The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 04-24-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 24, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Ren Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 10, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow auto body shops as a conditional use within the B-3 (highway business) zone. 5. Consideration of a conditional use permit request - Monticello Auto Body. 6. Consideration of resolution receiving report, approving plans and specifications, and ordering public hearing on Mississippi Drive improvement project. 7. Consideration of coat study for street upgrading within the Oakwood Industrial Park and ordering public hearing on the improvement. 8. Consideration of establishing Council representatives on Economic �e Development Authority. 9. Consideration of authorizing Assistant Deputy Registrar appointment. 10. Consideration of authorizing Junk Amnesty Day - May 20. 11. Consideration of request by Monticello Township to modify previously adopted fire agreement on aerial ladder truck. 12. Consideration of adopting Softball/Baseball Association agreements for use of NSP softball fields. 13. Consideration of ratifying new Piro Chief appointment. 14. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement diverter gate mechanism - WWPP. 15. Provide recommendation to Council representative to OAA on proposal to rezone agricultural land to R-1 usage. Property located at the northeast 1/4 of Section 22, Township 121, Range 25. Property also known as the Barry Farm. 16. Consideration of Extended Area Service endorsement. 17. Review of year-end liquor store financial report. �^ 18. Consideration of bills for the month of April. 19. Adjournment. MINUTES .� REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 10, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson Members Absent: None. 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes. Motion was made by Dan.Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held March 27, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of vacating streets and utility_ easements associated with the Meadows subdivision. A public hearing on this matter was opened and continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council. 5. Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for extension of Marvin Elwood Road - The Meadows. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications as presented by Meyer-Rohlin and authorized advertisement for bids for the extension of Marvin Elwood Road in the replatted Meadows subdivision. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-11. 6. Consideration of resolution setting a re -assessment hewing for prior public improvements - Edgar Klucas property. Administrator Wolfeteller informed Council that staff is uncomfortable with the large potential assessment against Mr. Klucas's property that has never been officially recorded. Such an unrecorded assessment places a burden on the City, as staff must always remember that this property has never paid an assessment and must pay one in the future. By adopting an assessment, even if it's deferred, it places everyone on notice, including a future buyer of the property, that sewer and water and street improvements have not been paid. Wolfeteller further recommended that Council set a re -assessment hearing to correct this omission for May 8, 1989. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to adopt a resolution setting a hearing on the re -assessment of Improvement Project 81-1 on May 8, 1989. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-12. 9 Council Minutes - 4/10/89 7. Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial Development Commission and consideration of amendment establishing the Economic Development Authority. AND 8. Consideration of appointing members to the EDA. AND 9. Consideration of adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. AND 10. Consideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic development powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Economic Development Authority. Staff reviewed the general consensus of the Council that was formed at the previous meeting as follows: Long term economic health of the community depends on the expansion of the City tax base. Implementation of this fund will contribute toward diversification of the tax base and result in a healthier local economy. Following are specific economic conditions that the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is designed to address. 1. GMEF contributes toward diversification and expansion of existing tax base which reduces reliance on a single major taxpayer. 2. Sixty-five percent 16581 of city workers commute to vocations located outside the city limits. This program will contribute towards creation of local jobs for those Monticello citizens that now commute to work. 3. Development of the revolving loan program is partially in response to competition presented by other communities. The program allows the City to compete on equal footing with communities that are using similar funding programs effectively. Assistant Administrator O'Neill also noted two changes to the original document which were made in response to the previous meeting's discussion. He noted that the maximum amount of project funding that could be contributed from this fund was reduced from 406 to 30%. In addition, an amendment was made to require the user of this program to finance at least 108 of the initial project cost. Shirley Anderson supported economic development efforts but noted she would be happier if the fund was a private fund and that she did not necessarily agree with the idea of using City funds for economic development purposes. Dan Blonigen stated that screening to the all important issue. He went on to say he has some apprehension about the program but still agrees with the criteria for granting loans as outlined in the program guidelines. Blonigen agreed with the concept of investing in industrial development utilizing this method, as City action to 9 Council Minutes - 4/10/89 encourage the expansion of the industrial tax base will ultimately benefit the citizens of Monticello. He again stressed that this program should be used thoughtfully and conservatively. Ken Maus noted that one of the benefits of this program is that the results are measurable. Money spent on this particular economic development effort results in concrete activity; and its productivity is easy to measure. It was emphasized by Mayor Maus that each project must meet certain criteria or public purpose prior to being funded via this program. Maus suggested that job creation be identified as the major public purpose criteria and that all projects funded must create jobs. Council agreed with the recommendation of the Mayor, and O'Neill noted he would adjust the policy guidelines accordingly. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith to adopt an ordinance amendment deleting the Industrial Development Commission and establishing the Economic Development Authority, and to adopt the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines as modified, and to adopt the Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic development authorities of City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and Economic Development Authority. Motion was seconded by Fran Fair. Motion passed unanimously. SEE ORDINA14CE AMENDMENT NO. 172. Another motion was made by Warren Smith to appoint Bob Mosford, Barb Schwientek, Harvey Kendall, Ron Hoglund, and Al Larson to the Economic Development Authority. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen. Motion passed unanimously. Council then requested that consideration of Council membership on the EDA be placed on the next City Council meeting agenda. 11. Consideration of approving preliminary plat - Evergreens subdivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill indicated to Council that a public hearing was held on this matter by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for the entire Evergreens subdivision. He went on to note that the rezoning issues and approval to expand the trailer park were considered by the Planning Commission but will not be on the Council agenda until final plat approval is considered. John Simola recognized that the Ltate Pollution Control Agency and Health Departments govern the Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park and concurred that they need to be actively involved in this situation. However, he was somewhat uncomfortable with relinquishing City authority to these organizations in dealing with any pollution problems that exist associated with the Kjollberg East Mobile Home Park. Brad Larson indicated that language is built into the developer agreement which would require that the Kjollberg East Mobile Rome Park be connected to City utilities if the Pollution Control Agency or State `1 Health Department took action against the mobile home park or the City 0 Council Minutes - 4/10/89 in an effort to resolve the pollution problem. The development agreement provides the City with the authority to hook up the mobile home park to the City system at a later point in time, with the cost of the hookup being assessed back to the mobile home park operator. Ken Maus stressed the point that the City is not financing any of this project. The developer is expending his funds to service the area without any expenditure of City funds for extension of a deep trunk line. Furthermore, the $200 hookup fee and surcharge applied to the Evergreens development will contribute towards establishing a fund which will ultimately pay for that area's portion of a trunk line when it is needed sometime in the future. Fran Pair was concerned about any potential pollution problems in the area and wondered what the Pollution Control Agency and State Health Department were intending to do about the problem. With regards to the pollution problem, Ken Maus repeated that PCA officials stated that the mobile home park will be required by the PCA to hook on to the City system as part of phase I of the development. At this point, a discussion regarding the park area on the preliminary plat ensued. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the park area provided is larger than what is required by ordinance by one-half of an acre. However, almost 50 percent of the park area is under the power line easement. Roger Mack of the Parks Department suggested that the park design could be improved by removing some of the residential lots that border the park on the north side. He went on to outline some of the problems between the neighbors and park users when the two uses are in close proximity. It was Ken Maus's view that the park could be designed to mitigate conflict between the two uses with placement of berming, landscaping, and fencing. John Simla noted that although the park design is not perfect, it results from intense negotiations where both sides conpromised. There being no further discussion on this issue, motion was wde by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve the preliminary plat for the entire Evergreens subdivision. Voting in favor: warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Fran Pair, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. As the preliminary plat of the entire area was approved with this motion, each phase of the plat development in the future will require final plat approval only. 12. Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9[El4 and 3-9[E[41c1 of the Zoning orainance pertaininq to the reasulation or pylon sign net ht, ©1P area, one the number allowed , Dualness along H1aphwax 257 Interstate 94 corridors in the city or Monticello. Applicant, City of Monticello. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the Planning Commiosion conducted a public hearing on the proposed sign amendments /T and recommended passage of the sign ordinance amendments as noted in l� the agenda supplement for the special meeting held April 3, 1989. It 0 Council Minutes - 4/10/89 was noted by Ren Maus that this item had been discussed at length at the previous Council meeting and at that time it was agreed that the amendment represents a workable compromise between the desire by some businesses for larger signs and the need to control the size of signs that might be placed in close proximity to each other. The amendment does not propose to reduce the size of signs now allowed to any of the property owners on Highway 25; while at the same, the total sign area with any business, no matter how much frontage they own, is limited to 100 sq ft. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt an ordinance amendment and approve the formula for the establishment of a maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/ I-94 corridor as follaws: a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties allowed a minimum of 50 sq ft of sign area regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. 2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from 50 feet to 100 feet, depending on j the total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. Ten (10) square feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 sq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. b) Approve the maximum sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to a maximum of 22 feet in height. c) Reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. d) Motions all based on the conclusion by the City Council that such action is consistent with Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal 1 Comprehensive Plan. Council Minutes - 4/10/89 2. The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area involved. 3. The amendments as proposed will not tend to actually depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effect. 4. The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated. Motion carried unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 173. 13. Consideration of variance request appeal for an additional pylon sign on a B-3 (highway business) unplatted lot. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reminded Council that Council had tabled this item pending the outcome of the study of the sign ordinance and possible amendments which were just passed. He went on to inform Council that the applicant for the variance was not able to attend the meeting and asked Council to continue the matter. it was the consensus of the Council that the matter had been reviewed sufficiently and that it is time for a decision. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to deny the proposed variance request. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Consideration of variance request appeal for additional sign height and sign area. Applicant, Security Financial. Linda Mielke of Security Financial was in attendance to represent Security Financial. It was her view that the sign should be allowed to remain at its present elevation, as the sign was in existence prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. It was her view that the sign should not be made to conform to the ordinance at such time that the face of the sign is changed. Dan Blonigen agreed that simply changing the face of the sign was insufficient cause to require the sign to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. A discussion then ensued regarding the regulating of non -conforming signs. Assistant Administrator O'Neill recited Section 3-9[D]2 of the ordinance referring to non -conforming signs, which states that a non -conforming sign may not be a) changed to another non -conforming sign; b) structurally altered except to bring it into compliance with the provision of this ordinance; c) expanded; d) re-established after removal for 30 days; or e) re-established after damage of more then 509 of sign replacement. Discussion then focused on a), which states that a non -conforming sign may not be changed to another non -conforming sign. After lengthy discussion, it was the consensus of Council that in this situation, a non -conforming sign is proposed to be changed to another non -conforming sign; and therefore, this section of the ordinance applies to Security Financial's situation. Warren Smith stated that he could sympathize with the predicament faced by Security Financial; but at the same, time, he noted that the sign vas improperly allowed to relocate some years ago. And in that time, the business has had the 0 Council Minutes - 4/10/89 use of this sign. He went on to say that it's time to now bring that sign back into compliance and that the City cannot use financial hardship as a reason to grant the variance. Shirley Anderson concurred with this viewpoint. Ren Maus stated that it may not ease the pain to lower the sign; however, it was his view that the impact of the sign would be improved if it was lowered. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to deny the variance request. voting in favor: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Ren Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. 15. Consideration of landscaping ordinance amendment. