City Council Agenda Packet 10-14-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 14, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimemo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held September 22, 1986.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Public Hearings
4. Public Hearing on the 1987 Annual Budget.
5. Public Hearing on a Request to Vacate Easements in the Meadows.
6. Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for Delinquent Charges.
Old Business
7. Consideration of Adopting the 1987 Municipal Budget and Certifying
the Tax Levy.
S. Consideration of Vacating the Lot Line Easements in the Subdivision
The Meadows.
9. Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for Certification with
the County Auditor Covering Delinquent Chargee.
10. Consideration of a Request from Independent School District 1882
Guaranteeing the Provision of Sanitary Sever and Municipal water
to the Middle School Site.
11. Consideration of Change Order No. 5 for 86-1 Project.
12. Consideration of a Request by John Koppy to Utilize City Property.
New Business
13. Consideration of an offer by the Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership
to Sall the Remaining Acreage to the City of Monticello.
14. Consideration of Adopting a Joint Powers Agreement to Enter an Airport
Commission.
15. Monthly Status Report from PSG.
16. Adjournment.
NOTE: The meeting in TUESDAY due t0 Columbus Day.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 22, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion vas made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold September 8, 1986, and
the special meeting held September 15, 1986.
3. Citizens Commente/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Mr. John Sandberg again appeared before the Council to discuss what
the City plans are for serving the proposed new middle school with utilities
such as sower and water and streets. Mr. Sandberg noted that it has
been estimated that it would cost the City up to $650,000.00 to provide
sewerextensions and a blacktop road from the Industrial Park to County
Road 118 to serve the middle school alto. He noted that the school
property would not abut any of these improvements and that the 5450,000.00
would probably not be assessable to the school property, as the improvements
would benefit the current property owner, Mr. Jim Boyle, only. He also
indicated that the school will be expecting the City to construct a
new bridge over I-94 some day in the future to connect washington Street
to the south side of the freeway, which would coat the taxpayers in
Monticello an additional $900,000.00 or more. Again, none of this cost
would be assessable directly to the school. Mr. Sandberg felt that
if the City is not planning on putting in a road and sever improvements
to reach the school property with City taxpayers -'money. the Council
should soon inform the school district of their intentions soon to avoid
problems in the future after the school is started to be constructed.
Mayor Grimamo noted that the City is willing to be cooperative with
the school district, but it was never the City's intention to have the
local taxpayer$ pick up the cost of improvements necessary to serve
the school. Councilmembor Fair and Blonigan agreed that any improvements
necessary for the school would be constructed under present City policy
which would in all likelihood require the benefiting property owners
to provide 100• of the upfront money for such improvements. Administrator
Eidem noted that Mr. Jim Boyle, the major property owner between the
Industrial Park and the school property, along with the school district
attorney, have been informed of the City's policy requiring the petitioners
for improvements to provide all of the funds necessary for construction.
It was also noted by the City staff that a meeting will be held soon
with the school district and Mr. Jim Boyle regarding the extension of
service■ for the proposed school alto, which should clear up all the
problems related to Mr. Sandberg's concerns.
Council Minutes - 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 New Petition for the Annexation of the Entire Orderly Annexation
Area.
At the September 8 Council meeting, the Council approved a motion to
request the Municipal Board continue the public hearing scheduled for
October 15 on the annexation proceedings of 704 acres to allow for the
original petition to be amended to include the entire OAA area rather
than just the 704 acres. The Municipal Board has indicated that they
would prefer not to consider major amendments to the original annexation
petition. but suggested that the original petition be withdrawn and
a new request for annexation proceedings be initiated. The City Attorney
concurs with this recommendation and recommended that the City Council
withdraw its initial petition on the annexation request of 704 acres
and institute a new petition before the Municipal Board to annex the
entire Orderly Annexation Area.
An a result, motion was made by Hill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and
unanimously carried to adopt a resolution withdrawing the original petition
to annex the 704 acres. See Resolution 86-21.
Motion was also made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously P
carried to adopt a resolution indicating the City's intent to annex
the entire Orderly Annexation Ares and to submit the petition before
the Municipal Board. See Resolution 86-22.
5. Consideration of Granting a Time Extension for the Completion of the
86-1 Project.
The specifications for the 86-1 Interceptor Sower Project called for
completion of the blacktopping by October 15, 1986, and completion of
the entire project by October 31, 1986. The L G G Rahbein Company, Inc.,
General Contractor, has applied for an extension on the bituminous portion
from October 15 to November 1, and requests that the final completion
date be extended to December 15, 1986, due to additional work incorporated
with the project and because of rain delays.
Public works Director, John Simole, concurred with the request and felt
there would be no problem extending the deadlines as requested.
As a result, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair,
and unanimously carried to approve the change order extending the completion
date for the blacktopping portion of the interceptor sewer project to
October 31, and to extend the entire project completion date until December 15,
1986. Seo Change Order f5.
6. Consideration of Adoptinq an Amendment to the Monticello Zoninq Ordinance
to Allow the Development of Daycare Centers in a Commercial Zone.
Mr. Kan Cotton had requested that the City Ordinances be amended to /
allow for development of daycare centers as a conditional use in 0-3
(Highway Business) Zones. Current zoning regulations do not allow for
-2- 0
Council Minutes - 9/22/86
daycare centers in commercial zones. The Planning Commission had reviewed
this request and determined that daycare centers would be appropriate
uses in commercial zones provided certain conditions were attached under
the conditional use permit process. The Planning Commission recommended
that the ordinance be amended provided four conditions were attached
concerning no overnight facilities are provided for children and that
appropriate recreational areas be provided for the facilities. In addition,
daycare center applicants would have to meet the regulations and conditions
of the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
After further discussion on the ordinance amendment, motion was made
by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to approve
an ordinance amendment allowing daycare centers as a conditional use
in a B-3 (Highway Business) commercial zone.
