City Council Agenda Packet 01-08-1990AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y
Monday, January 8, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
1.
Call to order.
S R
2.
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held October 30, 1989; thy'
special meeting held December 1, 1989; and the regular meeting held
Decenber 11, 1989.
3.
Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4.
Public hearing on adoption of proposed assessment roll for Project 89-1
improvement (Marvin Elwood Road extension).
5.
Consideration of adopting the assessment roll for certification to County
Auditor.
6.
Consideration of conditional use permit to allow two zero lot lire
duplexes in an R-2 zone. Applicant, Quintin Lanners.
7.
Consideration of ordering feasibility study for public improvements to
Sandberg East development. Applicant, Vic Hellman.
B.
Consideration of authorizing joint fire board to pursue alternatives for
a replacement tank truck.
9.
Consideration of active participation in operation and development of
Pilot's Cove Airport.
10.
Consideration of increase in sewer rates.
11.
Consideration of approval of plans and specs for booster pump
refurbishment or replacement at the water reservoir at Chelsea Road and
the authorization to advertise for bids.
12.
Consideration of approving 1990 contract for police protection with
Wright County Sheriff.
13.
Consideration of making annual appointments.
14.
Consideration of maintenance agreement with Wright County for County
State Aid Highways in Monticello.
15.
Consideration to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the
proposed modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Monticello, of the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment
Project No. L, the modification of the tax increment financing plans for
the tax Increment financing districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the
approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan for tax
increment financing district No. 1-9, all located within Rodevelopwnt
Project No. 1.
Council Agenda
January 8, 1990
�. Page 2
16. Review of Heartland Express monthly activity report.
17. Consideration of a bid for locksmith services and hardware for the
Monticello Fire Station and the Monticello Hi -Way Liquor building.
18. Consideration of bills for the last half of December.
19. Adjournment.
C
MINUTES
SPF1rIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 30, 1989
5:00 P.M.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: Fran Fair
1. Call to order.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed adoption of the Development Proqram for
Development District No. 1 and the proposed adoption of the Tax
Increment Financinq Plan for Tax Increment Financinq District
No. 1.1, of the city of Monticello.
Mayor Ken Maus opened the public hearing.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the proposed finance plan
and indicated to Council that the plan is based on the
recommendation made by Council at their September 25, 1989,
meeting. O'Neill noted that all taxing jurisdictions had received
notice of the public hearing and that all legal requirements have
been met prior to adoption of the finance plan. O'Neill went on to
note that development of the K -Mart addition to the mull is
presently on hold because The Lincoln Companies has been unable to
obtain necessary financing. It was O'Neill's understanding that The
Lincoln Companies is actively pursuing financing options, and
remains positive that the necessary financing will be obtained.
O'Neill went on to state that the problems in obtaining financing
are not due to any reluctance on the part of KMart to sign a lease
agreement. The Lincoln Companies request that the City adopt the
TIF plans contingent on acquisition of financing and subsequent
execution of a developer agreement.
Pat Pelstring of Business Development Services indicated that it is
in the best interest of the City at this time to table the matter
pending The Lincoln Cortpanies acquisition of financing. At such
time that the financing is obtained, the TIF plan can be adopted.
Public hearing Was closed.
3. Consideration of resolution approvinq the establishment of the
Development Proqram for Development District No. 1 and the Tax
Increment Financinq Plan for Tax Increment Financinq District
No. 1-1.
After discussion, motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Dan Blonigen to table approval of establishment of a development
program for Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing
C
ON]
Special Council Minutes - 10/30/89
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1. This item to be tabled
for a time period not to exceed 6 months. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Adjournment
Respectfully submitted
v/
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
C
0
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING — MONfICELIA CITY COUNCIL
DFJCEhIDER 1, 1989
2:00 PM
Assitant Administrator O'Neill outlined the status of the computer systen
implementation process at City Hall. During his presentation he focused
his remarks on the following areas:
1. What went right with the existing system.
2. System developed mistakes and inherent ongoing problems.
3. If we could do it all over again.
4. Afiere do we go frau here?
O'Neill noted that the original concept for development of this system was
positive and that it established a vision for where the City would like to
go with conputer application development. The original goals associated
with the development of the computer system were noteworthy, which
included placing manual processes with more efficient electronic
processes, creating interrelated applications to eliminate duplication of
efforts, development of common data bases which reduce multiple entry,
increasing accuracy, an attempt to improve decision making by providing
better information, and finally, the development process attempted to
integrate systems and achieve coordinated computer application development
process.