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the proposed amendments are designed to provide flexibility by allowing industrial development area landscaping to be expanded as the perimeter of a developing property area expands. The current ordinance requires an entire property be landscaped even if development only encompasses a small portion of the property. He went on to note that the ordinance amendment provides an option for phasing in development of industrial landscaping over a period of three years rather than requiring it all to be completed in one year. Council discussed related landscaping ordinance issues. It was the view of Ren Maus that the Building Inspector should be provided flexibility to interpret landscape development plans with regards to the proper mix of overstory and understory vegetation. Fran Fair's major concern was that the landscaping installed is not properly maintained. Mayor Maus suggested that we might want to allow a development to incorporate the cost of irrigation into the overall landscaping requirements. Under this proposal, the development would be allowed to install irrigation equipment in lieu of a portion of the vegetation required. It was then determined that these landscaping related issues be addressed in a subsequent ordinance amendment process. There being no further discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to adopt an ordinance amendment modifying Section 3-21C13(b) and Section 3-21C112 pertaining to the landscaping section of the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 174. 16. Consideration of selecting recycling firm for final contract negotiations for curb -nide recycling program. John Simola reviewed the proposals submitted by Polka Dot Recycling from Buffalo, Corrow Sanitation from Dayton, and Aagard Recycling from Minneapolis. Simola recommended that Polka Dot Recycling be selected, as Polka Dot submitted the lowest priced proposal and provided additional benefits to the City not provided by Corrow or Aagard. He I went on to note that the references of Polka Dot Recycling were all i positive and that Polka Dot will be recycling additional materials such an corrugated cardboard, tin food cans, and vehicle batteries. 9 Council Minutes - 4/10/89 Motion was made by warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to authorize negotiations with Polka Dot Recycling and draft a contract for review at the next applicable Council meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 17. Consideration of awarding bids for individual recycling containers. John Simola reported to Council that the City of Monticello received only one bid for the three multi -colored individual recycling containers. The bid submitted was from Shamrock Industries, and the cost matches the City estimate. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to award the purchase of 4,200 containers for a cost of $25,536 to Shamrock Industries. Motion carried unanimously. 18. Consideration of purchasing replacement mower deck for John Deere tractor. John Simola reported that the mower deck on the John Deere tractor has succumbed to wear and tear and is now inoperable. He requested that Council consider the purchase of a new mower deck for the sum of a minimum of $1,289. Dan Blonigen reported his concern over abuse of the John Deere tractor and was concerned that the drivers utilizing that tractor were not treating the equipment properly when conducting their work. Ken Maus suggested that the City keep a close tab on who was running the mowers; and if we have misuse, we should be tough on them. John Simola noted that the individuals suspected of abusing the equipment were summer help that are no longer with the City and will not be hired back. There being no further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by warren Smith, to approve the purchase of a replacement mower deck for a John Deere tractor from Moon Motors at a cost of $1,289. During discussion, Dan Blonigen voiced his concern that the City should go with the low bid of $1,239 from Scharber 6 Sons in Rogers. It was the consensus of Council that the benefits of purchasing the mower deck from a local business in terms of time and future maintenance considerations outweighed the $50 difference in cost. Motion passed unanimously. 19. Consideration of request for burial site at Hillside Cemetery. John Simola informed Council that Lee Trunnell has requested a grave site at Hillside Cemetery for the burial of Ralph Trunnell. This individual was to be buried in the James Gilchrist family plot 02388 near Sixth Street. This family plot already contains Florence Gilchrist, James Gilchrist, Lillian Trunnell, Ethel Trunnell, and Floyd Trunnell, and is full. He went on to state that the most recent burials in Hillside were Minnie Hines in May 1984 and Floyd Trunnell in July of 1981. For the most part, practically all the lots are sold and * many are occupied and full. But there are also a handful of lots which L were never ,^.old and are still vacant. one of these lots is 0216, which 9 Council Minutes - 4/10/89 is a 10' x 10' lot near Sixth Street and Cedar Street and in the area of the Gilchrist family plot. It was suggested that we allow Trunnell to be buried in this plot. It is also suggested that the City allow burial of immediate family members in the vacant sites on a case by case basis and that we do this only for unusual circumstances and that the family provide a flat granite stone or brass marker. Council concurred with the recommendation of City staff and a motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Pair, to allow the burial of Ralph Trunnell in Lot $215 with the condition that the family provide a marker and that future decisions to allow burial at Hillside Cemetery be considered on a case by case basis. Motion passed unanimously. 20. Consideration of extension of completion date for street paving in Meadow Oak 4th Addition. Motion was made by Warren Smith to extend the completion time for the street paving to June 15, 1989. Motion was seconded by Fran Fair. Motion passed unanimously. 21. Consideration of proclaiming April 24-30 as Handicapped Awareness Week. Betty Held appeared before the Council to request that City council adopt a proclamation declaring Handicapped Awareness Week in Monticello. The theme of this proclamation would be called "Opening Doors for the Handicapped." Mayor Ren Maus read the proclamation as follows, and the Council officially adopted April 24-30 as Handicapped Awareness week in the City of Monticello. "WHEREAS: the Governor of Minnesota has called for Handicap Awareness Week activities to be conducted in every community throughout the state; WHEREAS: the City of Monticello is willing to strengthen public understanding and awareness of the needs and aspirations of people with physical and mental limitations; WHEREAS: the Monticello City Council supports the removal of barriers that create differences or prevent fullest participation of all its citizens; WHEREAS: April 24 through April 30, 1989, has been declared State of Minnenota Handicap Awareness Week: NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ren Maus, Mayor of the City of Monticello, do hereby proclaim April 24 through April 30, 1989, to be Handicap Awareness week in Monticello." i �l C Council Minutes - 4/10/89 Other Matters. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve the issuance of a one -lay temporary 3.2 beer and set-up license for May and a one -day 3.2 beer license for the July 2nd celebration organized by the Monticello Lions Club. Council also discussed potential purchase of a new copy machine. Rick Wolfsteller informed Council that according to information he received from a Savin dealer, the present copiers, if repaired properly, should be functional for a few more years. He, therefore, did not recommend outright that we purchase a new copier. Wolfsteller informed Council he will be working on development of a report for Council regarding improving our document copying process, and the report should be available at the next Council meeting. Council reviewed the potential color schemes of the water tower and selected Senta Brown or Ultra Marine -Indigo Blue as potential colors for the water tower. it was the general consensus that the water tower should blend with the environment of the Monte Club Hill and the landscaping plan rather than become an advertising point for the City of Monticello. Rick Wolfsteller reviewed the plans to hire a part-time permanent employee to assist with the deputy registrar service provided by the City of Monticello. Wolfsteller indicated that Council may wish to seriously consider providing pro -rated benefits to permanent part-time employees under certain conditions. A decision regarding benefits for permanent part-time employees was not established at this time. There being no further discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to adjourn the meeting. Respectfully submitted, �2 CiG Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator 10 9 Council Agenda - 4/24/89 4. Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow auto body shops as a conditional use within the B-3 (highway business) zone. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow auto body shop activity to occur in a B-3 zone as a conditional use. It was the view of the Planning Commission that such activity, if regulated by stringent conditions, is consistent with the character of the B-3 area and that such activity will not serve to depreciate the area in which it is proposed. If Council approves the proposed amendment, it is then asked in the next item to consider a request for a conditional use permit by John Johnson, operator of Monticello Auto Body. Specifically, Johnson wishes to develop a facility at Lot 4, Block 2, Sandberg South. The proposed facility would have exposure to two public right-of-ways, including Sandberg South Road on the front and the undeveloped Marvin Road to the rear. The proposed amendment would allow auto body repair shop activities to be intermingled with the following permitted land uses in the B-3 area: Auto accessory store, commercial recreation uses, motels, restaurants, cafes, printing office. There is also potential for development of B-1 and B-2 uses, as they are also permitted in the B-3 area. These uses include retail sales, plumber shops, repair shops, insurance sales, hardware, grocery store, and other similar uses. Please note that the City Council in 1986 reviewed the concept of developing an auto body shop along Highway 25 just north of the site of the Class Hut and at that time had a negative view of the proposal. Analysis The Zoning Ordinance requires that Council review the proposed amendments in terms of its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with characteristics and geography of the area, and the demonstrated need for such use. Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission found that this proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Character and geographic area involved There are a number of allowable uses in the B-1 through 0-3 zones that may not mix well with an auto body shop operation. For instance, approving this amendment establishes the potential for development of a restaurant or a motel next to an auto body shop. One can easily oee potential conflicts between the two uses. On the other hand, if the shop is properly monitored and if the shop adheres to strict conditional use permit terms, there might not be any problem mixing the uses. In fact, ` the auto body shop, with the stricter conditions associated with its operation, might make it one of the more attractive businesses in the fa7 Council Agenda - 4/24/89 area. of course, the greatest concern is potential negative impact on surrounding properties due to unsightly storage of damaged vehicles, and excess noise and fumes that may result from the auto painting process. In alternative $1 below are outlined a number of conditions that could be attached to the conditional use permit that would act to mitigate the potential negative impacts. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed This particular decision factor generates potential argument against the proposed amendment. It may be that a well-run, clean auto body operation will have a positive effect on the neighborhood. On the other hand, it might be that even a well-run operation may have a negative effect on the ability of nearby land owners to develop land uses normally associated with B-1 through e-3 uses. If this happens, the value of the surrounding property depreciates in value. Steps must be taken to assure that the auto body shop will not have a negative effect on the adjoining B-3 areas. It was the view of the Planning Commission that the conditions outlined will provide assurance that the adjoining land owners will not be negatively impacted. The Planning Commission reviewed a number of auto body shops now operating in the metro area and found that those that operated under a set of conditions tended to be well-run, clean operations that had no negative impact on the adjoining land uses. The demonstrated need for such use Auto body repair is a permitted use in the I-2 (light industrial) zone, and property is available in this area for development of an auto body shop. It is, therefore, difficult to demonstrate the need for estahlishi.ng an auto body shop as a conditional use in the B-3 zone. It to the view of the body shop operator that there to a need for this activity in the B-3 zone because commercial exposure to high traffic areas is vital to his business. Such exposure to not available in I-2 areas. B. ALTERNATIVE ACHONS: 1. Notion to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include auto body repair as a conditional use, including but not limited to the following conditions: a. Door opening Lo service garage area must not face street frontage. j0 b. Vehicle storage area limited to .'percent of floor space of the structure housing the auto body shop. c. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area. d. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from the outtside. Enclosure shall consist of a six-foot high, 100 percent opaque fence designed to blend with the auto body shop structure and consisting of materials treated to resist discoloration. -2- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 e. The floor of vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt paving.,•a-C t -Q47 -E - f. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the confines of the auto body shop. g. The advertising wall facing a public right-of-way shall consist of no more than 50 percent metal material. h. The secondary or non -advertising wall facing a public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials to break up the monotony of a single color flat surface. i. The development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. j. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at the time the conditional use permit is granted. Motion based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the amendment and concurrent conditions result in the auto body shop activity being compatible with the character of the surrounding area. 2. Motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include auto body repair as a conditional use, including but not limited to the following conditions: a. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside the auto body shop structure. No storage of vehicles or materials shall be allowed outside the confines of the auto body shop. b. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the confines of the auto body shop. c. The advertising wall facing a public right -of -ray shall consist of no more than 50 percent metal material. d. The secondary or non -advertising wall facing a public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials to break up the monotony of a single color flat surface. e. Development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. f. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at the time the conditional use permit is awarded. Motion based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and conditions associated with the amendment results in auto body shcp activity as being compatible with the character of the surrounding area. This alternative was not recommended by the Planning Commission, as it was felt that the economic difficulties of creating a large enough structure to contain all of the vehicles and vehicle parts was not reasonable. It was also the view of the Planning Commission that the ` conditions associated with alternative Al would sufficiently protect the land values of the adjoining neighbors. -3- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 3. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed amendment based on the finding that the auto body repair activity is not compatible with the permitted and conditional uses in the B-3 zone, and there is no demonstrated need for establishing the proposed conditional use in the B-3 zone. Council should know that there were no individuals present at the public hearing to object to the proposed rezoning. However, there was a letter submitted by an adjoining land owner which indicated opposition to the proposed zoning amendment. That letter is enclosed for your review. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission was split between alternatives ;1 and !2. There is a view amongst staff that alternative #1 is the best selection, as the conditions are stringent enough to assure that auto body shop activity will not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining neighborhood. At the same time, the cost to comply with the conditions are reasonable. There are also arguments for alternative $2 which requires that all storage be contained within the primary structure. This alternative is positive in that it reduces the number of conditions necessary and, therefore, provides additional assurances that the development will not become a negative influence on the adjoining properties. Of course, the problem with this proposal is that it requires a larger structure and significantly increases the development cost. This approach, though expensive, has been used in the City of Elk River, where no vehicles are allowed to be stored outside the main shop building. As noted earlier, Planning Commission is recommending alternative el. Finally, after reviewing the operations of numerous auto body shops, it became apparent that those shops that must live up to conditions have been doing so and are maintaining attractive businesses. it appears that it is reasonable to expect that positive experiences of communities that have allowed auto body shop activity in commercial zones will also occur in Monticello. Therefore, it is the view of staff and the Planning Commission that given the conditions listed, auto body shop activity will not be a detriment to the area and will not reduce adjoining land values. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of site location map; Copy of pertinent sections of Comprehensive Plan; Letter from Central Minnesota Projectional Copy of zoning map. -4- F �PkFSA ' , / "- f ',• j. /• /JJ ! / CFS' / � • / 1+ r., /rte �'"^. a oaq • � rt • .� �' !/ � t ., Q �_ , r s r %.. . h\ % a NC's 1 ` •/ , hkrpY raw; Consideration of ing�an amen3ment to/ the Monticello Zoni� - ng Ord'in'ance -to,' G; —auto 1 shops as a con8itiona,�usb within a B-3` ' / ,/' (highway business) zone.'-,, j l I z j`/+�� JJE; FLICANT: Monticello Auto Bo J ! l:` R 1.941 TPo Tt#:MAS a�.,'1�' t •rs .-' r ht 6'11r '/ •+rte t r^.Aa%. PA RIX �. � _J4j7.�c ..-t�_.T/+fM6'1� �••tti111�-�•�-•�•�o'_!_ T � Oantal••"� F i � � M ._ € ._ ' _ � cam• F s F 3uabinq fy + i. vacant` A ti L � � Vacant •^� - - ®� r Ganaral Rental ( � C � f . / f • �� ` '^v',�r • OHO°� � ` " r CO-SMMIAL POLICIES I. Commercial development in general and successful retailing functions should occur both in the central business district and the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94. 2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to properly control such enterprises at the local community level; commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible, and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive. ]. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable areas for highway oriented commercial development requiring large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses should be encouraged to develop in new locations along Interstate 94 at Highway 25. 4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an adequate marker study (market radius, customer potential, suits=le location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration for tie neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern. S. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a batter control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason, "strip" and *spot' commercial development should not be permitted. 6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated to the greatest extent possible so an not to waste prime commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable as a "viable commercial area". 7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the integrated business center developed according to a sp!ciftc site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to be served. B. All major commercial areas shall be pre-:oned basad upon the Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be ca -zoned to cc=ercial use unless they ace shown to be properly located in accordance with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be wall -defined so as to prevent intrusion into residential areas: residential areas must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of adjacent and nearby commercial area. -48- i� February 28, 1989 Planning Commission City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Planning Commission Members: Central Minnesota Projections. a Minnesota partnership, owns Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 and Lots 1, 2 and 3. Block 1, Sandberg South. It recently sold Lot 1, Block 2, to Dr. John Erlandson who has constructed a combination dental clinic and residence. The other lot is occupied by General Rental and The Plumbery. We oppose the application of Monticello Auto Body for any change in existing permitted uses bb under present zoning. We believe the future development of Sandberg South i` should be more in keeping with profit -retail trend and would discourage any move towards light industrial. Thank you for your consideration. 'GL*t+TRAL MI NESOTA PROJECTIONS lJa/mes P. F star, Partner a "i �.�.� .._ .r' ter\. ]_- '*•'•i _rte 7? ._•!'L.,.,h,w -- •__^_�?, .. NZI %� •,� �"� �i '"� % '. � -' -, r .per' 78\� � • •V , I ("%_ • t 0 ... _„f"1 ]• + 't "-ick`_ _ 4 \!-- AO-�:..,.. : Ji•?ii• fit ': ?1.� _fid' �`' 14 u: ` �Oln SCM ti"�^Z .\r�-4. �••_`. �«✓- . Y �» V 6� ZrM•..' � a r' �� __ _ '� ';,; � ;fir �= I • Qa ` .. r,... . - :. �,,. n .'._. �r3 �rEo ;w•p#„a.+tel ,•a. »�" 12 .. b �r+rater% {r�w0/•(tar, ��r J .. � - ., 1.` »� City cf Montic allyJVO WrOt County Minresota -� ! a ✓ Aft— Existing Zoning �.q':' - �'T I/ C H L L.•0 .F �.fi#G.•t# r'i Council Agenda - 4/24/89 5. Consideration of a conditional use permit request - Monticello Auto Body. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: If the City Council determines that auto body shop activity should be allowed as a conditional use un a B-3 zone, then Council is asked to consider granting a conditional use permit to Monticello Auto Body as discussed. The Planning Commission did recommend that the conditional use permit be granted to Monticello Auto Body. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend that Monticello Auto Body shop be granted a conditional use permit which would allow the operation of an auto body shop in a B-3 zone. Applicant must comply with all conditions included in zoning amendment. Motion based on the finding that awarding the conditional use permit is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the operation of an auto body shop under conditions set forth provides sufficient assurance that auto shop activity will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. 2. Motion to recommend denial of conditional use permit as requested. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative fl. D. SUPPORTING DATA: See previous agenda item. -5- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 6. Consideration of resolution receiving report, approving plans and specifications, and ordering public hearing on Mississippi Drive improvement project. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Engineer is in the process of completing plans and specifications, along with cost estimates, for the reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. The City Engineer has provided staff with preliminary drawings and cost estimates. The final plans and specifications will be available for Monday evening's meeting. The City Engineer proposes to make center line corrections and overlay the first B00 feet of Mississippi Drive. It is then proposed that the remaining 1100 feet of Mississippi Drive undergo a complete reconstruction and that the bituminous surface be removed, as well as the subgrade being reworked. A fabric material would then separate the gravel base from the subgrade, and the street would then be built in a conventional manner, but with thicker than usual Class V base. It is also proposed that we install approximately 1300 feet of B -inch perforated drain tile along the south side of Mississippi Drive and interconnect this into the existing storm sewer system. This would duplicate approximately 600 feet of drain tile already in place on the south side of Mississippi Drive. OSM feels that this existing drain tile may be plugged and too shallow to be effective. The actual extent of the drain system work will be determined at the time of construction. Using this process, OSTM indicates that only 200 feet of curb and gutter would have to be replaced. Based upon the above design, the following preliminary cost estimates are given: Subgrade, fabric, base, and bituminous work 5 73,592.50 Curb replacement 2,000.00 Under drain system including manholes and 1500 aq yds of sod restoration 37,850.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCCION COST $113,442.50 The above costa are only construction costs and do not include engineering, design, testing, inspection, and administration costs. It should be noted that these preliminary costa developed by OSM are conservative. The bituminous removal costs are higher than the cost of our last job, and the bituminous replacement costa are above our last job. I would expect that the actual bid prices would be lower, especially if this project was rolled in with an improvement of the industrial park roads. In addition, it is possible that we may be able to cut back slightly from the design as proposed and still have a 20 -year design life street. we can discuss this rnore at the upcoming meeting. -6- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 t After the final design is selected and the cost estimate known, the Council should give some indication as to what type of assessment would be placed against adjoining property. Typically where the City comes in and replaces some utilities in the street, the street replacement is generally assessed at 508 of the street replacement cost. Under our assessment ordinance, if the Council determines that the street had lived a useful design life and was in need of replacement for that reason, they can assess 1006 of the cost against the benefiting property. In this case, there is rationale to indicate that the street has not reached its normal design life and, indeed, was deteriorating in the very early years. Therefore, there is rationale to use 506 or less. In this case, City staff feels that the assessment would be most appropriate someplace between 306 and 406. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to reach a decision as to the ultimate design for the reconstruction; and based upon a cost estimate of that design, set a public hearing date for the proposed improvement. The Council should also give some consideration to a possible assessment percentage for the benefitted property. 2. The second alternative would be to make only minimal repairs to the street at this time. This does not seem appropriate, as the street is badly in need of repair, and no new utilities are proposed to run down Mississippi Drive in the immediate future. 3. A third alternative would be to do nothing at this time. This, again, does not appear to be rational, as it is quite obvious that this street is in need of repair. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is holding its recommendation until Monday evening's meeting when all information is available. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of plan sheet 17 from OSM; Any additional information arriving in time for the agenda packet. Copy of roeolution for adoption. -7- IMISSISSIPPI DRIVE ' ' RESOLUTION 89 - RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Council action March 27, 1989, a feasibility report along with plans and specifications have been prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Consulting Engineer, with reference to the improvement of Mississippi Drive between East County Road 39 and its termination point, and this report was received by the Council on April 24, 1989; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The plans and specifications are hereby approved as submitted. 2. The Council will consider the improvement of Mississippi Drive in accordance with the report and assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at an c--timated cost of $ 3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the day of , 1989, in the Council Cpm e�rs of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m., and the City Administrator shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 24th day of April, 1989. Mayor City Administrator FM PRELIMINARY CIST AND FEASIBILITY REPYRTS l � 1SSISSIPPI DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA APRIL 20, 1989 1. TYPE OF WORK This report addresses the repair and reconstruction of 2000 feet of Mississippi Drive from C.S.A.H. 39 to cul-de-sac. The work would involve primarily removal of deteriorated blacktop and failed base, installation of a filter fabric, new gravel blacktop and a sub soil drainage system to cut off the ground water flow. 11. REASON FOR PROJIM r �— This report was requested by City Council in response to concerns raised by the citizens living along Mississippi Drive. 111. DESCRIPTION OF PROJM The project would involve the construction of a blacktop overlay on a portion of Mississippi Drive and the complete re -building of the remainder of Mississippi Drive. Some curb and gutter will need to be replaced and a sub drain system installed to intercept the ground water flow from the hill area south of the street. The underdrain system would only be extended up the hill towards C.R. 039 to where the ground water stops. When we get to the existing sub drain system and find it working properly, the new sub drain system would be terminated. However, if we find the existing system plugged, we would continue up the hill to the limits shown on the drawing. 0(p IV. TIMIN6 It is proposed that the overlay of the streets be accomplished during the existing construction year. V. SCOPE OF PROJECT The proposed street overlay would involve approximately 2000 feet of roadway repair. The project would also include any appurtenant work related to the overlay of these roadways. Such work would include drainage considerations, the raising of utility structures, base reconstruction, minor replacement of curb and gutter and turf restoration. VI. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 8 Associates, that the City undertake a construction project as outlined. VII. FEASIBILITY From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible and can be accomplished as proposed and need not be in conjunction with any other project. If this project were included with other paving projects, there could be some potential cost savings by the City. VIII.ESTIMATED COST The estimated cost for the proposed improvements is as follows: c Subgrade and bituminous work Curb replacement Under drain system restoration TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Estimated Indirect Costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS IX. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED Those properties proposed to be assessed are: Lots 1 through 13, Block 1 Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 Lots 1 through 18, Block 3, all in S 73,600.00 2,000.00 37.900.00 113,500.00 30.500.00 144,000.00 HOGLUND ADDITION, according to the plat on file in the office of the Wright County Recorder, and the East 75.00 feet of that part of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, which lies northerly of County Road No. 39. The total amount of assessable footage is approximately 3,500 feet. X. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS Proposed Street Repair 522.00/Assessable Foot The assessment rate is assuming approximately 50%. X1. FUNDING PLAN The following are the sources or funds that would be available for use on this project. Amounts may vary depending upon contract costs and financial conditions of the City at the time of bonding. DU I Street Special Assessment S 74,800 Ad Valorem Taxes 69.200 TOTAL $144,000 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. )7 E. H. Anderson, P.E. Date: April 24, 1989 Reg. No. 6275 14 MISSISSIPPI OR1VE ESTIMATE COMM. MD. 2621.20 MISSISSIPPI RAVE ESTIMATE COMM. NO. 2621.20 1. 1 ITEM (NITS UIIT UNIT TOTAL NO. PRICE CAST 1 B"INOlb REMDVk 4420 S. Y. 3.00 13.260.00 2 REMM 4 REPLACE CIA� +MATER 200 L.F. 10.00 2.000.00 3 SIIBMINAUE SYSTEM 1370 L.F. 20.00 27.400.00 4 2331 BASE 585 TO! 25.00 14.625.00 4A TACK MAT 390 GAL 1.23 687.50 3 234IM NEAR 650 TCM 30.00 19.500.00 6 CLASS 5 (10.) 2800 TCN 6.00 16.800.00 7 FILTER FABRIC IN STREET 4420 S. Y. 1.00 4.420.00 8 SMALL MAN(QE 4 EA. 1000.00 4.000.00 9 STB. "MOLE 2 EA. 1200.00 2.600.00 10 N' RCP CL. 2 30 L.F. 35.00 1.050.00 I1 SOD 5000 S. Y. 2.00 10.000.00 12 SUB -CUT STREETS 1500 S. V. 3.00 4.500.00 6120.441.50 C M, l 9 wqs� MISSISSIPPI DRIVE IMPROVEMENT .,.. W. ,..em. PROPOSEv� �t PROJECT LOCATION ��,_...........1....... a t A t IIl % •.... TOP- •SOIL - •. , • - i,111 T 12" o°pp 1-1/2" C1 LEA R % AGGREGATE 1/28" P.V.C. PIPEI d RORATED ° 6 2• a GEOTEXTILE FABRIC NOTE: TME UNIT PRICE BID PER LINEAL FOOT FOR 8" P.V.C. (PERFORATED I SMALL INCLUDE EXCAVATION, DISPOSAL, 8" P.V.C.(PERFORATED), 1-1/2"CLEAR AGGREGATE 9 FABRIC. 31C... By p D,o" ng l tie Comm. No, G. M. F. CA%t 8%slan 8"P.V.C. PERFORATED 2621 20 Dote• s� .•r•.• • �i•""• • As elatm PIPE DETAIL She 4/10/89 . ....... .....• • MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Council Agenda - 4/24/89 l 7. Consideration of cost study for street upgrading within the Oakwood Industrial Park and ordering public hearing on the improvement. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Engineer is in the process of completing his feasibility report and cost analysis for upgrading the streets in the Monticello Industrial Park to 10 -ton all weather roads. Because of the significant thickness of the overlay (three inches) on Fallon, the City Engineer is including an alternative for reconstruction of the street also, along with widening the entire roadway. It is my understanding that John Badalich will be mailing the cost analysis to the Council members so that they receive it prior to Monday's meeting. If we receive it in time for the agenda packet, it will be included. There, therefore, are no alternative actions or staff recommendations at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution for adoption. _e- RESOLUTION 89 - RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Council action March 27, 1989, a report has been prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 5 Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineer, for the improvement of Thomas Park Drive, Chelsea Road, Fallon Avenue, and Dundas Road with bituminous overlay, all within Oakwood Industrial Park, and this report was received by the Council on April 24, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of the streets within Oakwood Industrial Park in accordance with the report and assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at an estimated cost of $ 2. A public hearing shall be held an such proposed improvement on the day of , 1989, in the Council Chambers of tWe City Hall at 7:70 p.m., ana the City Administrator shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 24th day of April, 1989. L City Administrator C Mayor 0 PRELIMINARY COST AND FEASIBILITY REPORTS OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK STREET UPGRADING AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY OF MONTiCELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA APRIL 20, 1989 I. TYPE OF WORK This report addresses the upgrading of streets within the Monticello Oakwood Industrial Park. The work would involve primarily overlaying the existing streets, possible widening of Fallon Avenue, isolated areas of reconstruction, and appurtenant work. I1. REASON FOR PROJECT This report was requested by City Council in response to concerns expressed by the Industrial Development Committee. The Industrial Development Committee views the existence of streets and industrial nark with less than ten ton capacity as a detriment to economic development in the community. The Committee feels that the Inability for the streets to carry ten ton loads negatively influences the marketing of the industrial park. Operations within the park are also adversely affected by the actual load restrictions within the park. At the time that the streets were originally designed and constructed, it was understood that a future overlay project would have to be done to upgrade the streets. The timing of this was to be determined by the rate of development within the industrial park. The roads affected include Thomas Park Drive, Chelsea Road, Oundus Road, and Fallon Avenue. This is approximately 9,900 feet of roadway. 111. =RlfjION OF PROJECT The project would involve the construction of an overlay on each of these streets. 0 The thickness of the overlay would be such to increase the road rating to a ten ton design. The recommended overlays are as follows: Street Name Existino Width Length ProDosed Overlav Thomas Park Drive 36 ft. 2,349 ft. 1 inch Chelsea Road 41 ft. 2,548 ft. 2.5 inch Dundus Road 41 ft. 2,648 ft. 2.5 inch Fallon Avenue 24 ft. 2,465 ft. 3 inch It is also suggested that the widening for Fallon Avenue be accomplished at the time of this project. It will be suggested that this street be widened to 41 feet to fit the typical section of a majority of the streets in the industrial park. L j dM_U11 It is proposed that the overlay of the streets be accomplished during the existing construction year. Construction this season would enhance the current marketing within the Oakwood industrial Park. UNEV�hllalm7:liv*0 The proposed street overlay would involve approximately 9,900 feet of roadway. The overlay depths will vary from 1 inch on Thomas Park Drive to 3 inches on Fallon Avenue. The overlays would increase the rating of the roadway to a ten ton design. As part of this project, the number of areas identified from site visits and the Braun Pavement Strength Evaluation Report would be tagged for additional investigations including survey and soil boring investigations. Depending on the outcome of these investigations, isolated areas of these streets may require digout and reconstruction treatments. The project would also include any appurtenant work related to the overlay of these roadways. Such work would include drainage considerations, entrance rehabilitation, matching of existing streets, and the raising of utility structures. O l VI. ALTERNATIVES During initial design, the roads currently in place have load limits imposed upon them of 8 tons. At the time of initial design, it was anticipated that an overlay project would have to be accomplished to provide the level of service required within an active industrial park. The alternatives available to the City of Monticello are as follows: (1) Delay or eliminate the plan to upgrade the streets in the Oakwood industrial Park to a 10 -ton design. (2) Construct only the overlays required to upgrade the streets to a 10 -ton design. This is what was recommended at the time of design. (3) Construct recommended overlay on Thomas Park Drive, Chelsea Road, and Dundus Road. Widen Fallon Avenue to 41 feet at a similar typical section. Then construct the recommended 3 inch overlay over the entire 41 width of Fallon Avenue. (4) Construct the overlays as recommended on Thomas Park Drive, Chelsea Road, and Dundas Road. Reconstruct Fallon Avenue to a 41 foot width by removing the existing bituminous grading a subgrade and then providing a complete new section of Class 5 and bituminous. V11. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, that the City undertake a construction project as outlined in Alternative 3. Alternative 3 will provide 10 -ton design roadways within the Oakwood industrial Park and also widen Fallon Avenue to a width more desirable for industrial park roadways. The widening of Fallon Avenue will require grading not normally associated with an overlay project but should not impact the project adversely. The widening of Fallon Avenue should increase the marketability of the lots adjacent to Fallon Avenue. d A Alternative 1 is not a viable option due to the need for a 10 -ton road design for truck traffic associated with an industrial park. Alternative 2 is an acceptable alternate but would not provide for the widening of Fallon Avenue. It is not recommended that this alternative be chosen for that reason. The widening of Fallon Avenue will increase the marketability of the lots adjacent to Fallon Avenue. Alternative 4 is not recommended because of the additional costs associated with widening Fallon Avenue. The costs associated with Fallon Avenue are higher with this alternative than the costs associated with the widening of Fallon Avenue as outlined in Alternative 3. The level of service anticipated for Alternative 3 and 4 is equal, therefore, Alternative 3 is recommended due to the lower cost of construction. Roadway soil borings will be required at various locations prior to final design to verify method of proposed reconstruction. V111. FEASIBILITY From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible and presents few problems. This project will provide 10 -ton roads throughout the industrial park, thereby making Oakwood Industrial Park more attractive to the industrial market. IX. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated project cost includes construction costs and 27% indirect costs (engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative). Cost for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4,as described above, are summarized as follows: 0 Construction Cost Indirect Costs Soil Borings TOTAL PROJECT COST (with pavement fabric) Deduct if pavement fabric is not installed TOTAL PROJECT COST (without pavement fabric) Alt. 2lA t. 3 Alt. 4 $246,489 $345,190 $375,087 66,552 93,200 101,274 1,300 1,300 1,300 ✓ $314,341 $439,690 $477,661 66,139 77,269 57,661 $245,202 $362,421 $420,000 A detailed breakdown of the costs can be found at the back of this report. X: ASSESSMENTS The estimated project cost of the recommended alternative is $439,690. This cost included the installation of a pavement fabric on all of the roads as part of the overlay construction. There is approximately 12,800 feet of property that fronts on the upgraded streets. if the entire project cost is assessed, this would be approximately $34.35 per front foot of property. If the City chooses not to utilize the pavement fabric, this is reduced to $28.30 per front foot. Under this alternative, the entire cost is covered by the property owners. The recommended project includes the widening of Fallon Avenue. The cost associated with the widening only is considered an improvement that will benefit the entire city. if the city pays for the portion of the costs associated with the widening, the assessments are reduced to $24.55 or $19.15 per foot depending on pavement fabric being used or not. The City costs are $125,349 when pavement fabric is installed or, $117,219 if it is not, for this assessment alternative. According to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, the city must assess at least 20% of the costs for a capital improvement project to the benefitted properties or hold a 0 referendum if the assessed amount is to be less than 20%. This makes the minimum assessment, without a referendum, $6.85 or $5.65 per front foot of property depending on pavement fabric being utilized or not. This alternative produces costs to the city of 80% of the total project cost which would be levied from general Ad Valorem funds. 0 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. )a/ /Ij, Ili VJohn P. Badalich, P.E. Date: April 20, 1989 Reg. No. 4985 David D. Mitchell, E.I.T. Date: April 20, 1989 EIT No. 12982-T e �oAa,� ��r� d� A"'� �jj� V1'tJ�` Yit/,� �� I'9 a7[q��jy ;� 'llhip/ fir' q,Uj.� t� q�� rrr� �`�t� r� �, rnrr ,�,� � :nom � r � ''� �` /+Ili' y,�r �".' '� � U� ��11� � �� d�1d' �' rrr �� r� �r �,� i�,��i c r�/r�ir�,, �� ,� �,,j� �lrrr yy �� f� '� . �n'�� "� ,,,p �� _.,.. ., .� .,�• ,. ,t� MST CPtrATE TA11011) 11116TRIn Iw6 10mTra 2 I.TUNTM 1 ALTER ATRE 4 CITY OF PWIfII10 0011. Q 1771.00 TNM PM CAN C1P26SA ROAD NOR 6010 Fn101 ON".. FALL Old e7nr FOlOI euS11E I OKUY) 12.5. NOW) (2.v OMILAn 12.0. 09MY) 11.61 aKTUYI IRCID6Tsui 1 2149 A.F.. a• 610 2568 L.F.. 41 - n¢ $'6 LF.. a• 1110. 245 I..F.. 74' nM 245 I.F.. 41• nM Mi 1..F.. a• 616 un TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tern TOTAL nm 11101Prral lrlr 0110 UMTS COST 011% MST RIl1 COSI OaTs MST unls MST oars COST 61e11 SIVI10 ear: 6766.00 0.4 un 0.48 on 0.50 6350 0.35 sw 6.47 1m Zara 11Tu11Q0ILMA16 4110.. 611. MTU11AL1 TON 20.00 120 1la2n 3117 612.&9 M W.Oee 216 17.120 19 611.649 ' 2111 1161116061E7N (IMM. 611. MTU11AL1 TON 624.06 AAS 612.010 1SII 9]9.17 I54 441.216 TWA 119.181 1765 64%e90 1059 127.371 757 11 N1I10a MTFRIAL F01 TOR COA1 011 Low 11.OD 939 696 1160 11.160 1201 11.201 622 422 1122 61.122 1122 61.122 law ealnAa FAR 9Iro.00 6 1200 7 Aero a Aero 1 1200 I 1100 1 6100 10,161 art wars FAR 6100.00 1 Ano 4 aro le u.eoo 2 62M 2 Am 2 1290 2711 QOXCATE 11Ct CLASS 5 Tor 17.00 1760 112.326 430 MAU 2101 TAIWAN 00101 (Ni C.Y. 4.00 1557 19.117 1557 69.112 2105 CD" FIOIIIOI C.Y. 12.00 6006 0.006 400D 44.00o 2331 I1N1110b BASF ITIn. Ill. MTTAln1 TOA 20.00 126 111.500 1482 622.604 2111 finplIA 81rCEN rl1n. 111. MTpi111.1 TDO 674.00 140 631.36e KILL 2. 111IIIINM TOP X10161 000 AP C.F. 67.00 4935 44.810 Qo-T211ELL FABRIC 6.Y. 11.50 %77 68.716 1170 1I6.644 9NXIM Tole IINCL. AMII IWW TAD S. V. 61.25 906 111.115 11607 114.5" 17017 115.021 6571 11.716 IIa9 114.036 a►101AL m6TW 1R =1 116.215 49.578 172.476 944.817 6114.50 1161.720 101 me111110 63.0 4.930 0.1411 44.481 613.4% AILS" 120111OTSTWION COST 139.67 174.ST 100.1124 u9.m 6147.101 4177.1191 M UOI1m1116. ora. FIaA6 NO AMINI61RA11Yi 616.7% 1:0.45 121.1172 113.109 $319.951 646.021 9►TOTAL 1wvrT COST 650.63 107.200 x02,64 1&.492 11117.9" 1 %qz Q�) COIL 011821 11.700 11.AOu - 61.103 TOTAL Raul 0639 6111 PINA18111 FMIC............................................................... I..................... .............. 6211.141 4439.690 1177.661 TOTAL Pour WV 61TI6UI P66610a FMIC ....................................................................................... I........ 124%m $W.171 1120.00 Council Agenda - 4/24/89 i 8. Consideration of establishing Council representatives on Economic Development Authority. 1.7.0.1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you know, the Economic Development Authority consists of seven members, two of which must be City Council members. Staff asks each Council member to consider volunteering for one of these important posts. Normally a position on the Economic Development Authority lasts for six years. For Council members, the tenure on the EDA runs parallel to the Council terms. It is expected that the EDA will meet on a quarterly basis. However, it is expected that special meetings will be called on occasion to address specific development proposals that are likely to come up in between quarterly meetings. At this point, it is difficult to project how often special meetings will be required, as the frequency of special meetings will be a function of the demand for use of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Please contact me if you would like a new copy of the by-laws of the Economic Development Authority. -9- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 9. Consideration of authorizing Assistant Deputy Registrar appointment. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous Council meeting, Council members were informed that Vickie Bidwell (Anderson) had submitted her resignation as the Deputy Registrar Clerk/Data Entry position. This will be effective April 21; and as such, I did, after discussing the matter with Jeff, place an ad in the Monticello newspaper advertising for a 1) permanent part-time employee; and 2) a full-time employee for the summer months to cover Diane Jacobson's expected maternity leave. Although Vickie was a full-time permanent employee, her resignation has again given the City an option of either hiring another full-time immediate replacement or seeing if there are any qualified applicants who could be employed on a part-time basis in a permanent situation. This would allow us flexibility in determining how our computer implementation program is proceeding by the time September rolls around and Diane returns full-time. If the need arises later on this year or early next year to make this individual full-time, I felt it was much easier to upgrade an employee to a full-time status rather than finding out later we really only need a part-time individual. T received approximately 40 applications for the advertised position and _10- discussed and interviewed the opening with five individuals. Of the !' applicants, approximately half had Monticello addresses, and the balance came from surrounding communities. The primary responsibility for the position will he to fill in full-time as Deputy Registrar for the summer months and then on a part-time basis thereafter to help out with Deputy I Registrar activities. It is estimated that at a minimum, the individual would work 20 hours per week, possibly 25, being realistic. Of the applications received, the majority had general office experience and some had background and previous experience in data entry, financial background such as bookkeeping, and other clerical duties. Only one applicant had direct experience relating to Deputy Registrar functions, and her name is Patricia Kovich. Patricia has recently moved to the Big Lake area from Virginia, Minnesota, where she was employed in a Deputy Registrar'o office for four years. She also has had experience in an office setting doing numerous clerical duties such as word processing, computer data entry activities, and is currently employed in Monticello doing computer entry work. She is looking for a better opportunity, and she is very familiar with Deputy Registrar functions, which is our primary need at this point. Due to the fact that Diane will he expected to be on maternity leave approximately the third week in June at the latest, it will be extremely beneficial to the City to have an individual who has worked for four years in this capacity and with very little training could assume the Deputy Registrar function. With this being the primary focus of the position, it is my recommendation that Patricia he hired as the Deputy Registrar Clerk. As I also indicated during the last meeting, the _10- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 City's personnel policy currently does not provide any benefits for a part-time employee, whether it's seasonal or permanent in nature. Only full-time employees receive holiday pay, vacation or sick leave accruals, health insurance benefits, etc. I am again reviewing the personnel policy and will be shortly bringing to the Council a revised policy for your consideration and am suggesting that in the future, a permanent part-time employee be eligible for some type of pro -rated benefit schedule. Although a decision certainly does not have to be made at this time concerning the appointment of a Deputy Registrar Clerk, I did indicate to all the applicants that it is a topic that will be considered by the Council in the future. At the present time, Patricia is still interested in the position with no guarantees regarding health insurance or other fringe benefits. Based on the duties and comparable worth scales, I am suggesting a starting salary of $7.50 per hour for this position. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the appointment of Patricia Rovich as the Assistant Deputy Registrar Clerk. This would be a full-time job until Diane Jacobson's return from maternity leave and part-time thereafter. 2. Do not approve her appointment and recommend another individual. C. STAPF RECOPiMENDATION: Of the 40 applications, the five individuals I discussed the position with and/or interviewed all had suitable qualifications, and I believe they could have been trained for Deputy Registrar functions, and if the job became full-time would have fit in well at City Hall. One of the primary concerns I had was the time constraints we are working with in that it is extremely important that the individual assume most of the duties of Diane's position within a very short period of time. Although Deputy Registrar activities are an ongoing learning process, by the time an individual started, she or he would only have four weeks of training before being left in charge. As a result, I felt it was beat for the City that Patricia be hired due to her four years of background as a Deputy Registrar. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Nono. C IM APPLICATIONS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR POSITION INTERVIEWED 1. Patricia Kovich 220 Leighton Drive $4 Big Lake, MN 2. Becky Holthaus 217 Kevin Longley Drive Monticello, MN 3. Wanda Kraemer 1009 Golf Course Road Monticello, MN 4. Kathy Kasper Route 2, Box 121 Monticello, MN I also discussed the position with Patricia Mayer of Monticello, who did not express further interest after learning the position would start at part-time status. If any Council member would like to review the candidates' applications/ resumes, please let me know. Rick C Council Agenda - 4/24/89 10. Consideration of authorizing Junk Amnesty Day - May 20. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the close of the March 27 Council meeting, City staff received a consensus from the City Council that they were in favor of holding another Junk Amnesty Day for 1989. The City staff has, therefore, N prepared a cost estimate for the Council and has begun plans to hold Junk 1 \� Amnesty Day on Saturday, May 20, at the commuter parking lot. The \�, preparation so far has been limited to the notification of Demcon Disposal for the household goods, Ruff Auto for the white goods, and Polka Dot Recycling for all the recycling materials. In additicn, City enployees have been notified of the work day. At this time, we have not advertised the Amnesty Day publicly. The total cost of last year's Junk Amnesty Day was $2,882. This is $60 less than our final cost reported to the Council last summer. Polka Dot Recycling was to have received $60 in transportation cost for the recyclables. Polka Dot, however, never billed us, as the markets for the recyclables at that time covered the transportation costs. Our original estimate for last year was $2,390 to $4,390. So as you can see, we came well within our estimated range. For 1989, if we were to receive the same number of customers in similar volume, we would expect the cost to be $3,682 due to an increase in landfilling the unsalvageable household goods. There has been such a positive response from the citizens about this program that it is likely that we will see an increase in materials and users this year. If we see a 25 percent increase in the volume of white goods and unsalvageable household materials, our total cost could run to $4,434, which is only about $40 higher than our high estimate last year. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to authorize City staff to hold Junk Amnesty Day for household goods on Saturday, May 20, 1989, at an estimated cost of $4,434. 2. The second alternative would be not to authorize Junk Amnesty Day. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the City Council authorize Junk Amnesty Day as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of Council update from the June 11, 1989, Junk Amnesty Dayi Copy of the proposed public notice. -12- COUNCIL UPDATE: JUNK AMNESTY DAY SUMMARY "•e following is a summary of participation in the Junk Amnesty day conducted .e 11, 1988. 'JCViN SIMOLA SAYS "PROGRAM WAS A SUCCESS, POSSIBLY A MODEL FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES" -DAVE FOSTER OF POLKA D)T RECYCLING TERMED PROGRAM A SUCCESS. -DIVERTED ALMOST 12 1'(N OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM LANDFILL! SAVES LANDFILL/SAVES ENERGY! -IMPROVED NEIGHBORHOODS BE ENCOURAGING PROPER DISPCr AL OF MATERIALS 'THAT CAN BECCME A BLIGHTING INFLUENCE. -PRUVIDED ASSISTANCE TO 5 ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED HOUSEHOLDS. 'PRY;RAM WENI OFF WITHOUT A HITCH - LITTLE WAITING/NO CONFUSION - PEOPLE Cr'0PERAIIVE '.HAT WE MICriT LY) DIFFERENT NEXT TIME: Ilizu a fwrth rmn to work Llo goto. Invite ttr. lc reship to Mrticipatm (and ch -ire oxponso), CREDIT FUR it SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM TO (0 1'0: Mvyor and City Council Cooporative Effort of City Staff, Polka Dot Rocycling, Yanak Landfill RLff Salvage, Mtr,ticollo Timms 0D TOTAL LAND FILL RECYCLE ICOST TO USERS USERS ICITY - I----------------------------- Hg15EHOLD6 PARTICIPATING I 170 133 -------- -- - 75 HCOSEHOLD USE OF PROGRAM II 780 44$II I PERCENT OF CITY HSHLDS I 98 7% I 4$I UTILIZING PROGRAM I I I CUBIC YDS LANDFILL I 240 I I $1,400 I CU YDS LANDFILL PER HSHLDI 1.80 I I I L83 OF RECYCLE PER HSHLO I I 316 I I WHITE GOODS TOTAL I 105 I I $810 I LABOR I I I $612 I PUBLIC NOTICES I ------ ----------- I --------------------------- I I $60 I --------------- I 1 `CYCLABLES I � (TONS) I I I BATTERIES I (81 UNITS) 1.54 I I IRON I 2.8 I TIN I 1.32 I $20 OIL I (250 GAL.) 1 I $20 PAPER 166 TREES 3.92 I GLASS/CANS I 0.93 I $20 ALUM I NUM I 0.33 I I TOTAL RECYCLABLE TONNAGE I 11.84 I I I IOIAL CIIY COST I I I $2,942 I ESIIMATED COST I I I $3,390 (MID POINT OF RANGE) 'JCViN SIMOLA SAYS "PROGRAM WAS A SUCCESS, POSSIBLY A MODEL FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES" -DAVE FOSTER OF POLKA D)T RECYCLING TERMED PROGRAM A SUCCESS. -DIVERTED ALMOST 12 1'(N OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM LANDFILL! SAVES LANDFILL/SAVES ENERGY! -IMPROVED NEIGHBORHOODS BE ENCOURAGING PROPER DISPCr AL OF MATERIALS 'THAT CAN BECCME A BLIGHTING INFLUENCE. -PRUVIDED ASSISTANCE TO 5 ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED HOUSEHOLDS. 'PRY;RAM WENI OFF WITHOUT A HITCH - LITTLE WAITING/NO CONFUSION - PEOPLE Cr'0PERAIIVE '.HAT WE MICriT LY) DIFFERENT NEXT TIME: Ilizu a fwrth rmn to work Llo goto. Invite ttr. lc reship to Mrticipatm (and ch -ire oxponso), CREDIT FUR it SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM TO (0 1'0: Mvyor and City Council Cooporative Effort of City Staff, Polka Dot Rocycling, Yanak Landfill RLff Salvage, Mtr,ticollo Timms 0D PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF MONTICELLO WILL ACCEPT AND DISPOSE OF UNWANTED HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN CONJUNCTION WITH "JUNK AMNESTY DAY" - MAY 20, 1989 PROGRAM PURPOSE To improve quality of Monticello neighborhoods by encouraging proper disposal of materials that otherwise can become a public nuisance. To reduce demands on landfill through recycling of eligible material. To provide elderly and handicapped with assistance in disposing of unwanted household items. PROGRAM OUTLIVE Materials eligible (as outlined below) must be delivered to the west side of the commuter parking lot between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Saturday, May 20, 1989. Senior citizens and the physically handicapped that need assistance should call City Hall at 295-2711 for scheduling volunteers to pick up unwanted materials. Note: No hazardous wastes or car tires will be accepted. Program limited to City of Monticello residents only. Proof of residence required. ELIGIBLE MATERIALS The following is a list of materials that will be accepted and disposed of or recycled. All other material will not be accepted. SCRAP IRON, MOTOR OIL, ANTI -FREEZE, CAR BATTERIES, GLASS JARS CAR WHEELS (not tires), AND OTHER IRON CAR PARTS, NEWSPAPER, TIN CANS HOUSEHOLD GOODS SUCH AS CARPE:', FURNITURE, MATTRESSES, SMALL APPLIANCES LARGE APPLIANCES ACCEPTED (Refrig, Dryer, Etc) - LIMIT 3 PER HOUSEHOLD POLKA DOT RECYCLING WILL PAY $.40 PER POUND (depending on market) FOR SCRAP ALUMINUVBEV CANS VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO ASSIST THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED Individuals interested in assisting the elderly and handicapped with transporting materials to the drop-off site can call City Hall for assignments - 295-2711. ouestions regarding this program can be answered by Jeff O'Neill - 295-2711. a w� • fit' ' ` i_ . r.� S t � •t t' F .,— r— CaQoP � t I� -I.I 't- �O � t.,t _�_ t t t I" ►j 1. 't j 1"I l� I 1 t�':+'ti � I± i j 'e w+ � i i� � t'`�f � l—� �+•--t•—I..J�j—�� I t( 1 Aw , CfltJS 1 1 I t i, I l l I I l: t• t? i. I I I Ttrv, �,�wisc�wP�+2.,Aiu scoa c .. Aw�..s�awP,I-4=H--H-1-1- ♦ ♦ 1 i �� s'b" � J i� �-til-,._�..�.i..�.�_j.�+..i..r� i+l°r i ,--� i t s •i i i i i•� i AA elgox`.h) w:its wpp. r,....• :._ ...... .._. "-•~ _ _ _io- ` O^►C WOOD Ok.. ' r Council Agenda - 4/24/89 11. Consideration of request by Monticello Township to modify previously adopted fire agreement on aerial ladder truck. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may recall, the City Council discussed this identical item at the January 23 meeting concerning establishing a method of allocating the cost of the new aerial fire truck as part of the Joint Fire Agreement with Monticello Township. The original formula within the Joint Agreement indicated that Monticello Township would be responsible for a percentage of the total new equipment purchases based on their number of fires during a year and the Township's valuation compared to the City's valuation. Initially, the Township Board was opposed to the idea of paying their proportionate share of the aerial ladder truck costing $280,000, as they felt the aerial ladder feature of the truck was for the benefit of the City and not the Township. They finally agreed that if the City would establish $150,000 as the cost of a normal replacement pumper, they could live with this amount being placed within the formula= and they also agreed to establish a second agreement that would require an additional payment of $125 each time the ladder feature of the truck was used in a fire within the Township. I supported this option as a solution to the controversy concerning this new fire truck and felt at least the Township was paying a fair share for the new pumper and would contribute a small amount if the aerial ladder feature was used within a Township fire. Recently, I was contacted by Mr. Ren Scadden, Joint Board Member, and Mr. Ted Holker, Township Board Member, requesting that the City eliminate the separate agreement for the $125 per time usage of the aerial feature. The gentlemen indicated the Township was agreeable to paying their share of a truck valued at $150,000 but indicated at their annual meeting that Township residents did not approve the concept of an additional payment each time the ladder feature was used. Although I can agree that the ladder feature may not necessarily be used very often for a Township fire, if the City Council eliminates any cost participation for this feature of the new truck, the Joint Fire Agreement is being circumvented. 1 felt the separate agreement for $125 each time it was used was a very fair compromise on the City's part when, in reality, this figure should have probably been three or four times higher if we are trying to recover our cost in a fair manner. While I'm not concerned about any lost revenue should we eliminate this separate agreement, the issue really becomes whether the Joint Agreement will be challenged on every new item that is required to be purchased. The City Council can certainly take the same stance in the future when the Township may be required to replace their 1973 putter and if they ever purchase a new tank truck. Our argument could be we decided not to pay our fair share according to the agreement because a new pumper replacing the Township's truck will be used primarily within the Township and also the City does not utilize a tank truck very often but is also required primarily for Township use. This is the same Ingic they are trying to use on the aerial ladder feature of the truck, saying it's going to be used primarily within the city; therefore, they shouldn't have to pay for its initidl coat. -13- Council Agenda — 4/24/89 For your reference, according to the existing contract, if the Township would have had to pay their fair share of the total $280,000 truck, they would have seen an increase in their contract of $4,737 per year. The agreement I thought we had reached with the Township, basing the value on $150,000, amounted to an immediate increase of $2,028 per year, plus the possibility of an additional $125 if the aerial portion of the truck was ever used. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The Council could stand by its original decision to establish a separate agreement covering the Township use of the aerial ladder truck at $125 per time and include $150,000 as the value of a new pumper truck within the formula. 2. Eliminate the separate agreement as requested for the $125 per time and not charge the Township or require their participation in the cost of this added feature. 3. Return to the original Joint Agreement and fair share formula which would allocate $280,000 as the cost of the truck to the Township resulting in an increase over the present arrangement to $4,737 annually. 4. Agree to eliminate this separate agreement for the $125 payment but indicate that the City will also use the same rationale when future purchases are required that seem to benefit the Township more than the City. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: When the Joint Board members and Fire Department representatives met with the Township Board to arrive at a compromise concerning this new truck, I felt an agreement had been reached whereby the City would allocate only $150,000 as the value for a replacement pumper and institute a separate agreement calling for a token fee of $125 if the aerial feature was ever needed within the Township. The Township Board indicated to me that this seemed to be an agreeable compromise; and I feel somewhat surprised and angered by the Township now wanting to eliminate a portion of our agreement. As I indicated, I don't feel the $125 will be much of a revenue loss, as the feature may never be utilized very much within the Township. But it's more of the principle of the thing. It is my recommendation that the Council endorse their first action requiring the separate agreement requiring the $125 payment, or alternative S4 which would eliminate the agreement entirely but notify the Township that the City will take the same stance in the future regarding replacement equipment that benefits the Township more than the City. By this I mean the City Council may be reluctant to pay its fair share according to the contract for any item that we feel benefits the Township more than the City residents. D. SUPPORTING DATA: CCopy of the January 23 Council agenda relating to this item] Copy of separate agreement previously approved: Copy of 1989 estimated Township cost under three options. -14- Council Agenda - 1/23/89 18. Consideration of Township cost sharing arrangement for new aerial ladder truck as part of Joint Fire Agreement. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the December 12 Council meeting, authorization was granted for the Joint Fire Board to investigate alternatives, including a separate agreement, that would cover a cost sharing arrangement between the Township and the City on the purchase of the new aerial ladder fire truck. In preparing the estimated 1989 fire department allocation for Monticello Township, the inclusion of the $280,000 fire truck in the formula of the Joint Agreement would result in an increase of approximately $4,700 per year for the Township. The Township representatives on the Joint Fire Board felt that the ladder truck would be primarily used within the city limits, and the Township should not have to contribute towards its initial cost within the formula of the contract. Recently, Mr. Ted Holker and Mr. Ken Scadden, Township Board Members, met with the Joint Fire Board representatives and myself to discuss the new ladder truck and its use within the township. It was pointed out to the Township representatives that although the aerial ladder truck was more costly than a normal pumper, the Township should view the new truck as being a replacement of an existing pumper the City owned, and it still has the capabilities of a normal fire truck. As a result, there is benefit to the Township even though this punper would not be the primary one used within the township under normal situations. Using this rationale, the Joint Board reviewed the possibility of including within the formula the value of a replacement pumper only, which was estimated at $150,000, versus the aerial ladder truck at $280,000. Using this approach, a separate agreement covering the aerial ladder portion of the truck could be developed between the City and the Township which would require an additional payment of $125 each time the ladder truck was used in a situation other than just as a pumper. Fire department members Morn Flicker, George Liefert, Scott Douglas, and myself met with the Township Board on Tuesday, January 17, to review the discussions held by the Joint Fire Board concerning the inclusion of the Eire truck within the formula as a normal pumper replacement valued at $150,000. I believe at first the Township Board did not realize that the ladder truck was also a pumper and should be considered as a replacement vehicle. They appear to be comfortable with inclusion of a normal value for a pumper truck without the ladder within the formula and agreed to establish a separate agreement to proposed to cover the use of the added features ouch as the ladder if it was necessary to fight a fire within the township. I alto believe this is a reasonable approach for the City to take in that I believe we all agree the aerial ladder portion of the truck will be more beneficial within the city limits than in the township for the near future. I have included with the agenda the estimated cost for the Township in 1989 under three examples. The cost to the Township without inclusion of the fire truck was estimated at $26,471. Including the total value of the now truck within the formula would result in an annual payment of $31,208, $4,737 attributable to the new fire truck. -27- 0 Council Agenda - 1/23/89 The recommended approach would include a new fire truck valued at $150,000 resulting in an immediate increase of $2,028 for the truck and a separate agreement that would call for a $125 payment each time the aerial ladder is needed within the township. 