7. Consideration of Granting Contingent Approval for a Conditional Use
for a Daycare Center in a Commercial Zone.
Relating to the previous item, Mr. Ken Catton requested approval of
a conditional use to allow for his proposed daycare center being planned
for a lot in the Plaza Partners Subdivision south of Wendy -s Restaurant.
The Planning Commission at their previous meeting did not approve Mr.
Catton's conditional use permit, as they requested the ordinance amendment
be published prior to their granting approval for Mr. Catton's daycare
center. Mr. Catton appeared before the Council to request contingent
approval for his daycare center request to enable him to start construction
yet this season.
Normally a site plan is supplied by the developer and reviewed by the
Planning Commission prior to Council action on their request; but since
Mr. Catton had not yet prepared his final plans, he was requesting a
contingent approval be granted by the Council and that the City staff
grant final approval to all design elements related to the daycare canter.
Mr. Catton indicated a willingness to meet all City zoning and building
requirements related to his development and did got have a problem with
the City staff granting final approval to his plans.
As a result, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the issuance of a conditional use permit for the
daycare center contingent upon City staff approval of all design elements
relating to the development.
S. Consideration of Granting Approval to a Proposed Development for Fourth
Street Park.
Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council a proposed
redevelopment of the Fourth Street Park over a 3 -year period. Currently
the Fourth Street Park is primarily used by the Hockey Association,
although the park does contain a small softball field. It was recommended
by the Public Works Department that the park be reorganized to provide
for a more efficient layout of the area. It was proposed that the hockey
-3-
v
Council Minutes - 9/22/86
rink,which is currently partially dismantled because of the interceptor
sewer projeet,be relocated to the westerly edge of the park area to
provide for a larger softball playing area. In addition, a small playground
tot lot area would be re-established in the park and some hard surfaced
parking areas are also planned. The proposal would require an existing
fence on the currently undeveloped street right-of-way to be moved westerly
to the property of Mr. & Mrs. Klatt, who abut the park area. The Klatts
were allowed by the Council to construct a cyclone fence on the street
right-of-way during the early 70's to keep children using the playground
area from entering their property. The proposal now recommends that
the fence be relocated onto the Klatts own property to allow for the
hockey rink to be relocated towards the western end of the park to provide
sufficient area for all the activities planned.
Mr. and Mrs. Klatt voiced their opposition to the City expanding the
park area, especially the relocation of the hockey rink closer to their
property. They were also opposed to relocating the existing fence.
Councilmember Blonigen also agreed with the Klatts and felt the fence
should be allowed to remain where it is with the City doing other arrangements
for relocating the existing hockey rink.
Administrator Eidem noted that the City does own the undeveloped street
right-of-way and could use it for whatever purpose it chooses, including
enlargement of the park area, and that to enable the entire park to
be developed into a playable softball field along with hockey, free
skating, and playground areas, the City would need to use the right-of-way.
It was suggested that if the City continues to allow the Klatte to use
the right-of-way for their own personal use, the City should consider
selling the property to the Klatts or otherwise using it for park facilities.
After further discussion on efforts the City could institute to loosen
the impact of the playground area on the abutting property owner, including
such items as additional landscaping to buffer the Klatt's property,
motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, to approve the reorganization
and development of the Fourth Street Park as outlined by the Public
works Director, including hockey rink relocation, light pole relocation,
hydrant relocation, purchase of playground equipment, and the fence
relocation to the Klatt's property. The City staff was also instructed
to work with the Klatts to provide adequate landscaping and buffering
adjacent to their property. Voting in favor was Grimamo, Fran Fair,
Bill Fair, Maxwell. voting in opposition was Blonigan.
9. Consideration of Bills for the Month of September.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously Carried
to approve the bills for the month of September as presented.
10. Discussion on vacant Lot owned by City in Block 36.
The City currently owns and maintains a vacant lot in the middle of
Block 36 on Broadway adjacent to John Koppy's insurance agency. Mr. Kappy
-a-
Council Minutes - 9/22/86
currently is in the process of blacktopping a parking lot at the rear
of his property and had plans to hard surface a driveway off of Broadway
to the parking lot that would require blacktopping a portion of the
City property to provide adequate driveway width. The Council previously
had offered to sell the property to Mr. Koppy, who did not agree with
the asking price of $11,500.00 as appraised. The Council discussed
whether Mr. Koppy's blacktopping improvements would benefit the City
or whether the property should be offered for sale to the general public
if Mr. Koppy is not interested in purchasing the property. After further
discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to offer the property for sale to Mr. Koppy for 57,500.00; and
if not accepted by Mr. Koppy to offer the property for sale to the general
public. In addition, Mr. Koppy will be instructed not to encroach onto
the City property in blacktopping a driveway access. Voting in favor
was Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition
was Blonigen, as he felt the property would be improved with a driveway
without the sale being necessary.
Bick wolfsteller
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
4. Public Hearing on the 1987 Annual Budget AND
7. Consideration of Adopting the 1987 Municipal Budget and Certifyinq the
Tax Levy. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
It is required that a City Council hold a public hearing prior to the
adoption of the annual budget and the certifying of the annual tax levy.
In the past, no one has ever appeared at the budget hearing. The published
notice on the hearing also indicates that a copy of the proposed budget
is prepared and available for review. To date, I know of no one who
has inspected the budget. It would be appropriate to keep the hearing
open for a couple of moments to see if there is public comment. In
the absence of comment, the hearing can be officially closed. After
closing the hearing, then the budget should be adopted. As a note of
reminder, you have scheduled the Council meeting to begin one-half hour
early, at 7:00 p.m. in order to go through final comments on the budget.