In his presentation, O'Neill went on to outline system development
mistakes and inherent ongoing problems, which included a discussion
regarding flaws in the system design and development process, problems
with system implementation, vendor support, software design, user
documentation, and a review of the cost and benefits received via the DMDI
software.
O'Neill also suggested that if the City had the chance to do it all over
again, he would recommend that the applications purchased be done on a
phased basis. Systems installed as part of Phase 1 would be those that
are proven to improve productivity and those system that improve decision
making by providing better or more timely infornatmon. Phase 1 systems
would include fund accounting, utility billing, payroll, word processing,
spread sheet development, and deputy registrar. Phase 2 applications
would include those systeuns that provide a less obvious benefit and should
be installed only after the Phase 1 applications are in and running. Such
applications include fixed assets, data base system for property related
applications, fleet maintenance. O'Neill also noted that the system
design should identify the humin resource requirements necessary to
properly operate the system, which would inlcude an identification of
management personnel and roles, and also outline which individuals are
responsible for application operation. O'Neill also went on to describe
strategies that would be put in place to assure the proper development of
the system which included a management plan governing implementation,
vendor support, hardware, software, and cost benefits.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill and Cathy Shuman then outlined the
potential for utilizing micro computer or mini computers for future
application development and they also outlined the cost to continue to
operate with the OMDI versus moving to the micro computer or to the mini
computer. O'Neill noted that due to the high cost associated with
0
Special Minutes - 12/1/89
operation of the DMDI software and because software and hardware prices
have dropped for micro and mini commuter applications, the 3 year cost to
stay with DMDI appears to be even or slightly higher than the cost would
be to convert to the micro computer or mini computer option. O'Neill went
on to outline a suggested staff organization necessary to implement and
operate the computer system. He noted an individual within the
organization must be responsible for completing all the tasks associated
with operating a network or micro computer system. He went on to note
that Cathy Shuman is well trained in the field, and capable of completing
all such tasks.
At this point in the meeting, Council discussed the possibility of taking
legal action against the vendor and against the consultant charged with
assisting the City in developing its computer applications.
Warren Smith noted his frustration over the problems associated with this
system, and suggested that the City move ahead with system application
development.
Dan Blonigen strongly suggested that the City take action to recover some
of the City costs associated with the system purchased.
O'Neill informed Council that the City Attorney has indicated that the
City may be limited in its ability to recover costs due to the contractual
agreement between the City and DMDI.
After discussion, motion was made by warren Smith and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to direct staff to move forward by refining the proposal
for development of Phase 1 computer applications and present
recommendations at the first Council meeting scheduled in January. A
decision regarding legal action against vendor or consultant to be made at
that time. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted:
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
N
0
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 11, 1989 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes of regular meeting held November 27, 1989, and the
special meetinq held December 4, 1989.
Shirley Anderson requested that the December 4 meeting minutes be updated
to include her opinion that across the board salary increases can be
unfair, as individuals with higher salaries get a larger increase.
Citizens comments/petitions, requests and complaints.
Kirk Kjellberg presented a prepared statement to Council regarding the
Evergreens subdivision. In the prepared statement, Kjellberg reviewed
the development goals of the project and explained how the project will
benefit the City. He also noted that Kjellberg, Inc., fully intends to
rectify problems associated with the Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park by
making sewer system improvements that are in compliance with all city,
state, and county requirements.
Mayor Maus thanked Kirk Kjellberg for his comments. No further action
taken.
4A. Consideration of feasibility report for anticipated stonmwater management
improvements within the Monticello Mall watershed.
Chuck DuFresne of The Lincoln Companies reported to Council that a signed
lease agreement between The Lincoln Companies and K -Mart has been
executed, and a March 1, 1990, groundbreaking date for the development of
the K -tart addition has been established.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council consider
authorization to proceed with the storm water management feasibility
study necessary to fully define project design and cost. O'Neill
reported that the estimated cost of the storm water study is $4,500, with
The Lincoln Companies paying one-half of the initial cost to complete the
study. Once the improvements are completed and in place, any up -front
payments node by The Lincoln Companies will be deducted from their
assessments.
Chuck DuFrense reported that this arrangement for financing the
feasibility study is acceptable to The Lincoln Companies.
Dan Blonigen reminded staff to take a look at utilizing the unused
capacity of an existing storm water line now serving a portion of the
Highway 25/1-94 intersection area.
0
Council Minutes - 12/11/89
Dan Kling stated that he would look at that option; however, he is
concerned that the agreement between the State and the City regarding
this storm water structure may limit the City's ability to use it for
drainage of the null area.