8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the Joint Fire Board to establish a separate agreement covering township use of the aerial ladder portion of the new fire truck at $125 per time and include $150,000 as a representative value of a new pumper portion of the truck within the formula. 2. Do not include any portion of the new truck within the formula and do not authorize its use within the township. 3. Include the total cost of $280,000 in the formula and require the Township to pay their proportionate share of the total value of the truck. C. STAFF RECOKKENDATION: Based on the discussions with the Joint Fire Board and at the meeting with the Township, I believe there is merit in establishing within the formula a value of $150,000 as a replacement cost for the pumper portion of the new fire truck. it is certainly reasonable to assume that the aerial ladder portion of the truck is more necessary within the city t limits than for the township at the present time; and the extra value of the truck associated with the aerial ladder portion can be covered by a separate agreement as proposed. Alternative #1 is recommended, as the Township will pay its fair share of a normal pumper cost of $150,000 and also provides for additional payments if the added feature of the ladder is necessary to fight a fire within the township. The idea of not allowing the fire truck to respond to a township fire would place a burden on the fire department by not using all available equipment if necessary and could cause liability problems for both the Township and the City. The recommended alternative, I believe, is the best compromise for both parties. D. SUPPORTING. DATA: Copy of 1989 eatimated Township fire department cost under three options; Copy of separate agreement recommended. 6 ADDE2MUM TO THE JOINT FIRE BOARD AGREEMENT B=dEEN THE TOWN OF MONTICELLO AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO Article VII of the Joint Fire Board Agreement authorizes either party to purchase and pay for capital equipment outside the Agreement, and said property shall be the exclusive property of the respective governmental unit. The City of Monticello in 1988 purchased an aerial ladder/pumper vehicle pursuant to this provision with its own funds in the amount of $280,340 and agrees to establish a value of $150,000 for the pumper portion of the vehicle pursuant to Fair Share Formula Provisions of Article V. The Town of Monticello also hereby agrees to reimburse the City the sum of One Hundred Trenty-five Dollars ($125.00) for each time the "aerial ladder" featare of this vehicle is used within the Town of Monticello. This amount shall be in addition to any contributions required by the formula contained in Article V. The Town shall be billed on a quarterly basis for these charges in addition to any quarterly payments due under the basic agreement. The coat of storage, maintenance, and insurance of the fire fighting equipment noted shall be jointly paid for out of the joint operating fire account. The dispatching of and/or its equipment features utilized shall be at the discretion of the Chief of the Fire Department, or authorized fire department member in charge. The City shall not be liable to the Township for any loss or damage of any kind resulting from the failure to provide use of the aerial ladder features of this vehicle. This agreement shall expire December 31, 1990, or at an earlier date when, for a sufficient cause, the City or Town shall notify the other in writing at least 180 days of the desire to terminate the agreement herein. in testimony whereof, the parties of the agreement have hereunto set their hands and seals this day of , 1989. TOWN OF MONTICELLO CI^.Y OF MONTICELLO Chairperson Mayor Town Cierx City Aaminlstrator MOM:IC_LLO TOWNSHIP ESTIMATED 1989 FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS -(with the new fire truck - basic pumper valued @ $150,000) amortized over 25 year life 1989 Operating Costs (budget) Without capital outlay or Firemen's Relief Amortization of Capital Items (A) Beg. Total 1/1/89 (est.) PLUS: 1989 budgeted capital outlay PLUS: New pumper valued @ (B) Bldg. costs 1/1/89 (without land) TOTAL ES:'IMATM COSTS 1989 LESS: Outside est. revenue - 1989 Net est. 1989 costs to be allocated Monticello Township 9 (est.) $ 53,975 $192,827 11,950 $204,777 20 yr. - S 10,239 $150,000 25 yr. - S 6,000 $577,583 25 yr. e S 23,103 $ 93,317 $ (9,000) S 84,317 X 33.89 •` S�� --Addition of a pumper truck valued @ $150,000 instead of aerial ladder truck @ 5280,340 results in a $2,028 per year increase. "Aerial ladder" portion of a new fire trick above base pumper is $130,340. Initial costs $130,340 if useful life is 20 yrs. 20 3`TrL7 yr. If assumed it was used 52 (1) once a week 3r 125 per time Could have separate agreement that would indicate a $125 charge if aerial part of Pumper was necessary to be used at a township fire. ES - A^.E5 1989 F=Z DE2AR=tV C:S:S (without new fire tuck) 1989 Oce:atlag Costa (Budget) without capital outlay or Firemen's Relief S $3,975 Amortization of Capital Its=: (A) Beg, total 1-1-89 (est.) $192,827 Plus: 189 budgeted capital outlay S 11,950 5�4�4,,''i� 20 yr. a S 10,239 (B) Building costs - 1-1-89 .(without land) $577,583 25 yr. e S 22.103 'I'r..1i. ES::ILi MS -S 1989 S 87,317 LESS; 1989 est. revenue outside calls a ccnt:acts S (9,000) stet estimated 1989 costs to to allocated S 78,317 toonticello Township 9 (est.) X 33.88 ES::YA^ED 1989 C^ -S-. S 25,471 C' C' 0/( ES::.A--= 1989 FLME DL?AR =r. C.^,S:S (wit.`t new+ fire track) 1.089 Operating Costs (Budget) without capital outlay or Firemen's Relief $ $3,975 Amortization of Capital Items: (A) Beg. total 1-1-89 (est.) S473,157 Plus: '89 budgeted capital outlay S 11,9f0 $i85`, -7 20 yr. - $ 24,2`_3 (B) Building costa - 1-1-39 (without land) SS77,583 25 yr. m S 23,103 TC -.AL ES MA!."=) ..STS 1989 $101,333 LESS: 1989 est. revenue - outside calls 5 contracts S (9,000) Net estimated 1989 costs to be allocated S 92,333 N.crticello Township i (est.) x 33.99 S 31,208 *Addition of new trUc!t in formula results in $4,737 pore arcual cost to Township. 01 Council Agenda - 4/24/89 12. Consideration of adopting Softball/Baseball Association agreements for use of NSP softball fields. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With spring finally arriving, the Softball Association is again ready to start utilizing the new softball field complex starting April 24. In the past, the Council has discussed the use of this new softball/baseball complex and indicated a desire to know the operating cost for the ballfield and the expected revenue the City could receive by charging organizations for its use. Street and Park Superintendent, Roger Mack, has put together the estimated cost for maintaining and operating the ballfields for this year estimated at approximately $4,025. Based on a policy established last year, the City will be charging the Softball Association $125 for every team that participates in their organized program. It is expected that in 1989, 19 softball teams will be participating amounting to $2,375 in revenue. In addition, six tournaments have been scheduled at a charge of $75 for usage of three fields, which would amount to an additional $450 in revenue. This would bring the total revenue to $2,825 versus an estimated $4,025 to operate and maintain the ballfields. In the past, it has been our policy not to charge the Baseball Association for their use of one of the fields or other youth organizations. Enclosed you will also find proposed rules and regulations outlining the responsibilities of the City and of the Baseball/Softball Association in regards to usage of the fields. The staff felt ,some rules and regulations should be developed so that each organization is aware of what is expected of them. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the rules and regulations as prepared, including the charges expected from organizations utilizing the fields. 2. Adopt rules and regulations with modifications that the Council desires. 3. Do not adopt any rules or regulations. C. STAFF RDMMENDATION: Although the Softball Association and Baseball Association are aware of our regulations concerning usage of the field, including reservations, tournaments, etc., staff feels a policy should be adopted. Although it appears that by only charging the Softball Association $125 for every team that participates and a tournament fee in addition, revenue will not match the expected maintenance and operation coat of the field, the foes expected will help offset the cost of this complex. The $125 charge is similar to other communitiesr and if the intent is to cover 100 percent -15- A C Council Agenda - 4/24/89 of our operating cost, the cost may be prohibitive. If any Council member has any suggestions on additional rules or regulations they would like to see incorporated within the document, these can be added prior to adoption. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Summary of cost and revenue for ballfield operation; Copy of proposed rules and regulations. -16- ESTIMATED COSTS FOR BALLFIELD OPERATION - 1989 1. Fertilizer $1,300.00 2. Mowing 1,200.00 3. Electricity 400.00 4. Lime 100.00 5. Irrigation system maintenance 100.00 6. Parting lot maintenance 125.00 7. Miscellaneous repairs 400.00 8. Restroom cleaning 400.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTTUM-06 / ob`2r Y 00,av Projected Field Use 1 54S / 1. Men's Softball, 19 teams, 3 fields, Mon. -Wed., 4/24/8'9 - 8/20/89. 2. Little League Baseball, baseball Eield, M -P, mid-May to mid-July 3 fields - Thursday, mid -My to mid-July /3. Girls Softball Plays, May -July on the Hillcrest field and 4th St. field Projected Income 19 softball teams R $125 per team a $2,375.00 6 tournaments at. $75 per tournament $ 450.00 $2,825.00 Possible extra income or improvements by softball league if concessions do well. C MONTICELLO SOFTBALL/BASEBALL COMPLEX RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The City of Monticello's responsibilities: a. Mow and maintain grass and irrigation system. b. Clean the restrooms daily; provide paper and soap. c. Provide electricity. d. Provide rubbish removal from dumpster. e. Provide bases. f. Provide lime for infields. g. Open and close restrooms on days when no events are scheduled. h. Shall establish rules for use of the facilities by the public and post them. i. Shall schedule use of the facilities. J. The City will not be responsible for any loss of goods or supplies due to a break-in, etc. k. Building care and maintenance, including fence. 1. City shall only issue to one (1) organization a non -intoxicating liquor license for the concession stand. 2. user's responsibilities: a. The last team or league to play on a field shall be responsible for dragging and raking the field using only the tractor provided by the Softball and Baseball Associations (no automobiles). b. All trash and litter shall be picked up inside the fence and the parking lot and place it in the dumpster by the concessionaire or their designate nightly. All trash containers on site shall be emptied into dumpster. c. Concessionaire shall sweep and wash concession stand floor and counters daily. d. Concessionaire shall turn out lights (except security), lock all the doors on the building and all gates before leaving for the evening. e. League or teams shall provide umpires, balls, and chalk the fields. f. All leagues or teams shall provide their own liability insurance with $300,000 minimum coverage and shall submit a copy to the City, with City named as additional insured. g. Concessionaire shall provide dram shop insurance and submit a certificate of insurance to the City. h. The City shall be notified immediately of any damage that occurs to the building or grounds. i. Leagues or teams using the facilities shall be responsible for any damage that occurs to buildings, grounds, and improvements because of negligence. J. No vehicles shall be allowed beyond the main gate except for delivery or maintenance purposes. k. The concessionaire shall notify the City or the Sheriff's Department of any rule violations at the facility. 1. Softball and/or Baseball Association shall be responsible for seasonal installation of phone. 0 Monticello Softball/Baseball Complex Rules and Regulations Page 2 Fees and Charges. a. There will be no charge for youth or other organizations to use the facilities. b. Men's slow pitch softball league shall pay 5125/team to the City of Monticello by October 1 of each year. c. Tournaments (see next page). C 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO INVITATIONAL SOFTBALL/BASEBALL TOURNAMENT POLICY I. Eligible sponsors listed in priority. A. NSP's yearly softball tournament. B. City of Monticello; Minnesota Sports Federation; any district, state, or national tournaments. C. Monticello Softball Association. D. Non-profit association/organization within the city (Baseball, Lions, Jaycees, etc.) E. Team from a league. F. Residents of the city. G. Non-residents. If more than one request for a given date is made by sponsors of equal priority, the sponsor bringing in the largest number of out-of-town teams will receive priority. II. Reservation of complex. A. Tournaments may be held from April 15 to October 15. B. Application dates and deadlines. 1. Tournaments conducted satisfactorily will receive priority consideration in the upcoming season for the same weekend, unless the date is needed for someone with a higher priority. 2. Application for a tournament must be made by March 1. 3. After March 1, all reservations shall be on a first come, first serve basis. III. Fees and Charges. A. The charge for tournaments will be S25/field for length cf tournament. B. Tournament fees are due prior to a tournament. Iv. Tournament Director responsibility. A. Drag fields after play has ended. B. Chalk fields as needed. City of Monticello Invitational Softball/ Baseball Tournament Policy C. Submit schedule to Park Director to facilitate maintenance scheduling. D. Police up area, empty containers, and place all trash in the dumpster immediately after the tournament. V. Inclement weather. A. All play shall cease if tornado sirens are sounded. B. Play shall cease in periods of extreme weather conditions that could be unsafe for participants or detrimental to the playing fields. VI. The City of Monticello reserves the right to make exception to the above rules when it is in the City's interest to do so. 011-4- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 \ 13. Consideration of ratifying new Fire Chief appointment. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Annually, members of the volunteer fire department vote amongst themselves to elect a Fire Chief for the upcoming year. Willard Farnick has been Fire Chief for approximately eight years and has decided to relinquish this position. The fire department, at their April meeting, elected Jerry Wein to succeed Willard as the new Fire Chief. For those of you unfamiliar with Jerry, he has been a member of the fire department for approximately ten years and is currently a captain and one of the training officers for the department. Mr. Wein is employed at the Larson Manufacturing Company in Monticello. The by-laws of the fire department call for Council ratification of a new Fire Chief. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify the appointment of Jerry Wein as the new Fire Chief. 2. Do not ratify appointment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ( Although I believe Mr. Farnick has done an excellent job as Fire Chief, I believe Mr. Wein will also do an excellent job in this capacity. I have worked with Jerry over the past few years on a number of issues, and I believe he is well versed in the fire department and to a very active member. As such, unless the Council has some opposition to this election process and has another recommendation, I would recommend the Council ratify this new appointment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -17- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 14. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement diverter gate mechanism - WWPP. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The diverter gate structure at the waste water treatment plant controls the amount of waste water bled off the main stream that goes to the equalization tank. Waste water is bled off automatically when it has an extremely high or low pH. In addition, the diverter gate can be utilized to better manage the flow coming into the waste water treatment plant. The operating mechanism for this gate has given the treatment plant numerous problems over the past several years. While the City was operating the plant, the diverter gate control mechanism was down numerous times for repairs. Since PSG has taken over, they have spent in excess of $2,000 on the diverter gate control mechanism itself and the telemetric systems which tell the gate when and how to operate. I met with PSG a few weeks ago to discuss the possible replacement of the entire diverter gate control mechanism. We decided at that time to send the unit back to the factory, which is Limitorque Corporation in Willowbrook, Illinois, to determine if the old unit could be repaired. Kelsie McGuire received word from Limitorque on April 18 indicating it would cost $3,135 to repair the unit and $2,720 to $2,992 for replacement, depending upon Lhe factory from which it was shipped and time of delivery. After further negotiation with the company, Kelsie was able to get a price of $2,800 for a new unit and an approximate four week delivery time. The new unit is of a later design than the original unit installed at the treatment plant in 1981. it is much heavier duty, yet smaller, and is relatively easy to service, as the motor drive unit to serviceable without disassembly of the entire unit. Since the diverter gate structure is a necessary part of the treatment plant, and the treatment plant process is at risk without automatic pH control, Rick and I authorized Kelsie to order the new structure at a cost of $2,800. This item is brought before the Council, as our contract with PSG requires the City to pay for major repair items which exceed a total cost of $2,000. Should the Council decide to repair rather than replace, the order could be stopped, but we felt it was necessary to expedite the unit's delivery. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to authorize replacement of the diverter gate control unit from Limitorque Corporation of Willowbrook, Illinois, for a cost of $2,800 with an estimated delivery of four weeks. 2. The second alternative would be to authorize repair of our old diverter gate control mechanism at a coat of $3,135. This does not appear to be practical, as it is the old outdated design and costs more than replacement. -10- C Council Agenda - 4/24/89 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director, City Administrator, and Relsie McGuire of PSG that the Council authorize replacement of the Limitorque at a cost of $2,800. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of quote from Limitorque Corporation. -19- r� Limitorque Corporation,; ' 846 MIDWAY DRIVE. WILLOWBROOK IL 60521 !tet DATE: COVER SHEET � y T0: FROM: U PAG?.S TO FOLLOW THIS COYER SHEET It you have any questions or problems relative to this Tolecopy, please contact us at (312) 867-7170. FAX NUMBER - (312) 887-8968 i!c�fitEcco. IGIr •.rw /'.zlCd- ... �o+%o_�, oa- Of .11A,--,C4d i 77 Council Agenda - 4/24/89 15. Provide recommendation to Council representative to OAA on proposal to rezone agricultural land to R-1 usage. Property located at the northeast 1/4 of Section 22, Township 121, Range 25. Property also known as the Berry Farm. W.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Kent Kjellberg requests that the OAA rezone the Berry Farm from agricultural to R-1 usage. Council is asked to review this proposal and suggest a recommendation to its representative on the Orderly Annexation Board. As you recall, a few weeks ago Mark Wolston submitted a similar rezoning request to rezone 260 acres north of Highway 39 and just west of the freeway. Wolston's rezoning request included development of 2-1/2 acre lots over a 260 acre area. This new request for rezoning consists of a smaller area but includes development of a higher density. The proposal calls for development of 53 lots on 1 -acre parcels. The proposed plat is located directly west of Highway 25, south of the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park West, and directly east of the Dunes development. The property, as you will note on the attached plan, is somewhat triangular in shape. The Comprehensive Plan calls for servicing this area with a trunk line that at some point in time should run along the north border of this property. The trunk line that would be utilized in this case is now terminated at a point directly north of the Frances Klein farm along Dundas Road. Although it is unlikely that this particular property will be served by city utilities in the near future, the presence of the mobile home park to the north and the pollution problems associated with it may at some point in the relatively near future conpel development of city utilities in this particular area. Brad Larson, attorney for Rent Kjellberg, has indicated that additions to the plat could be made which would prepare the plat for municipal services at some point in the future. He mentioned that easement lines could be drawn on the plat in the areas where sewer and water services would eventually be located. In addition, he mentioned that the property could be platted such that each 1 -acre lot would essentially consist of a buildable lot and an outlot. Building construction would then be limited to the platted lot and not allowed on the outlet. This strategy would be used to keep all development on one side of the lot, therefore preserving the second half of each lot for a future residence in the event that utilities would be necessary. The additional lots could be sold off to help defray the cost of the utilities at such time that they are needed. At this point, I am not sure how effective this strategy would be in assuring that only one-half of each 1 -acre lot is developed until sewer service arrives. It is important to review this proposal in terms of the planning goals set forth in the land Use Guido Plan for the Orderly Annexation Area. As you think about your position on this matter, please review the following plan goals which provide the framework for all Monticello Orderly Annexation Board actions. -20- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 Planning Goals: 1. To protect agricultural land from encroachment by non-coffpatible land uses. 2. To guide urban development into those areas that can be provided with urban services. 3. To discourage scattered urban development in rural areas. 4. To protect significant environmentally sensitive areas. 5. To encourage annexation of land contiguous to the city of Monticello which is about to become urban in character or the property owner desires to develop and urbanizes land where public services can be provided. 6. To discourage property speculation which is contrary to the official plan adopted by the OAA Board. 7. To encourage annexation which is initiated by the property owner and where public services are available. 8. To maintain or improve quality of life of all citizens of the Orderly Annexation Area. 9. To encourage public participation in the planning process. In reviewing the planning goals above, it appears that this rezoning request is not completely consistent with a number of the planning goals mentioned above. Planning goal 11 is to protect agricultural land from encroachment by non -compatible land uses. This proposal would remove viable agricultural land and replace it with large single family lots, which are difficult to maintain and which could be construed as a waste of land. Planning goal /3 is to discourage scattered urban development in rural areas. Approval of this rezoning request is essentially giving the nod to scattered urban development in rural areas and sets a precedent for future rezoning requests. Existing (lousing Stock Attached is a report prepared by Gary Anderson which shows the existing housing stock within the city of Monticello. It reveals that 595 are developed to some degree. Of the 595 vacant lots, 399 exist in "preliminary" form, 52 lots are platted and unserviced, and 144 serviced Iota, including phase I of the Evergreens and phase I of the Meadows subdivision, are available. In addition, recent rezonings have created numerous late in the OAA area f of which 100 remain vacant. -21- C Council Agenda - 4/24/89 In summary, almost 700 lots are immediately available or earmarked for final approval. The statistics indicate that there are sufficient lots available to meet the existing demand and that the proposal to rezone this property and create 53 more lots is difficult to justify on the basis of need. B. ALTERNAT WE ACTIONS: 1. Suggest to the City representative to the OAA that he vote against the proposed rezoning request. This alternative appears to be consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan as adopted in 1977 and would also be consistent with the Land Use Guide Plan proposed for 1989. 2. Suggest that the City representative to the OAA vote in favor of the rezoning request. The developer has indicated that he will take steps to assure that the transition of this land from unsevered to severed can be made as easily as possible through the control of the placement of structures on the 1 -acre lots and by establishing easements in areas earmarked for extension of sewer and water service. The practical ability to enforce the placement of the homes on the lots as proposed has not been determined at this point. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative /1. This proposal to rezone the Berry Farm is not consistent with either the 1977 Guide Plan, nor is it consistent with the 1989 Guide Plan. The request appears to be speculative in nature and does not appear to be justified on the basis of need. Furthermore, approving this proposed rezoning would set an additional precedent that would undermine the ability of the OAA to control future similar rezoning requests. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Proposed Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Land Use Plan; Copy of sketch plan of proposed subdivision. Copy of Comprehensive Plan for sewer development. -22- LI E G E N DI Existlng-iUnkF -.,S . • . . ............ 16-- Existing Forceinaln Pr6PdsJ0 Trunit Sew& -- Existing Treatment Plant 14. to I% V 6. N. N N- 4 , no WO #A—b kv ..........I. .....•.... . ........... Annexation Study I t City of Monticello W11CIN COLIMY minnesola 0 , 'i Sanitary Sewer Plan A, N i24 N G.: ..... .... 9W• BUILDING SITE INVENTORY - APRIL 21. 1989 'TY OF MONTICELLO 1 SINGLE FAMILY BUILDABLE SITES/NO HOME 144 INCLUDES PHASE I OF EVERGREENS (41) INCLUDES PHASE ONE OF MEADOWS 2ND (10) PLATTED/UNSERVICED SITES 52 PRELIMINARY PLAT ONLY/UNSERVICED 399 INCLUDES REMAINING LOTS IN MEADOW OAKS INCLUDES PHASES 11 - V OF EVERGREENS TOTAL CITY LOTS 595 ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE OAA TYLER EAST 27 PONDEROSA 1 16 DEVRON GREENS 13 RIVERSIDE ACRES 14 MISC 30 TOTAL 100 GRAND TOTAL 695 0 SKETCH PLAN OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR KJELLBERG'S INC. MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ZONED- AGRICULTURAL PROPOSED ZONING- RESIDENTIAL IJP."-gE'?u %:(;t!LE H.LY,'.L MRK .4;0 AL .....°�y . / f FROFO;.ED PCLICY FLAIJ•JIVG DISTRICTS PREbEIJT CITY LIMITS ❑ UI.UAV SER✓ICE AREA. E%ISTLNG FLATS- DEVELOPLD AwEASIP AGRICULTURAL AI,EA ❑ Propevvd RvTAnv dry O I�0.rlcul[utr to 0..1 t — .e .w. U-Lt..o.— 0 0.... T...:�rJ1.. P:..! - 1.:,:.' T.—A S.r.r. J e, MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA 70 Council Agenda - 4/24/89 16. Consideration of Extended Area Service endorsement. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item appears on the agenda per the request of the Industrial Development Committee (IDC) for City Council endorsement of Extended Area Service (EAS). EAS means extended telephone service to and from the metro area and/or portions of the metro area and/or the surrounding communities. One of the IDC goals for 1987-88 was to research the potentiality of EAS to Monticello. Ron Hoglund was appointed chairperson of the subcommittee with Joy Swenson and Elaine Norin collecting the petition signatures. This petition indicates "an interest only", which is Step I of the Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) procedure steps. Step I means Monticello has a sufficient amount of interested residents or businesses in EAS. (Requirements are 158 of the total number of 295 phone exchanges or 600 signatures, whichever is less.) Step II, which is now in progress, is the evaluation of the impact of EAS requests on the existing metro area, how to expand, how far to expand, etc. In Step III, the cost of EAS will be determined by the PUC and the affected telephone companies. In Step IV, after costa are established, the PUC will survey subscribers as to whether they are in favor or not in favor of EAS to Monticello. Joy and Elaine's time, effort, and energy volunteered in collecting petition signatures was excellent; unfortunately, duplication of signatures per phone number and disconnected phone numbers led to an invalid number of required petition signatures, which was contested by the local telephone company and verified as invalid by the PUC. Monticello can submit an approximate additional 100 valid signatures to join the communities of Montrose and Mayer for petitions received after the original 16 community cutoff by the PUC. After the coat for FAS is established, and if the subscribers are not in favor of EAS, Monticello would not be able to resubmit a petition for two years. In conversation with three local real estate agents, they estimated that 90-998 of their declined residential sales in the Monticello area were due to the lack of available EAS. The recent local newspaper article generated interest from some local area residents stating they have considered relocating to an area with established EAS. Before the IDC moves ahead with collecting the needed additional signatures, they felt it would be in their beat interest and the community's to have the endorsement of the City Council. Endorsement of EAS by the Council is not a financial endorsement, only a supportive endorsement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To endorse the continuation of the Extended Area Service procedure on behalf of the City of Monticello. -23- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 2. To deny endorsement of the continuation of the Extended Area Service procedure on behalf of the City of Monticello. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends the City Council recognize the Industrial Development Committee's request and endorse the continuation of the Extended Area Service procedure on behalf of the City of Monticello in order to obtain the cost for EAS to Monticello, thereafter allowing the subscribers to be surveyed by the PUC to decide the ultimate outcome of Monticello's EAS. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. C -24- Council Agenda - 4/24/89 17. Review of year-end liquor store financial report. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Joe Hartman will be at the Council meeting Monday evening to review with the Council the year-end financial report for the liquor store. Between Joe and myself, we should be able to answer any questions you may have regarding the financial operation. The following is a summary of some of the highlights concerning the liquor store operation for 1988. Total sales were $1,158,430, up approximately 5 percent over last year. The resulting gross profit increased 3 percent to a total of 23.07 percent of gross sales. Typically, the liquor store has been in the 20 percent to 22 percent range over the past few years, and the increase is a result of a slight adjustment in prices. The net operating income, which is probably the most important figure you may be looking for, amounted to over $113,000 in 1988 versus $85,670 the year before. This is an increase of approximately 32 percent. The total net income, including interest earnings on investments, was $152,900. This figure can be a little misleading in that this includes over $40,000 in interest earnings on investments which do not pertain to the operation itself.. So that it is easier for the Council members to have an accurate representation as far as operating income and total net income before any transfers to other funds, I restated the net income statement in a handwritten form so you could see the accurate figures. Although our gross profit has increased 3 percent in 1988, I have also been working with Joe to do a survey of the surrounding communities to see how we compare in our pricing strategy and to see if there is room for further adjustments to increase the gross profit and resulting operating income. I believe the general reflection of the store is that it is a lower priced outlet, but we're naturally not competing with the major warehouse low cost dealers in the Twin City area. As a result, there may be room for adjustment to still be competitive with surrounding communities and increase our income in the future. There is no action necessary by the Council other than review and acceptance of the report. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of financial statement. C -25- CURRENT ASSETS CHANGE FUNT) CASH in BANX, - CHECKING iNVESIMUITS NSF CHECK - RCCEIVABLE DUE FROh OTHER FUNDS iNVENIORIES PREPAID INSURANCE TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT LAND BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS PARKING LOT FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AM?',. VIPP. - BUILDINGS DEPR-FURNITURE I FIXTURE MR. - P4PRlqG LOT TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT TOTAL ASSETS 04TICELL0 'WNICIPAL LIOUDY BALANCE SHEET MIGNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE DECEME 31, 1988 AND 1987 ASSETS 1,500 1,000 14,820 33,915 450,713 445,271 210 0 0 1,967 111,720 I06,902 4,370 ....... 3,316 ------------ s 591,333 t M,371 6,840 185,445 39,751 58,80', (S6,114) (54,729) (12,420) ........... 