If there are going to be any alterations or amendments to the budget,
they need to occur at this meeting. The State Department of Revenue
has given us until Wednesday, the 15th, to certify our levy with the
County Auditor. There is an additional attached memo with your packet
discussing the budget in greater detail.
There are no alternative actions, nor staff recommendation on this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed 1987 Budget; Copy of a budget memo; Copy of the
resolution adopting the 1987 Budget and certifying the tax levy.
6n
RESOLUTION 86 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1987 BUDGET AND
SETTING THE TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City
Council a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City
of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal
year commencing January 1, 1987, and;
WHERAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made such changes
therein as appeared to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
that the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with
the changes made therein by the City Council be, and same hereby is,
adopted as a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1987,
and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that
there be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1,
1987, and the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein,
upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello to wit:
REVENUE
General
$
Library
21,600.00
Shade Tree
24,550.00
OAA
28,550.00
HRA
5,550.00
DEBT RETIREMENT
Debt Service Fund
755,800.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Capital Improvement Revolving
100,000.00
TOTAL TAX LEVY
5
The above Resolution was introduced by Councilmember ,
was duly seconded by Councilmember with
the following voting in favor thereof:
The following voting in the opposition:
0
0
Resolution 86 -
Page 2
The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified
copy of this Resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota.
Dated: td October, 1986 CITY OF MONTICELLO
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
Arve A. Grimace, Mayor
(i)
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
5. Public Hearinq on a Request to Vacate Easements in the Meadows AND
8. Consideration of Vaca tinq the Lot Line Easements in the Subdivision _
The Meadows. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Dayle Veches is proposing to construct a 4 -unit apartment building on
Lots 1 6 2, Block 3, the Meadows Addition. The proposed location of
the new 4 -unit apartment building would be on the side lot line between
Lots 1 6 2. when the Kealy Heights Addition was proposed to be replatted
from the original Meadove Addition, all the easements wore withdrawn
by the City to allow for the now easements of the proposed Kealy Heights
Addition. Since that time, the Kealy Heights Addition has been dropped,
and ware back to the original Meadows Addition, of which the easements
that were withdrawn by the City have never been put back into affect.
The documents which we are going to obtain from Dayle Vechas Construction
and his other two partnere, Dan Frio and Thomas Holthaus, will show
all the easements beirig put back onto the blocks and lots in the Meadows
Addition, except for the easements between Lots 1 6 2 where the proposed
4 -unit apartment building is to be built.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the vacation of easements between Lots 1 6 2, Block 3, the
Meadows Addition.
2. Deny the removal of the easements between Lots 1 6 2, Block 3, The
Meadows Addition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDAT ZON:
Staff recommends approval of the request to remove the easement between
Lots 1 6 2, Block 3, Who Meadows Addition, to allow for construction
of a proposed 4 -unit apartment building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed easement vacation; Copy of the
proposed Certificate of Survey for the 4 -unit apartment building showing
the easement• to be vacated.
-2-
- -------------- - ` ���
1 ' ---
---------------
--------- — - - - -
Consideration of Vzt;c'atinq the Lot Line
Easements in the Subdivision The Meadows.
:j
�4LL,VR
ILI,
'j7
0
c„
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY;[' !, ,
row
^' DAYLE`VECHES CONST.
G •nl! oil MOIUO[.rf 4l
.... 6/OI ulvll Ijrld ONI•I
10TS 197. 91041.
WRWT T COIN/T, Mi—ESOTA
i( �r r •u n• u•• '•.w �u drY u•w
u•r I•r I ••r r.0 uu••W •r �.•.••• .•w.•.• ....
TAYLOR LAND Si l!?VE YORS INC , n. la � � .rw•.
7W Ws IN[Wl.m, Po 9o+ 119
MOMTnrin, rvwl`yrJ 9e aSJ!^�„ ^�/ .,.LU u.t�
Nr1( • 10171 P9S•Sf0 t 1✓ s +1 ml
�•r.r w r+•['/.O-1/-lY �•_.•.••.I �.. tO r.••I IwIJ..lu..l�blll�.
�AI_I_li�-I •�
Council Agenda - 10/16/86
6. Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for Delinquent Chargee AND
9. Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for Certification with
the County Auditor Covering Delinquent Charges. (R.N.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Annually, the Council is asked to adopt an assessment roll for those
accounts which are delinquent (amount is over 60 days past due) on the
assessment roll to be certified to the County Auditor for collection
the following year with their real estate taxes.
Minnesota Statutes 629.101 and 444.075, Subdivision 3, allow for special
assessments to be collected for various types of current services that
are delinquent. Those people whose accounts are delinquent have been
notified of the public hearing and are given an opportunity to present
input if they so desire. The following are the delinquent sever and
water accounts that are over 60 days past due and unpaid as of the date
this agenda item was prepared:
Marc Floahman $292.16 Charles Soucy $520.10
Rich Carlson 88.95 Burnette Christopherson 147.22
Leon Anderson 18.16 James Johnson 134.92
Donna Allen 74.66 Michael Dahmen 86.65
Diana Osowski 110.35 K 6 H Auto Repair 100.19
Holker's Law Firm 111.18 Lawrence Mengaltoch 60.74
Christopher Maas 129.20 Dale Keep 123.38
Mary Lou Klein 130.57 Americ Inn 1,807.54
Duane Hollenback 95.44 B -Clean Laundry 771.21
David Munson 24.18 Richard Blomberg 75.02
David Wilhelm 139.73 Dick Hickman 113.70
Gary Herbst 48.36 Don Severson 120.92
The following delinquent accounts are for sever and water hookups or
tree removal charges:
Mr. Mol Wolters 5239.20
Mr. Duff Davidson 273.60
Mr. Charles Soucy 259.20
It is recommended that these delinquent accounts be put on an assessment
roll for collection in 1987 at an interest rate of 8% which is the highest
rate allowable for assessments that have not bean financed through bond
sal ea. If any of the above accounts are paid by Tuesday night's meeting,
they can be
eliminated from the assessment roll.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that any individual who has not paid their account
in full by October 14, 1986, be certified to the County for collections
with their taxes in 1987.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll.