After discussion, motion made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to authorize OSM to conduct feasibility study for storm water
improvements within the Monticello Mall watershed for an estimated amount
of $4,500. Motion carried unanimously.
4B. Consideration of feasibility report to establish profile for 7th St.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council authorize
preparation of a feasibility report which would establish the final
profile for the 7th Street alignment and also provide complete cost
estimates for street construction. O'Neill went on to note that The
Lincoln Companies has requested that the 7th Street right-of-way be
slightly elevated, which would allow the K -Mart parking lot to be
relatively level. In order to elevate the parking area, the 7th Street
right -of -ray must be elevated, which will result in the need for a
retaining wall on the north side of 7th Street, and also result in
eliminatation of the Ridgeview Apartment complex access to 7th Street.
David Hornig, owner of Ridgeview Apartments was present and noted his
concerns that by elevating the roadway, the value of his property may be
diminished in some manner. He also noted that there may be some positive
reasons for eliminating this access as well; however, until the
feasibility study is done, it is difficult to determine the impact to his
property created by elevating the roadway.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that Marvin Kramer has
withdrawn his previous verbal offer to sell his parcel to the City for
$189,000. O'Neill noted that purchase of the Kramer property at this
time is not vital to the development of the 7th Street right-of-way
serving K -Mart; however, the future extension of the 7th Street
right-of-way may be complicated or more expensive if the City does not
acquire the property at the time of the development of the K -Mart.
Dan Blonigen noted that the market place tends to work things out, and
he did not see it necessary to acquire the land at this time in
anticipation of the 7th Street right-of-way at some point in the future.
Ken Maus notch that there is always the potential of putting a jog in the
7th Street right-of-way which would allow us to go around the Kramer
property.
Warren Smith agreed that it may not be necessary to purchase the property
in anticipation of the future extension of the 7th Street right-of-way,
and he expressed concern about the potential of an intersection jog.
L Fran Fair agreed with the concept of deferring any purchase of the Kramer
property until absolutely necessary.
0
f—
Council Minutes - 12/11/89
After discussion, motion made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to order a feasibility study establishing a profile for the
7th Street right-of-way using straight alignment and to continue with
pursuing the straight alignment but defer purchase of Kramer's property.
Motion carried unanimously.
Cons'&ration of interpretation of conditional use permit - Fair's Garden
Center.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council review the
Christmas season use of the Fair Garden Center and determine if the use
is in compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit granted
some months ago. Specifically, a portion of the site earmarked for
parking is now being utilized for sales and storage of Christmas trees.
O'Neill asked that Council review this matter to determine if a portion
of the parking area may be used for Christmas tree sales and display
area. O'Neill went on to note that due to seasonal fluctuations in
parking demands, there appears to be justification for reducing the
parking requirements by four to five parking spaces.
Ken Maus noted that if the City is going to allow businesses to use their
parking space for display and sale of product in one location, we should
allow it to occur in another location. Maus noted that the City is
already allowing the Tom Thumb store to use a portion of their parking in
the summer months for display of goods.
Gary Anderson reported that Tan Thumb received a permit which allowed
them to use some of their parking for this special spring sale event.
It was suggested by the Mayor that City staff prepare a permit process
which would regulate the use of parking stalls for display of goods for
sale.
City Administrator Wolfsteller asked for clarification regarding the
springtime use of the parking area.
It was the consensus of Council that the area earmarked for parking
spaces as outlined in the conditional use permit be striped and available
for parking during the peak retail season.
After discussion, motion by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Ken Maus to
direct staff to work toward development of a simple permit process which
would allow businesses with fluctuating parking demands to adjust their
parking requirement accordingly. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Abstaining: Fran Fair.
Motion carried.
0
Council Minutes - 12/11/89
Consideration of altering tenors of 78-1 Project assessment roll.
Gene Walters of Oakwood Industrial Partnership and Gregg Smith of Central
Minnesota Projections were in attendance to discuss this matter.
City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that terms of the 78-1 Project
assessment roll included payment of principal due 10 years after the
initiation of a 20 -year amortization schedule. Wolfsteller noted that it
is time for this payment to come due and asked if Council would consider
altering the terms of the assessment roll in a manner that would allow
the payments to continue via the existing amortization schedule.
Gregg Smith of Central Minnesota Projections indicated that he clearly
understood the balloon payment situation and is not asking for any type
of subsidy from the City. He went on to request that the City could
adjust the interest rate to reflect the current market, and Central
Minnesota Projections would gladly continue to make payments for an
additional five years with a final balloon payment made at that time.
