q50
manufacturing building
I Llsctro Industries/2150 W. Livor St.
283.07
247.40
39.00
10TAL PLAN REVIEW 9
1,589.83
TOTAL RCVLRUL 6 6,473.43
}
PERMIT
CLLC
SURCHARGE I PLUP,BI NG
ISUPCHAarr
0 47.50
5 2.25
44.50
2.00
14.30
.70
170.50
12.50
'8 25.00
8 .50
1,467.40
247.40
39.00
.50
386.0p
12.30
42.00
.50
64.30
3.65
32.50
1.00
32.50
1.00
543.00
77.00
44.00
.50
10.00
.50
532.25
69.85
36.00
.50
207.t0
27.35
23.00
.50
44.$0
2.00
14.39
.70
435.50'
50.29
-
64,436.15
$535.45
8209.00
33.00
•
CITT OF WrrICO2A
'
llaithly•Uuilding Oepartmtnt Report
i
rFJUUM .,d USES
lAa,th of •Augont 19 §6
•-;T1�'�'
'
-- '--..
'G.t
u e-TCiLL��'T4nor
-
this leer
rCUUM 15SUrl)
ikaf, July
Fi.th August
teat re-
To D.A.
I. Be" ;
IIf7I P1777'IAL
'
thlsbar .
12
it
10
66
89
Velun 1.
{416,060.00
1'•442,360.00
S 712,190.00
S 3,792,610.00
S 5,254,400.00
1s.a
2,297.70
2,341.40
3,014.66
19,376.62
25,676.86
Surc1ar6s8
208.00
221.15
356.50
1,896.40
2.626.95
0319021CIAL
Ilusber
3
11
"' 16
12
Valuation
527,100.00
.15,000.60
1,728,960.00
_2,069,100.00
Fees
2,656.01
110.50
7,935.78
9,748.71
Surchar6ee
263.5,5
7.50
864.45
_ 1.044.55
INiUSTIU AL
Dumber
Valustlea
1
100,500.00
y
100.50 00
Foe.
718.57
710.57
' Susthar6ae
50.25
50.25
PW191117C1
tNmber
8
6
6
50
52
Fees
207.00
209.00
277.00
1,668.00
1.716.00
Surchargse
4.00
3.00
3.00
20.00
26.00
0111FIL13
number
i
y
5
Valuation
456, 900.00
12.860.00
Faes
10.00
2,285.02
129.10
3urchv6sa
.50
' 220.25
7.40
TUFAL N0. IWI1111f,
20
V1
- 17
.--m
--- 159
MAI. VAIIIAT1017
416,060.00
1,069,960.00
727,190.00
5,978,470.00
7.456,940.00
NAIL FFFS
2,504.70
5,934.90
3,402.16
31.165.42
37.909.24
rm. SUK-lu:t:s
212.00
338.45
367.00
3,017.05
3.755.15
WUIFIFT 1111171
-- - --
rs,�
^
�tOnd,cy
to Untn
P1IDIlT IIAINIg
Nluabnr.fFJt111T
':Vll,
1z11A04„:R VelueUwl
'Ihln 3'rnr
Last Now
5h,gl4 Fwally
2
1 029.35 1
97.20 1
194.400.04 35
19 .
Wpl s,
1
386.00
42.30
134,600.01 6
3
Phil t474sdAy
1
095.95
72.00
144,000.01 5
7
Coneeerclal
1
.2,421.21
247.40
494,800.01 2
6
Industrial
1
718.57
50.25
100,500.01 1
0
0.s: l'nragoa
5
201.60
8.25
16,500.0, 7
13
S11a
e
a
rablit 6u11diu6.
0
l
ALTI11A71t11 C1l RII'A1R
'
Ilro3161ga
2
28.60
1.40
2,660.A7, 36
24
Cohnneretnl
2
234.00
16.15
32,300.0, 10
to
ct
lnu atv, a1
i
0
0
,
F'W I1U 2170
•
1
All t1pas
6
209.00
1.00
52
50
ACCI:S Sohl 6TRUCl UALS
Or I.l.Sny Pool*
y,
1
0
path
2
0'
1uu'orunr rr.111ur
� 0
0
't0.00
101
0{NULitJON
1
.50
2
..