-3-
RESOLUTION 86 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by lav, the
Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed
assessment for delinquent saver and water billings and tree removal
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OP MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the
special assessments against the parcels named herein, and each tract
of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable
on or before the first Monday in January, 1967, and shall bear interest
at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added
interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution
until December 31, 1987.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole
of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the
date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest
shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days
from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate
of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on
the proper tax lint of the County, and such assessment shall be
collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council this 14th day of October, 1966.
Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidam
City Administrator
ONA
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
10. Consideration of a Request from Independent School District 0882 Guaranteeing
the Provision of Sanitary Sewer and Municipal water to the Middle School
Site. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The scope of this particular issue has expanded considerably since the
agenda was prepared. Two separate issues should be covered under this
agenda item, but they are closely related. As everyone knows, the school
has requested that the 80 acres planned for the construction of the
middle school site has been requested to be annexed. According to newspaper
accounts, the Town Board Chair has indicated that the Town Board will
not oppose such an annexation. Having contacted the Municipal Board
for procedural information. I find that the most effective way to annex
60 acres is to adopt a joint resolution amending the original joint
resolution of 1974 which created the OAA. The new resolution amending
the original would identify the 80 acres as in need of immediate annexation
and requests that the Board order that annexation immediately. Minnesota
Statute 414.0325, Subdivision 1, states that in an orderly annexation
when a joint resolution has been submitted, the Municipal Board may
comment on the annexation but shall order the annexation within 30 days.
If such a joint resolution is to occur, then it needs to occur prior
to our submittal of our petition for the rest of the Orderly Annexation
Area. I see no difficulty with delaying the major petition for 30-45
days.
When staff evaluates the request, we begin to look at the broader scope
of that immediate area. we would like the Council to consider adopting
a joint resolution that would include the BO scree for the school site,
40 acres immediately south of the school site, the reservoir proposal
site, and some acreage creating a corridor along 118 up to the existing
City limits. without that lend being in the City limits, the only possible
way to finance the reservoir and related water improvements is to issue
general obligation bonds. The only way to issue those general obligation
bonds is by referendum. If, however, the immediate property affected
by the water improvements wore in the corporate limits, than the City
could season at least 20% of the project coat and issue the construction
bonds under MinnesotA Chapter 429, which does not require a referendum.
I would hope that members of the Town Board would be reasonable enough
and rational enough to accept the principles of construction involved.
As several people have noted, there will be a major battle on annexation
since the Council hes elected to go for the ontire OAA. Porhaps we
could suggest to the Town Board that advorserI I roles on such a small
parcel and for such a specific purpose as providing water to the school
and the other parcel• on the seat end of the City makes little sense.
It is concaIvablo that the Town no rd is am antagonistic toward the
City that they absolutely would not consider any acreage beyond the
80. It is my position that if the Town Board simply wishes to fight,
they will have that opportunity in the upcoming yoar■ as we proceed
with the major OAA annexation. If they are simply looking for the thrill
of victory and croating casualties, there will be ample opportunity
for that, and we really dont need to fight over such insignificant
parcels that clearly have specific benefit to the community at largo.
-4-
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
I am, therefore, preparing two resolutions to be adopted by the City.
One resolution describes only the 80 acre parcel that the school is
interested in. The second resolution contains that 80 plus the other
lands indicated on the map in your supporting data. In order to expedite
the entire process on behalf of the school, I suggest that the Mayor
attend a Town Board meeting and request the Township to enter the joint
resolution for the entire parcel. If that is rejected, for whatever
reason or noareason, then the second resolution covering only the 80
acres could be presented for their consideration. Upon joint signing,
it would be submitted to the Municipal Board and the annexation would
be ordered within 30 days.
The request for municipal sever and water to the school site is presented
only in the event that the Town Board will sign neither joint resolution.
Prior to entering the proposed contract, John Simola and I will have
prepared for your review a policy and a rate schedule for serving parcels
lying outside of the City limits. That policy should be adopted by
formal action by the Council. Such adoption, of course, presumes that
you have no philosophical opposition to providing services beyond the
corporate limits. If it is the Council -a position that under no conditions
will City services ever be extended beyond their corporate limits, then,
by all means, do not adopt the policy. Assuming, however, that you
are willing to provide municipal services to the school district'e Oita,
then the policy should be adopted so that it is clearly in place if
future requests should ever come before the Council. Once the policy
has been adoptod, then the Council can consider entering a contract
to provide City services to the school parcel even though it lies outside
of the City limits. The contract as prepared calls for its immediate
dissolution in the event that annexation occurs.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt two resolutions calling for the immediate annexation of the
described parcels. Adopt a non-resident municipal policy rate,
enter a contract with the school district to provide municipal services
in the event annexation does not occur.
2. Adopt two resolutions calling for tho immediate annexation of the
respective parcels. Do not adopt a non-resident municipal service
policy. Do not execute a contract with the school district for
providing municipal services outside of the City limits.
3. Adopt only one of the two submitted resolutions calling for immediate
annoxation of the specified area. This alternative action could
also carry either of tha two above options concerning municipal
services.
4. Adopt neither resolution calling for immediate annexation. Adopt
a non-resident municipal service policy; enter a contract with the
school district for providing the servicos.
5. Adopt no resolutions; adopt no non-rosident policy; do not enter
a contract to provide municipal services.