After discussion, motion made by Warren Smith and seevnded by Fran Fair
to increase the amortization schedule interest rate to 7.5 percent and
require final payment of principal in 5 years. Motion carried
unanimously.
7. Consideration of authorizing entering into a sidewalk maintenance
agreement with MN/DOT.
Administrator Wolfsteller reported that as part of the Highway 25
overpass improvement recently completed by MN/DO'C, sidewalk improvements
were constructed from 7th Street to the bridge overpass and also to
Oakwood Drive along Highway 25. Although the sidewalk improvements were
paid for by MN/DOT as part of the project, the City of Monticello will be
responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk portions leading to the
bridge structure. Wolfsteller noted that staff is comfortable with the
maintenance agreement and recommends acceptance as submitted. He added
that the City of Monticello did not have to contribute any funds toward
the sidewalk improvement.
Dan Blonigen asked, "Why should the City be responsible for accidents on
State property as noted in Article 3 of the maintenance agreement?"
Wolfsteller noted that the City would only be liable for accidents
resulting out of City negligence.
Dan Blonigen noted that more and more areas in the community are getting
sidewalks, and the City may want to consider establishing a nominal fee
for sidewalk snow removal in business areas.
Roger Mack noted that it is difficult to require the Perkins and Country
Kitchen to pay a portion of snow removal or to require that they remove
the snow from these sidewalk areas because those businesses, though
directly abutting the sidewalk, do not receive clear, direct benefit from
tho sidewalk.
0
Council Minutes - 12/11/89
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren
Smith to authorize entering into the sidewalk maintenance agreement with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Motion carried unanimously.
8. Consideration of initial capital outlay for new public works offices and
water department shop.
Councilmenber Blonigen objected to the purchase of a $40 coffee maker and
$200 refrigerator.
It was the vier of Councilmenber Fair that the purchase of a coffae maker
and refrigerator are reasonable office purchases. It was also noted by
Fran Fair that the office renovation cost submitted by staff is less than
the budgeted amount of $10,000.
Motion made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve initial
capital outlay as prepared by the Public Works Director in the amount of
$7,455.50. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson,
Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Motion carried.
9. Consideration of water temperature monitorinq system for new water tank.
Council was informed that problems could occur due to temperature changes
in the water of the new tank. During wintertime, severe icing problems
can occur in water tanks. It is important to have enough daily water
changes in the tank during the winter months to reduce the possibility of
heavy ice formation. Since our tank is somewhat isolated and a long way
from our water source, the water will be significantly cooler than it was
in our old tank. In addition, because of the size of the tank, the water
will be in the tank much longer and, therefore, allow cooling.
Typically, there is very little water use in the city during the winter
from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. If the City had water temperature monitoring
equipment in the inlet/oulet of the tank, we could make better decisions
as to operation of the tank during the winter months by nuking
adjustments or wasting cold water if absolutely necessary. In addition,
we could have a similar problem in the summer months in that water will
teal to warm up as it sits in the tank. As the water warns, the
likelihood of the polyphosphates continuing to hold iron and manganese in
suspension diminishes, and these materials can be released causing
problem with water quality. The temperature monitoring device could
allow us to again operate the tank in such a fashion as to reduce the
warming effect during the winter months.
Warren Smith asked why this temperature monitoring system was not part of
the original proposal when the water tank was constructed. Smith was
concerned that we are getting pickled and dimed by add-ons to this
project.
Dan Blonigen expressed concern that the tank nay be oversized. Because
the tank is oversized, the water is not exchanged as often, which creates
the need for a water temperature monitoring system.
0
Council Minutes - 12/11/89
Dan Kling noted that the size of the water tank is dictated by the
insurance requirements, and it is a common problem in the winter months
to have more capacity than you need because the demand in the wintertime
is one-quarter of the demand in the summer months. Kling also noted that
most cities with good fire fighting capabilities have temperature
monitoring devices, and such devices allow City staff to use their
training to properly manage the water system.
Shirley Anderson asked if there is money in the budget for this purchase.
City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that there is sufficient revenue
remaining in the water tank fund.
Z.:..uigen suggested that the City wait until next year to consider
this purchase.
After discussion, motion made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair
to criticize and object to the late notice of the need for this
improve -rent and authorize installation of the temperature monitoring
equipment from Automatic Systems at a cost of $4,792. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Consideration of obtaining quotes and authorization to wire new check
valves at the reservoir at Chelsea Road.