1
TOTAL!
22
w
'5,934.90
53#.0 1,069,960.01
159
133
=
I
BUILDING PERMITS
(thru 8/31/86)
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Single Family Permits
Number 25 7 23 29 40 35
Valuation $ 985,000.00 $ 230,000.00 $1,100.964.00 $1,425,000.00 $ 2,166,000.00 $2,109,200.00
Two Family Permits
Number 0 3 2 1 5 6
Valuation 5 0.00 $ 230,511.00 $ 154,396.00 5 80,600.00 5 416,900.00 $ 519,300.00
4 -unit Apartment Permits
Number 0 4 4 0 1 1
Valuation S 0.00 S 521,509.00 5 445,100.00 $ 0.00 S 173,900.00 $ 144,000.00
6 -unit Townhouse Permits
Number 1 0 0 0 2 0
Valuation $ 227,000.00 $ 0.00 S 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 523,400.00 $ 0.00
8 -unit Townhouse Permits
Number
Valuation 5
8 -unit Apartment Permits
Number
Valuation 5
12 -unit Apartment Permits
Number
Valuation S
18 -unit Apartment Permits
Number
Valuation S
24 -unit Apartment Permits
Number
Valuation 5
Commercial Permits
0
0
0
1
1
0
0.00
S
0.00
5
0.00
5 280,000.00
5
408,200.00
$
0.00
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.00
$
0.00
S
251,000.00
S 0.00
S
0.00
$
0.00
0
0
1
0
2
2
0.00
S
0.00
S
350,000.00
5 0.00
S
460,000.00
S
416,400.00
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.00
S
0.00
S
0.00
$ 0.00
5
735,900.00
S
0.00
0
0
0
2
1
0
0.00
S
0.00
S
0.00
$1,627,800.00
S
737,500.00
S
0.00
Number 3 3 5 14 10 2
Valuation 6 982,000.00 3 684,500.00 3 917,820.00 51,813,000.00 3 3,804,500.00 $1,244,800.00
� J �
(thru :/31/86)
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Industrial Permits
Number 3 2 1 2 0 1
Valuation $1,521,000.00 $ 983,256.00 S 91,000.00 $1,440,000.00 $ 0.00 S 100,500.00
Residential Garage Permits
Number 11 4 7 17 15 7
Valuation $ 57,900.00 S 15,668.00 S 28,556.00 S 94,700.00 S 81,500.00 5 32,500.00
Residential Addition/
Remodel Parmita
Number 6 11 20 39 28 39
Valuation S 60,700.00 $ 66,234.00 $ 70,295.00 S 185,087.00 $ 146,970.00 S 231,610.00
Commercial Addition/
Remodel Permits
Number 4 2 23 19 17 10
Valuation S 144,000.00 S 130,000.00 $2,640,000.00 $ 270,030.00 5 370,160.00 $ 844,300.00
Industrial Addition/
Remodel Pormito
Number 2 0 2 3 0 0
Valuation S 294,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 505,500.00 S 336,500.00 S 0.00 $ 0.00
Total Building Permits
Number 43 23 44 66 78 56
Valuation $3,772,900.00 $2,665,444.00 $3,346,836.00 $6,761,100.00 S 9,508,600.00 $6,379,600.00
Total Addition/
Remodel Parmito
Number 12 13 45 61 45 49
Valuation S 498,700.00 S 196,234.00 $3,215,795.00 3 791,617.00 $ 517,130.00 $1,077,340.00
Total Permits
Number 55 36 99 127 123 105
Valuation 34,271,600.00 52,861,678.00 $6,562,631.00 $7,552,717.00 $10,025,730.00 $7,456,940.00
26 -unit Apartment Permits
Number 0 0 0 0 0 1
Valuation 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 839,200.00
31 -unit Apartment Permit•
Number 0 0 0 0 0 1
Valuation 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 937,700.00