-5-
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council consider adopting both resolutions
calling for immediate annexation. The most desirable solution is the
one that calls for the slightly larger area so we can commence work,
finally, on the water improvements. This resolution may, however, be
rejected out of hand by the Town. Board simply because it is more than
the BO acres. Such an action, I believe, will clearly delineate the
prevalent attitudes that currently exist across the borders of Monticello.
In the event that the preferred resolution is scorned by the Town Board,
I believe it would expedite the process to have the second resolution
already adopted as an iccediats backup. Since all provioua indications
are that there is no contest with respect to the 80 acres (at a minimum),
I see the City being at no risk in adopting a non-resident policy and
entering the contract with the school. Such adoption would be acceptable.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of a map shoving the territory to be annexed in each of the resolutions
respectively; Copy of the two resolutions; Copy of the proposed contract
with the school district (Item I, Page 2, will be amended to reflect
the new non-resident service policy); The non-resident service policy
will be prepared and distributed to you prior to the Council meeting.
-6-
19
K «:. L...
N.
27.
25
�\ - - - �� i ► __ ,city Limits----- �_�
_ �.._ w % � � ME Orderly annexation Area
3=.i Planning Sector '
�� \ �.�y _tic • ` .----------�_
�-,—x`.35 _ .__� ' _-I- ✓`� r�
Onu[Bii.�'`�i •fir\� '-;� \�_- I :' _ .4 -
JL
q, / I - i .1l ,._:.ate- • _.
r_ �!�-' ` - — �i \ ,jam'. • �r G :�
I/ C E L L
m4mi WP's UP up�.M UP UP I ME --on UW -MZ,
,NO MAP B POR PLANNi+O D
ONLY AND smom NOS !! UlOD
.. reps m"HouTn •mc Pmouwen
-0 34 'a i.
`��� Orf-t. ( — +• Q `• 1 � ' r/ t , ��`1.� �-��'u'': eR"•'--,:
�_ +•.� o n °, �• o _ � _ � .� K.N. t.�l �`'^'� � � .L
27•-�--:� �'--"; 26 '---' � �� � -�,1 f Yui .i.
Gity f its ( --
\\� } J
\n �.. Orderly knnexat an Area M
Planning Sectar$
•+'�,, ..`\. `��c..i��'• `��4" ' _ _ --------- 'w ------fir` • + _
t
/ '� � '— 1 ``• : •r .. *.- jig• \L�Y�w^�� -`.,Il: _ � d� L
ICA
TV-
1 C 0 L �Ilh
� —• is s•ii : �rr�ea�•'1r� jo
bi
ONLY a°m t>,ou o «or u usaa w
MKM ARE ME
RESOLUTION 86 -
WHEREAS, a resolution adopted jointly by the City of Monticello. Minnesota,
and Monticello Township, Minnesota, and dated
establishes a designated area known as the Orderly Annexation Area,
and
WHEREAS, it is jointly agreed that the property described below is or
is about to become urban or suburban in nature and is in need of immediate
annexation, and
WHEREAS, certain petitions have been received by the City of Monticello
requesting the annexation of certain lands into the Ctty, and
WHEREAS, the property described below abuts immediately upon the southeasterly
borders of the existing City limits, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 414.0325, Subdivision 1, states that the
Minnesota Municipal Board may review and comment, but shall, within
30 days, order the annexation in accordance with the terms of a joint
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND THE TOWN
OF MONTICELLO AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the following described property is or is about to become urban
or suburban in character and that the City is capable of providing
it with services required by the area within a reasonable time:
2. That the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello jointly stipulate
that the area i• in need of immediate annexation.
�t7)
Resolution 86 -
Page 2
3. The City Administrator for the City of Monticello is hereby ordered
to submit executed copies of this resolution to the Minnesota Municipal
Board in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 414.0325,
Subdivision 1.
4. No consideration by the Municipal Board is necessary.
5. The Minnesota Municipal Board may review and comment, but shall,
within 30 days, order the annexation in accordance with the terms
of this resolution.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this
day of , 1986.
ATTEST: By
City Administrator Its Mayor
TOWN OF MONTICELL40
Passed and adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Monticello this
day of , 1986.
ATTEST: By
Town Clark Ito Chairman
w)
RESOLUTION 86 -
WHEREAS, a resolution adopted jointly by the City of Monticello, Minnesota,
and Monticello Township, Minnesota, and dated
establishes a designated area known as the orderly Annexation Area,
and
WHEREAS, it is jointly agreed that the property described below is or
is about to become urban or suburban in nature and is in need of immediate
annexation, and
WHEREAS, certain petitions have been received by the City of Monticello
requesting the annexation of certain lands into the City, and
WHEREAS, the property described below abuts immediately upon the southeasterly
borders of the existing City limits, and
WHEREAS. Minnesota statute 414.0325, Subdivision 1, states that the
Minnesota Municipal Board may review and comment, but shall, within
30 days, order the annexation in accordance with the terms of a joint
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND THE TOWN
OF MONTICELLO AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the following described property is or is about to become urban
or suburban in character and that the City is capable of providing
it with services required by the area within a reasonable time:
Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision Number 1, according to the recorded
plat thereof, the North Half of Lot A of the Southeast Quarter
according to the plat thereof in Book 1 of Sectianal Plats,
page 570 and the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
all in Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota;
2. That the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello jointly stipulate
that the area is in need of immediate annexation.
3. The City Administrator for the City of Monticello is hereby ordered
to submit executed copies of this resolution to the Minnesota Municipal
Board in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 414.0325,
Subdivision 1.
4. No consideration by the Municipal Board is necessary.
5. The Minnesota Municipal Board may review and Comment, but shall,
within 30 days, order the annexation in accordance with the terms
of this resolution.
ld
Resolution 86 -
Page 2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this
day of , 1986.
ATTEST: BY
City Administrator Its Mayor
TOWN OF MONTICELLO
Passed and adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Monticello this
day of , 1986.