1 167,5579 ------------- 750,912 6,840 176,74, 39.751 58,805 (47,201) (49,704) (9,296) s 175.940 ------------- 1 70,311 4 � MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIOUOP BALANCE SHEET MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE DECE'BER 31, 1938 AND 1587 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY CURRENT LWILIT115 ACCOUNIS PAYAPLE t 1,967 t 6,897 PAYROLL Y/H FICA 178 108 PAYROLL 11/H - PERA 101 61 ACCRUED SICK LEAVE I VACATIONS 1,720 1,659 SALARIES PAYABLE 21655 1,599 WROLL U/H - MEDICARE 1 2 TOTAL CUPRENi LIABILITIES t 6,125 t 10,326 LONG-IERM LIABILITIES ------------- TOL L LONG-TERM LIABILITIES ------------- t 0 t 0 TOTAL LIABILITIES t ------------- 6,125 ------------- t 10,326 EOUITI INED EARNINGS t 757,985 t 683,351 - ,UES OVER EXPENDITURES 15,1981 79,631 IOTAL EQUITY ------------- t -----•------- 752,787 t 757,985 i0TA1 LIABICITIfS ALIO L'GIIIIY ------------- t 758,912 ------------- 1 768,311 4 MONIICELLO r7JNICiPAL LIGUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIOUOR STORE FOR THE THREE MONTHS AND i:ELVC 40NTHS ENIED DECEMBER 31, 1988 AND 1987 SAME -PD -LST -YR PD-LYR Y -1 -D -LST -YR YID -LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO CURRENT-PER10D CUR -PD YEAR-TO-DAIE Y-1-11 AMOUNT RATIO AhOUNT RAIIO SALES LIQUOR t 94,220 31.07 1 311.368 26.88 s DEEP 153,431 50.59 66:1,699 57.21 SINE 46,568 15.36 144,340 12.46 OTHER MDSE 8,198 2.70 37,216 3.21 MISC. NON-IAXAELE SALES 1,176 .39 4,969 .43 DEPOSITS AND REEWIDS (1.38) (.05) (1,803) (.16) BOITLE DEPOSIT - MISC (7) 1.00) 68 .01 DISCOUNIS (178) (.06) (425) (.04) ------------- ------------------- ------ TOTAL SALES S 303.271 100.00 t 1,158,430 100.00 t COSI OF GOODS SOLD t (232,701) (76.73)t (891,196) (76.93) t ------------- ------ ------------- ------ GROSS PROFIT t 70,569 23.27 1 267,234 23.07 t cNERAL AND ADEM. EXPENSES PEP.SOYAL SERVICES SALARIES, REGULAR s PERA MEDICARE UIIHHOLDUIGS INSURANCE, MEDICAL AND LIFE SOCIAL SECURITY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT IOIAL PERSONAL SERVICES t SUPPLILS O:F10E SUPPLIES S GENEP.AL OPERATING SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE OF BLDG. SUPPLIES MINOR EWIP'011 IOTAL SUPPLIES t C 93,344 31.68 s 298,413 27.03 146,307 49.65 622,041 56.35 45,360 15.39 145,963 13.22 7,759 2.63 35,103 3.18 2,957 1.00 10,672 .97 (801) (.27) (7,066) (.64) 4 .00 97 .01 (278) (.09) (;,401) (.13) -------- ------ ------------- ------ 294,652 99.99 s 1,103,813 99.99 (2]5,633) (79.97)1 (881,723) (79.88) -------- ------ ------------- ------ 59,019 20.02 1 222,090 20.11 17,616 5.81 1 69,843 6.03 t 18,385 6.24 1 69,059 6.26 654 2 2,582 .22 658 .22 2,449 .22 32 .01 131 .01 57 .02 57 .01 21105 .72 6,730 .58 1,149 .39 4,073 .37 1,155 .38 4,563 .39 1,125 .38 4.137 .37 21 .01 36 .00 0 .00 0 .00 -- 21,662 -- 7.15 t - - 83,885 --------------- 7.23Y s 21,374 ----` ------------ 7.^5 1 79,774 ------ 7.23 67 .02 1 163 .01 1 49 .02 1 284 .03 1,128 .37 5,799 .50 1,595 .54 5,582 .51 104 .03 278 .02 0 .00 75 .01 225 .07 23B .02 0 .00 0 .00 ------ 11524 ------ .49 1 ------- 6,478 ------ ------------- .55 1 1,644 ------ ------------- .56 1 5,941 ------ .55 e/ v 0 MIONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LEOUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIQUOR SIORE FOR YE IHREE MOMS AND TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1988 AHD 1987 f CURR.ENI-PERIOi CUR -PD YEAR -I0 -DATE Y -T -D SAME -PD -LSI -YR PD -M f-T-D•LST-YE TID-LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RAT 1.0 AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO OTHER SERVICES AIIh CHARGES IROFESiIONAL SERVICES (AUDIT) 1 43G .14 1 3,602 .31 1 481 .16 t 2.806 .25 CahM'JNICATITi 129 .04 728 .06 194 .07 1,006 .09 :RAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOLS 0 .00 232 .02 0 .00 184 .02 A:VERTisING 1,342 .44 3,456 .30 664 .23 2.102 .19 INSURANCE, GENERAL 4,4;1 1.47 17,890 1.54 3,243 1.10 13,254 1.20 UTILITIES, ELECTRICAL 1,682 .55 B,367 .72 1,650 .56 7,589 .69 UTILITIES, HEATING 410 .14 1,161 .10 304 .10 Bib .07 UTILITIES. S I W 42 .01 225 .02 31 .01 388 .04 MAINTENANCE OF EOUIFMENT 306 .IO 1,722 .15 2,298 .78 5,613 .51 EOU1P01T 369 .13 974 .08 0 .00 455 .04 DUES, nfhPERSHIP, SUBSCRIPTION 0 .00 0 .00 12 .00 222 .02 TAXES AND LICENSES 12 .00 360 .03 12 .00 106 .01 CAPITAL OUILAY BUILDING IMPR. 015 .27 815 .07 (3,1111 (1.06) 0 .00 GARBAGE 411 .14 1,630 .14 401 .14 1.602 .I5 PEPR. - ACQUIRED ASSETS 4,502 1.48 17,061 1.47 (31,019) (10.53) 13,300 1.210 RITY 3,623 1.19 5,487 .47 0 .00 0 .00 '53 .02 113 .01 1,260 .43 1,260 .11 MUSFCR OUT -06,100 25.09 ----- 76,100 - - 6.57 ------ 0 ------------- .00 ----•• 0 ------------- .00 ------ TOTAL OIHER SERVICES I CHARGES: --------- --- 94,703 31.21 1 139,923 12.06 1 (23,580) (8.01)$ 50,705 4.59 DEBT SERVICE MAPSFER OUT 1 02,040 27.04 1 82,000 7.08 1 43.050 14.61 $ 43,050 3.90 TOTAL DENT SERVICES 1 ------------- 02,000 ------ 27.04 1 ------------- 82,000 - 7.08 1 ------------- 43,050 ...... 14.61 $ ............. 43,050 ------ 3.90 TOTAL GLNERA1 I AD1M. EXPENSESI ------•------ 199,889 --•--- 65.09 1 ---•--------• 312,286 • •••--• 26.92 1 --•---------- 42,487 ------ 14.41 $ ---------•-•- 179,470 ------ 16.27 IOIAL OPERATING INCOME 1 ------------- (129,320) --•--- (42.62)1 ......•...... (45,052) (3.85) 1 ------------- 16.532 ...... 5.61 $ •-----•------ 42,620 ...... 3.94 OTHER (!;COME (EXPENSES) INTERLS1 INCOME 1 8,566 2.03 1 40,189 3.47 1 8,369 2.84 S 31,597 2.86 OTHER INCOME 253 OB 544 .05 23 .01 430 .04 CASH LUNO/SMOP.1 4,9 9 1.64 (079) (.08) 53 .02 (24) (.00) :DIAL OTHER 1NCOnE (EXPENSES) 1 ----- 13,780 ------ 4.55 1 •------------ 39,654 --•--- 3.44 1 ------------- 8,446 ----. 2.87 $ - 32,011 2.50 NET INCOME 1 ---------- --- (115,540) ------ (38.0711 ------------- (5,198) ---•-- (.411 1 •------ 24,977 8.48 $ 74,631 6.74 f 6 IJOT6 9UN=34L LZU.2 7-� ,* I-S 7WC 5H M 6- RVENUE A.ND EXFLMT-� MUIC--AL I?S 19P 6 V104S' 19A 6 C LMOR SME ;,j ij DjFs7eALj—1 Fc)#2mqT- ECR VE :HRET- X'ITHS AND MLVE MIMS DOM DEMM 31, 1988 0640 isg"/ CULPOI-MIOD CU-?9 YEAR-70-DAME Y-T-) T:0-!Y AMO? RAM PICLWI RAM ANGUNI RAT:O MUNT ull io klD CHA2rTT Ca 3"0: a 49! is 3C6 003 0 .00 0 CO 134 .0: -:s Mr. 1. 4! Z- 4,;!! IX 11.39.3 L!4 1.:0 I a,357 .7' 1,b:;-,!i9 39 0 .4 L:5i 304 3i 07 -IT!' T- S I -A 4. .01 =15 X 31 Al 383 .04 574 0 .00 .0, A: AND !-:lTNET- .00 M .02 co .:7 "AC'W!M ASTM M !.;a 1.40 1:47 X s ,!, 4 ("i.1151 E>:! 50 13 0 M .3 .0: .01 .00 :50 .43 771 -r.'L iZ—* 11 -af /f, ba 3 7.i C, . . f'/.d,,:- . £y 441, -7f 1 isy lf6 0020 P, -?jrO /J. 0 ve '/.r4CF-r 4 7 0' Wo, if q 43� yor9 ruy P 7el� 27 X3 -r.7"L 07#e/-, Z"Co-E 3.7io j7, ?-ry r, vvI, sic O'k. lr,% d1, s-,.- -7- r P1 a S 0.7- -ro Do ,r If 0 .; eC To 83.e ou IPA do 0 7-D Cost MAL ,. TL A, r. -0 74,100 76,/00 Gjloro YJ, aro 171-OL. TP.-a"PsAir ro 0 V 0 J-0 Cerx.caffla AFrbe 3 FAAWI-I&S 7.7Z, 7f 2 7 4 YOIITIEFLLG hURICIPAL. LIGUOR Page 1 GROSS PROM BY PRODUCT SOLD l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the Period 10/01/68 to 12/31/68 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current - Period lear - to - Date Same-Period-Last•Ir tear -to -Date -Last -Yr Amount I Aaount 2 Amount A Amount I LIQUOR SALES 1 94,220.46 100.19 t 311,367.75 100.14 1 93,344.26 100.30 1 298,413.31 100.47 DIECOUNTS ( 178.05) ( .19) ( 425.37) ( .14) 1 278.40) ( .30) ( 1,400.63) ( .47) COST OF SALES - LIQUOR 73.235.85 77.83 237,495.87 76.38 60,699.41 86.71 242,268.35 81.57 GROSS PROFIT ------------- t 20,606.56 ------ •------------ 22.12 1 73,446.51 ------ ------------- 23.62 1 12,366.45 ------------------- 13.29 t 54,744.33 ------ 18.43 BEER SALES 153,430.65 100.09 662,699.12 100.27 146,307.34 100.55 622,041.20 101.15 DEPOSIIS AND REFUNDS ( 138.40) ( .09) ( 1,803.33) t .211 I 800.87) ( 55) i 7,065.84) ( 1.151 COST OF SALES - BEER 121,265.14 79.11 529,004.80 80.04 114,067.36 78.39 498.334.14 81.03 CROSS P:POF[T -••---------- 1 32,027.11 ------ ------------- 20.89 t 131,890.99 ------ ------------- 19.96 1 31,439.11 ------ ------------- 21.61 1 116,641.22 ------ 16.97 WINE SALES 46,568.22 100.00 144,340.11 100.00 45,360.0 100.00 145.962.98 100.00 OF SALES • J1NE 30,777.41 66.09 ------ ---------- ------------ 93,876.74 65.04 -----• ------------- 31,010.04 68.36 ------ •------------ 100,033.71 68.53 •----- GROSS PROFIT 1 15,790.81 33.91 1 50,463.37 34.96 t 14,350.06 31.64 t 45,929.27 31.47 OTHER SALES 8,198.43 100.08 37,215.53 99.8: 7,758.94 99.94 35,102.87 99.75 BOTTLE 5EPOSIT - AIS[ 1 6.50) ( .08) 67.91 .18 4.34 .06 87.37 COST OF SALES - DIVER 4,369.52 53.34 18.764.17 50.33 5,096.96 65.65 24,694.47 70.74 GROSS PROFIT ------------ 1 3,822.41 ------ •------------ 46.66 1 18,519.27 ------ ------------- 49.67 1 2,666.32 ------ 34.35 1 ------------- 10,295.77 ------ 29.26 M15C. NON-TAXAFLE SALES 1,176.13 100.00 4,968.53 100.00 2.956.64 100.00 10.672.11 100.00 COS - nISC. NON TAXABLE 1,372.13 116.66 6,324.75 127.30 ............. 3,120.67 105.55 10,576.72 99.11 4BOSS PROFIT --•---------- 1( 196.00) -----• 1 16.66111 ----••------- 1,356.22) ------ ( 27.30M 164.03) ...... ( 5.55)1 ............. 95.39 ...... .89 xae .......... ...... .........e... .._... ..........._. ...... .... ..-.. TOTAL GALES 303,455.49 801.19 1,158,787.712' S5 294.926.41 975.05 1,105.126.63 355.28 101AL CESI GF SALES 232,701.45 185.35 091,196.21 82 235,633.48 969.64 89:.723.44 261.94 TOTAL G65S5 PROFII t 70,754.04 015.83 1 267,59'..50 , 73 1 59.292.93 005.42 1 223,403.19 093.34 .. ..... c..... .. u.. .- ......... ...... ............. ...... c............ ....c. CASH DISBURSEMENTS - GENERAL FUND - APRIL - 1989 AMOUNT CHECK NO M. Dept. of Natural Resources- Snowmobile S Watercraft reg. 83.00 26677 Gary Anderson - Mileage expense 37.62 26678 Turnquisc Paper Co. - T. Tissue b Paper towels - City Hall 70.31 26679 Business Development Services, Inc. - Prof. services 2,893.53 26680 011ie Koropchak - Mileage expense 24.25 26681 Ben Franklin Store - Misc. supplies 11.94 26682 Feedrite Controls - Supplies for Water Depart. 2,038.41 26683 Ziegler, Inc. - Cutting Blade, Cable 6 Forks - Street Depart. 4,778.45 26684 Gould Bros. Chev. Co. - Vehicle repairs - Fire Depart. 46.98 26685 Phillips 66 Co. - Gas 12.67 26686 Corrow Sanitation Co. - Garbage contract payment 7,725.60 26687 Dept, of Natural Resources - Snowmobile S Watercraft reg. 184.00 26688 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H for March 1,924.67 26689 Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal b Medicare W/H 5,258.74 26690 PERA - Payroll W/H 1,500.49 26691 Anoka County Courthouse - Payroll deductions 210.16 26692 Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Homestead cards, tax book 6 Assessment Listing 454.92 26693 Patty Salzwedel - Animal control contract b Adaptions 503.00 26694 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services - Library 227.50 26695 Preusse Cleaning - City Hall d Fire Hail cleaning services 450.00 26696 Y.M.C.A. of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 625.00 26697 MTI Distributing Co. - Repairs - Street Depart. 100.00 26698 Norwest Investments Services - Computer payment 2,407.61 26699 Professional Services Group. Inc. - WWTP Contract payment 22.700.37 26700 Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities 1,833.24 26701 Commissioner of Revenue - Water Sales Tax - 1st quarter 442.10 26702 Monticello Times - Legal Publications 6 Times renewal 1,250.97 26703 State Treasurer - Building permit surcharge fee 650.02 26704 Edison Controls, Inc. - Parts for WWTP 5,617.36 26705 Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Phone charges 1,106.45 26706 Monticello Ford Mercury, Inc. - Repairs 56.26 26707 Al 6 Julie Nelson - Newspaper subscription renewal 13.75 26708 Adam's Pesc Control Co. - Contract payment for Library 42.00 26709 Wright County Journal Press - Newspaper subscription renewal 18.00 26710 Local 949 - Union dues 115.00 26711 Unocal - Gas 67.91 26712 National Bushing d Parts Co. - Supplies 6 parts 11.25 26713 Northern Oxygen Service - Supplies for Fire Depart, 12.30 26714 Dyna Systems - Screw Assortment - Street Depart. 110.04 26725 Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Sheriff's contract payment 12,049.14 26716 Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Property Taxes - lot Half 2,109.19 26717 Quinlan Publishing Co. - Subscription renewal 68.81 26718 Flexible Pipe Tool Co. - Parts - Sewer Collection Depart. 197.78 26719 St. Cloud Fire Equipment Inc. - Service fire extinquishers 91.25 26720 Richards Asphalt Co. - Crackfiller - Street Depart, 711.00 26721 Monticello Printing - Printing now stationary 5.109.25 26722 Coast to Coast - Parts 6 Supplies 161.46 26723 Simonson Lumber - Supplies 36.70 26724 Golden Valley Furniture - Clock - Fire Depart. 20.00 26725 Canvas Plus - Repairs - Fire Depart. 60.00 26726 Data Management Design. Inc. - File Expansion - Computers 90.00 26727 fi CASH DISBURSE}LENTS - GENERAL FUND - APRIL - 1989 AMOUNT CHECK N0 Minnesota Conway Fire 6 Safety - Axe - Fire Depart. 30.50 26728 Mid -Central Inc. - Pistol Grip - FIre Depart. 317.82 26729 J.M. Oil Co. - Gas 760.80 26730 Albany Carbide - Flex -a -Fill - Street Depart. 1,933.35 26731 General Rental - Rental of Supplies - Street Depart. 13.25 26732 MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile 6 Watercraft reg. 267.00 26733 Joseph 6 Clarice O'Conner - Land Acquisition payment 40,878.20 26734 Wright County Recorder - Recording fees 50.00 26735 Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Deed tranfer fees 156.80 26736 Hoglund Trans. Inc. - Repairs to sludge truck 903.90 26737 Harry's Auto Supply - Parts 6 Supplies 148.04 26738 Monticello Office Supplies - Office supplies 365.69 26739 Superior Products - Hand dryers - Concession stand - Ball field. 468.28 26740 011ie Koropchak - Mileage expense 12.50 26741 U.S. Postmaster - Box rental 28.00 26742 Suburban Gas - Supplies 45.50 26743 Mpls. Star 6 Triburne - Ads - Bids for recycling 808.30 26744 Hoglund Bus Co. - Repairs 25.10 26745 Flicker's T.V. 6 Appliance - Repairs - Water Depart. 6.00 26746 Team Choice Sports - Bates - Park Depart. 195.95 26747 Yonak Landfill, Inc. - Garbage Disposal - Streetscape Project 45.50 26748 Void - 0 - 26749 Maus Foods - Supplies $9.65 26750 Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs 6 Parts 1,070.15 26751 Rick Wolfateller - Mileage expense 300.00 26752 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions 90.04 26753 PERA - Insurance premium 18.00 26754 I.C.M.A. Retirement Assoc. - Payroll Deductions 618.88 26755 AME Ready Mix Co. - Sand - Parks 303.05 26756 MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV Licenses 8.00 26757 Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H 5,162.67 26758 PERA - Payroll Deductions1,496.49 26759 Ted Farnam - Travel expenso for Seminar - Fire Depart. 201.75 26760 Vickie Anderson - Mileage expense 11.50 26761 011ie Koropchak - Reimbursement - Recording Fees - O'Connor Pro:. 8.00 26762 Moon Motor Sales - Parts and repairs 89.94 26763 A T 6 T Info Systema - Fire Phone Charges 3.96 26764 American National Bank St. Paul - Interest 6 Paying agent fees 702.25 26765 Adult Education Fire School - Reg Fee - Seminar - Fire Depart. 120.00 26766 Corrow Sanitation - Add'1 landfill charges 6 Leaf pickup 3.700.80 26767 Corrow Sanitation - Raimbusement - Height Slips - Garbage Sarvi�o 55.50 26768 MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Rag. 231.00 26769 Unitog Rental - Uniform rental services 138.00 26770 Automatic Garage Door Co. - Repairs - Fire Depart. 96.82 26771 Cragun's Conference Canter - Rag. Fee - J. O'Neill 70.00 26772 Government Training Center - Reg. Fee - J. O'Neill 35.00 26773 Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co - Insurance Premium 7,047.88 26774 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial Services - Library 227.50 26775 Patty Salawedol - Animal control contract 6 Adoptions 491.00 26776 Monticello Fire Department - Fireman's Wages 875.85 26777 J GENERAL FUND - APRIL -- 1989 Lirthern States Power Co. - Utilities ater Products Co. - Meters, etc. - Water Depart. Waldor Pump Co. - Repairs - Lift Station MacQueen Equipment, Inc. - Brooms, etc. - Street Depart. Lindberg Decorating - Paint - City Hall Rental House Payroll for March Total Disbursements for April 4'p 1 �i N AMOUNT CHECK '40 7,614,74 26778 1.733.62 26779 1,370.94 26780 1,393.82 26781 100.96 26782 47,821.95 217,050.64 Li:UCR ZRO3 CASH DISBURSEMENTS - APRIL - 1989 AMCLTNT CiLTCK N0. Ed Phillips d Sons Co. - Liquor 801.04 14365 Jack Weiss Sports Calendars - Advertising 170.00 14366 Griggs, Cooper b Co. - Liquor 2,936.95 14367 Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor Co. - Liquor 1,681.78 14368 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H for March 196. 35 14369 Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H 612.15 14370 PERA - Payroll W/H 199.98 14371 Quality Wine b Spirits Co. - Wine 599.67 14372 Griggs. Cooper b Co. - Liquor 1,903.98 14373 Eagle Wine Co. - Wine 245.22 14374 Ed Phillips d Sons Co. - Liquor 170.00 14375 T.V. Fan Fare - Advertising 156.00 14376 KRWC Radio Station - Advertising 81.00 14377 Midwest Gas Company - Utilities 179.75 14378 Bridgewater Telephone - Phone Charges 76.73 14379 Bernick's Pepsi Cola Co. - Pop 302.25 14380 Kolles Sanitation - Garbage Service 141.00 14381 Erickson Sales - Misc. supplies 221.50 14382 Seven Up Bottling Co. - Pop 85.40 14383 Monticello Times - Advertising 152.10 1438' Lieferc Trucking - Freight Charges 378.00 14385 Twin Cities Flag Source - New Flag 31.80 14386 Ron's Ice Company - Ice 111.34 14387 .oast to Coast - Supplies 38.03 14388 Dahlheimor Dist. - Beer 13.073.45 14389 Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer b Misc. supplies 11,226.95 14390 Thorpe Distributing Co. - Beer 5.191.30 14391 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer 1,560.60 14392 Day Diatribucing Co. - Beer 344.95 14393 Jude Candy d Tobacco Co. - Supplies 549.15 14394 Maus Foods - Supplies 34.29 14395 Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor 678.97 14396 Commissioner of Revenue - State Withholding Liquor Tax for March 6,860.13 14397 Qunlicy Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor 958.87 14398 Ed Phillipe d Sone Co. - Liquor 1,521.89 14399 Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 3,217.78 14400 NSP - Utilities 527.72 14401 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions 250.00 14402 PERA - Insurance premium 9.00 14403 Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Wine 636.18 14404 Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal d Medicare W/11 630.13 14405 PERA - Payroll Deductions 203.82 14406 Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. - Insurance premium 728.18 14407 Viking Coca Cola Co. - Pop 308.20 14408 Wright County Sheriff's Depart. - Beer pumps 160.00 14409 Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor 2,651.53 14410 Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 1,985.93 14411 Eagle Wine Company - Wine 39.70 14412 C Payroll for March 5,966.05 Total Disbursements for April 70,786.79