ATTEST: BY
Town Clerk Its Chairman
(a)
CONTRACT FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of October, 1986,
by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter
referred .ta as the "City" and MONTICELLO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #882, a
Municipal Corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, herein-
after referred to as "School",
WHEREAS, the City normally supplies municipal services, including, but not
limited to, water and sanitary sewer to it's residents and property owners within
the geographical limits of the City; and
:WHEREAS, the School District desires to acquire certain real estate upon
which to erect a school building, which real estate is presently not within the
City limits of the City of Monticello, but is proposed to be annexed to said
City, said real estate being described as follows:
Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision Number 1, according to the recorded
plat thereof, the North Half of Lot A of the Southeast Quarter
according to the plat thereof in cook 1 of Sectional Plate, page 570
and the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter all in Section 13,
Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Kinnesots;
and,
WHEREAS, the School desires that the City serve said real estate with water
and sanitary sewer services in the event that when said services are required by
said School District, said premises are not then annexed to the City; and
WHEREAS, the Northarly line of the above described premises presently abuts
the Southerly line of the City limits of said City, and,
WHEREAS, the School is negotiating with the present property owner to have
the water and sewer main axtended to serve said above-described real estate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows;
0
1. Upon water and sanitary sewer mains being extended to the
property line of the premises hereinabove described, the
City of Monticello shall furnish water and sanitary sewer
services to said premises upon normal and customary rates
established by ordinances of the City of Monticello to the
same extent as if said premises were located within the City
limits of the City and the School shall pay for the services
so provided according to the normal and customary rates
established by the City by it's ordinances and upon the same
basis as if said property were within the City limits of said
City.
2. That the School shall pay to the City the normal and customary
hookup charges established by said City by ordinance.
3. That this agreement shall continue until such time as said
premises are annexed to the City of Monticello, and upon
annexation thereof, and only then, shall this agreement ter-
minate.
Dated this day of 1986.
CITY OF MDNSICELIt%
By
Its
By
Its
MONTICELLO INMMTN I?r SCHOOL DISTRICT 1882
By
Its
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
11. Consideration of Change Order No. 5 for 86-1 Project. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the 86-1 Interceptor Sewer Project, L S G Rehbein Company
was responsible for initial testing and evaluation of the 10 -inch forcemain
which is located on Elm, Third, and Chestnut, and installed during the
77-3 Project, and the 6 -inch forcemain located near Ruff Auto on Elm
Street installed during the 78-2 Project. As you recall, these initial
testa failed. We placed language in the contract to have the L 6 G
Rehbein Company do additional testing if the initial tests failed on
a time and material basis.
On the 6 -inch forcemain, the extra testing amounted to $1,180.33. On
the 10 -inch forcemain, however, due to the significant problems and
large holes encountered, the additional testing and miscellaneous repairs
amounted to $5,038.05, for a total of $6,218.38. This Is the amount
of Change Order No. 5.
For your information, we have totalled all of the work performed on
the 10 -inch forcemain and passed those figures on to John Badalich for
his review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative Y1 would be to authorize Change Order No. 5 in the amount
of $6,218.38. This would allow for Rehbein to be paid for the work
as outlined in the specifications.
2. The second alternative would be to not authorize payment for Rehbein.
This would be in contradiction to our specifications and contract
with Rahboin and is not an alternative.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that you authorize and approve Change
Order No. 5 as outlined in Alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Change Order No. 5 if it arrives before delivery of the agenda.
If it does not arrive in time, it will be supplied Tuesday evening at
the meeting.
-7-
Council Agenda - 10/14186
12. Consideration of a Request by John Koppy to Utilize City Property. (R.w.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you will recall, at the last Council meeting discussion occurred
regarding Mr. John Koppy's plans to blacktop a parking lot at the rear
of his insurance building and blacktopping of the driveway access off
of Broadway. Mr. Koppy's plans for blacktopping the driveway access
would have required half of the driveway width to be on City property
owned adjacent to Mr. Koppy which is currently being used as a green
area. Discussion at the last meeting concerned whether the City should
continue to own the property and maintain it as a green area or to offer
the property to Mr. Koppy at a price of $7,500.00 and place the property
back on the tax rolls. The Council's action offered the property to
Mr. Koppy for the stated price of $7,500.00; and if this was not acceptable
to Mr. Koppy, the property was to be offered for sale to the general
public for the above price. In addition, Mr. Koppy was instructed not
to encroach onto the City property for blacktopping of a driveway access
to his parking lot.
Mr. Koppy has again requested that he be placed on the Council agenda
for reconsideration of his request to be allowed to use a portion of
the City property which he would like to blacktop for the access to
his parking lot. Mr. Koppy was informed of the Council's offer to sell
the property for $7,500.00, and it appears at the present time he is
not willing to purchase the property but would rather be allowed to
Liao a portion for his driveway with the City maintaining ownership.
Mr. Koppy indicated it was his opinion that a shared driveway would
not only enhance his property but would make the City property more
valuable in the future.
The City property has a width of 27.6 feet by 165 feat deep, or 4,554 sq. ft.
A reduction in the size of the lot for driveway purposes would probably
only hurt the sale of the property in the future in that only a smaller
building would be able to be built on the property. It would seem that
if the City is going to offer the property for sale, it may not be in
our boat interest to have a blacktop driveway encroaching onto the property,
which would probably not benefit this parcel and would only result in
the parcel being smaller for a future building site.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
1. The first alternative would be for the Council to reaffirm its previous
decision to offer the property to Mr. Koppy for $7,500.00; and if
Mr. Koppy is still not willing to purchase the property, the property
could be advertised for sale. If the City wishes to sell the property
and place it back on the tax roils, it would cartalnly be in its
best interest not to allow Mr. Koppy to use a portion of the property
for his driveway, which would only limit the resale value of the
property.
_a..
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
2. The second alternative would be to allow Mr. Koppy to blacktop a
portion of the City property for his driveway access without purchasing
the property from the City. It is assumed that if the City allows
Mr. Koppy to use part of the City property for his driveway, the
City will be keeping the property as a green area and not offer
it for sale.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's opinion that the continued use of the property as
a green area with the park bench, etc., may not be the best use of the
property in the downtown area, and it has become somewhat of a maintenance
headache for the Public Yorks Department; and as a result, it appears
most beneficial to the City to sell the property to a private individual
and to place the property back on the tax rolls. It appears that if
the City allows Mr. Koppy to encroach his driveway onto the City property,
the potential sale of the property may be limited; and as a result,
the City will continue to maintain it as a green area.
It should also be noted that recently Mr. Koppy made a small addition
to his building which is now the reason why he is requesting to use
a portion of the City property to provide access to the rear of his
property. Prior to the addition being added to his building, Mr. Koppy
would have had sufficient room along aide of hie building for access
to his planned parking area without encroaching onto the City parcel.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-9-
Council Agenda - 10/14/96
13. Consideration of an Offer by the Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership
to Sell the Remaining Acreage to the City of Monticello, (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The partners of the Oakwood Industrial Park have decided to attempt
to market the entire balance of the lots available in the Indusrial
Park and have approached the City with a proposal to sell the City the
entire remaining 79 acres of the Industrial Park for a total price of
approximately $660,000.00. According to a letter included with the
agenda supplement from the Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership, some
of the main reasons for considering selling the entire acreage at this
time has to do with changes in the tax laws which make it preferable
to sell the property this year and also that the partners, after 19
years of ownership, would like to move on to other interests.
An appraisal report on the Oakwood Industrial Park is also included
as a supplement for your review, which basically estimates the adjusted
not value of the remaining 79 acres to be at the current time $675,000.00.
This value established by their appraisal assumes that the property
remaining would be sold and developed over a 6 -year time span. Approximately
half of the acreage in the Industrial Park has been sold or developed
during the past 18 years of ownership, and a question arises as to whether
it is realistic to assume tate balance of the property could be sold
or developed over the next six years.
As you will note from their letter, the partners ars offering the 79
acres to the city for a total price of $400,000.00, but this figure
does not include the assumption by the City of all delinquent assessments,
penalties, and interest that have accrued against these lots for various
improvemonts, which at the current time would total approximately $260,000.00
additional. In reality, if the City were to purchase the property at
this time, the City's outlay would be at least 6660,000.00, which is
closer to the value established by their appraisal report. I would
also assume that the $675,000.00 appraised value could be lower if it
was assumed the property could not be marketed in six years but over
a longer period of time.
Although the staff has not had much time to review the proposal since
the ma teriai was delivered on Wednesday, there are currently throe possible
options available to the City if it wished to pursue the acquisition
of the Industrial Park. Naturally, the first alternative would be to
pay cash for the property, which would drastically reduce the City's
reserves, Using this method, the City could, during future years, levy
an additional tax amount to try and recapture and rebuild the surplus
that was paid. The second alternative would be for the BRA to soil
revenue bonds to finance the purchase, but without having development
proposals for reselling the land by the NRA, it seems unpractical that
this method would work, as there would be no revenue anticipated at
the present time to cover the debt. According to Bond Consultant, Jerry
Shannon of Springstod. Inc., the City could also create an economic
davolopment authority who would have the authority to sell bonds to
purchase the land with the debt still being financed primarily by additional
tax levies in the future years to cover the debt.
-10-
Council Agenda - 10/14/66
Although the asking price is only $400,000.00 payable to the partnership,
the City assumes almost $260,000.00 in delinquent assessments, which
have to be considered part of the purchase price and financed in some
manner, as current improvement project debts are relying__9n_this_ievenuo
at sometime in the future. The bottom line is a cost—Of about $700,000..
to the City one way or the other.
Although there certainly would be some advantages for the City to own
an Industrial Park, such as being able to work directly with developers
or being able to build a spec building, there may also be some disadvantages.
Currently, State Statutes indicate that the property owned by the City
is tax exempt for 8 years; but after this time, the City would have
to pay taxes similar to private ownership if the property is not sold
in thin time period. In addition, current Statutes require that city
governments pay taxes on vacant land after half of the property is developed
even if this is before the 8 year time period. So unless the property
is developed or sold within this 8 years, the City could be paying taxes
to other jurisdictions and the property would no longer be tax exempt.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Of course, the obvious first alternative would be if there is no
interest by the City in pursuing this purchase or if it seems completely
unrealistic at this time, the Council could decline the proposal.
2. If the Council feels the proposal merits further consideration,
more research into financing alternatives and potential effects
the ownership would have on the City could be done by the City staff
prior to making an actual decision or counter offer. Since an expenditure
of this magnitude is naturally not expected, more time to study
the request is recommended so that a batter understanding can be
determined regarding the coat and financing that would be necessary.
]. Although this has not been proposed by the Oakwood Partners, another
alternative could possibly be for the City to purchase only a portion
of the Industrial Park Instead of the entire 79 acres. This option
has not boon discussed with the Oakwood Partners but is just being
presented as another idea under which the City could have ownership
of some of the property to make land available, for developers or
opec buildings. I would assume if this alternative is pursued at
all, the price would have to be similar to their asking price currently
in the neighborhood of $8,500.00 per acro.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If it is decided by the Council that the proposal dean not merit any
further consideration and In not currently feasible for the City to
got involved with at this time, a motion to decline the offer is all
that is necessary. If, on the other hand, there is some interest in
pursuing the purchase of the entire remaining Industrial Park, it is
the staff's recommendation that the Council acknowledge the proposal
and direct the staff to continuo investigating possible financing alternatives
and try and determine a better understanding of the disadvantages and/or
-11-
Council Agenda - 10/14/86
advantages of such a purchase. we realize the decision by the Industrial
Partnership to sell the property is based on tax advantages of completing
a sale before December 1, 1986; but if there is any interest in pursuing
this alternative, the staff feels a two-week delay until the next Council
meeting would certainly be appropriate.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposal from Partnership; Copy of appraisal on the Industrial
Park; Listing of additional cost for delinquent assessments, etc.
-12-
=^; OAKWOOD
INDUSTRIAL -:=
-�-� PARK,r
Monticello, MMesom 55164
Oct. 6, 1986
Honticello City Council
monticelio, MN. 55362
Dear Council Members:
The members of Oakwood Industrial Perk, a Minnesota Partnership.
have decided to attempt to market the entire balance of the
industrial park. Before contacting any developers, we would like
to make a proposal to the City of Monticello for consideration.
Our reasons for considering marketing of the entire part at this
time are as follows:
1. One of the original objectives of Oakwood was to help
create new jobs and additional tax base for the benefit
of all area residents. Since many municipalities own and
operate industrial parks, we would like to see Oakwood under
total control of the City that we believe would result in a
financial advantage for everyone.
2. The changes in tax laws effective in 1987 make this a
preferable year to sell.
3. The majority of the partners are at or beyond retirement
age, and after 18+ years, would like to move on to other
Interests.
We, therefore submit to you an appraisal of the property completed
by St. Cloud Appraisal, Inc. You will note that the appraisal shows
an estimated gross value of $1.032.418.00, and an adjusted net value of
$675,000.00. The adjusted net value allows for the cost of holding the
property until it can be marketed.
Based on this appraisal, Oakwood Industrial Park offers the entire park.
consisting of approximately 79 acres, to the City of Monticello for a
total price of $400.000.00. Along with a Warranty Deed to the property.
the membership pledges our full cooperation in dealing with any and all
prospective buyers that ve aro presently working with.
As time to of the essence, and particularly as it applies to the now tax
law, this offer is made on a basis that satisfactory arrangements can be
completed by no later than Doc. 1, 1986.
SincarsI
•n
Dale w c
1 J
Partner f
ADDITIONAL COSTS OF OAKWOOD /
PURCHASE ABOVE THE $400,000 PRICE
1986 Special Assessments due S 18,669.78
Penalties through 10/10/86 1,132.19
-1981 - 1985 delinquent taxes 6 assesamenta 164,523.91
Remaining unpaid assessment balances 76,718.69
TOTAL DEBT THAT WOULD BE ASSUMED 5261,044.57
BY CITY AS OF OCTOBER, 1986
-The penalties accruing each month on the delinquent assessments and
taxes total $891.58 until paid.
Council Agenda - 10/16/86
14. Consideration of Adopting a Joint Powers Agreement for the Purpose of
Entering a Joint Airport Commieeion. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Industrial Development Committee, nearly a year ago, identified
the expansion and/or construction of a new airport as a priority item
for industrial development in the area. 011ie Koropchak, Director of
Economic Development, immediately began working on the formulation of
this proposal. An ad hoc committee was formed comprised of representatives
from Big Lake and Monticello. A number of invitations were extended
to the City of Backer to participate, but their participation has been
nil. On May 27, the City Council adopted a motion authorizing the expenditure
of approximately $1,300.00 for the preparation of a Joint Powers Agreement.
That Joint Powers Agreement in now prepared and has been reviewed by
myself and Mr. Bill King, Administrator from City of Big Lake. It is
our intention to issue the Joint Powers document to the City of Backer
and let them make a decision as to whether or not they wish to join
the Joint Powers Agreement.
This Joint Powers Agreement creates a Joint Airport Commission for the
express purpose of conducting the feasibility study and the preliminary
site selection for an airport. It does not grant any of the powers
of condemnation, development, nor construction authorization. If, at
the conclusion of the work of this first commission, it is the unanimous
agreement of the participating jurisdictions to proceed with the construction
of a now airport, then a now Joint Powers Commission for the express
purpose of developing the airport will be formed. This Joint Powers
Agreement was prepared by the legal firm. O'Connor and Hannan, from
the Twin Cities.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the purpose of conducting
an airport study with other jurisdictions.
2. Elect not to enter the Joint Powers Agreement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the agreement be adopted and we commence the airport
investigative work immediately.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Joint Powers Agreement being submitted for adoption.
-13-
Council Agenda - 10118186
15. Monthly Status Report from PSG. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Professional Services Group took over operation and maintenance of the
City's wastewater Treatment Plant September 1, 1986. The plant is currently
being operated by Steven Sunt as Plant Superintendent, with Albert Mayer
and Tony Strands as operators. Mr. Sunt recently received his Minnesota
Class A Certificate to operate wastewater treatment plants in this state.
During the past month, the Professional Services Group Monticello staff
has received assistance from various members of the Soulx City PSG staff.
Various electronics experts, sludge application experts, and maintenance
people have assisted with operations. Mike Nelson, out of Rydal, Pennsylvania,
has been at the site on several occasions and will also assist with
the presentation at Tuesday evening's Council meeting. PSG has experimented
with the processes at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and has been able
to significantly reduce blower time and have taken one aeration tank
and clarifier out of service. In addition, they have placed more emphasis
on the trickling filter operations. They are still in the experimental
stage with the plant but have solved some of the problems at the plant
and have already reduced the amount of electricity and natural gas used
at the facility. To date I have had no problems with any of the Professional
Services Group and have had no complaints from the two City employees
now employed by them. I will leave the rest of the information to be
presented by Steve Sunt and Mike Nelson at Tuesday evening's meeting.
-14-