After discussion, motion nude by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran
Fair to authorize City staff to obtain quotes for the electrical work for
the wiring necessary to hook up the new check valves to the existing
system and to have the work performed. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Consideration of "interim" wage adjustment for Cathy Shuman.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill asked Council to consider making an
adjustment to the wage received by Cathy Shuman retroactive to Cathy's
successful completion of her six-month probation period. O'Neill noted
that Cathy was hired as the utility billing clerk; however, she was
selected because her resume revealed unique skills and abilities that the
administration viewed as vital to meet the emerging carriPuter related
denands of the position. When Cathy took the position, she was informed
that the City would consider an increase to her starting salary after a
six-month time period, and staff would further consider an increase if
Cathy successfully demonstrated her skills through implementation of the
utility billing system. Cathy successfully irtplementod the utility
billing system and has met or exceeded expectations.
O'Neill also informed Council that the proposed wage adjustment is within
the budgeted amount for this position.
Motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Fran Fair to increase
Cathy Shuman's hourly wage to $10.35 retroactive to Shuman's six-month
anniversary date. Said wage will be effective until a new receptionist
position is filled. Motion carried unanimously.
0
Council Minutes - 12/11/89
12. Consideration of authorizinq advertisement for receptionist/data entry
clerk position.
Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the purpose of this item is
to request authorization from City Council to allow staff to begin
preparation of a job description arca advertisement for receptionist/data
entry clerk position. Wolfsteller noted to Council that this position is
being developed to handle basic receptionist duties previously handled by
Lynnea Gillham and later by Cathy Shuman. With Cathy Shuman now taking
on additional computer responsibilities and finance responsibilities, an
individual needs to be brought on board to take care of some of the basic
receptionist activity. The position created by this reorganization will
very likely be a lower level clerical position.
Fran Fair noted that personality should be a major factor in deciding who
is hired for this position.
After discussion, motion made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to authorize staff to prepare an advertisement for the clerical
position of receptionist/data entry clerk and establish a job description
resulting comparable worth value. Motion carried unanimously.
13. Consideration of gamblinq license renewal - Joyner Lanes.
Council reviewed the balance sheet of the Celebrity Bowl Charities
Program at Joyner Lanes and did not oppose renewal of the license;
therefore, the license is granted automatically.
14. Consideration of bills for the first Part of December.
Motion made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve
the bills as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
15. Other matters.
The park dedication payment associated with the Prairie West Plat was
discussed. No changes to previous Council action on this matter were
adopted.
There being no further business, meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
c>
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
Public hearing on adoption of proposed assessment roll for Project 89-1
improvement (Marvin Elwood Road extension). (R.W.)
5. Consideration of adopting the assessment roll for certification to County
Auditor. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the recent completion of the Marvin Elwood Road extension connecting
the Meadows subdivision plat to West River Street, the construction cost
and indirect cost have been calculated at $11,285.94. The contractor for
the project was Channel Construction of St. Michael.
The two benefiting property owners are Mr. Edgar Klucas and the newly
created Lot 1 of the Meadows Second Addition. At the time this project
was originally ordered, the Council had given the developer (Dan Friel an
understanding that the total assessment for this newly created Tot 1
would not exceed $8,500 for both the 81-1 project, which was previously
assessed, and this road extension project. The 81-1 assessment for this
corner lot totaled $6,179.92, leaving a balance of $2,320.08 that could
be assessed to arrive at the $8,500 total. Using this assumption, the
$2,320 divided by the front footage of 218 feet amounted to $10.64 per
front foot. When applying this $10.64 per foot to Mr. Klucas's side of
the road, Mr. Klucas's assessment would be $3,226. These two assessable
( parcels would have assessments totaling $5,546.46 resulting in the
\. assessable portion being approximately 50 percent of the project cost.
The balance of $5,739.48 would he the portion attributable to ad valorem
taxes.
Since I believe the Council wan in agreement that the road extension
would also he a benefit to the general public by allowing an additional
access to this area from West River Streot, having ad valorem taxes pay
for approximately 50 percent of this improvement seems reasonable.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the assessment roll for the 89-1 imrprovement project as
prepared, and adopt the resolution certifying the sane to the County
Auditor for collection beginning next year.
2. Amend the assessment roll if necessary and then adopt.
3. Do not adopt the assessment roll.
C. STAFP RECOMMENDATION:
With phase I of the Meddows Second Addition fmrprovemente being recently
completed and the City's portion of the improvement project also being
coarpleted, staff recouumnds that the assessment roll be adopted as
prepared. The extension of Marvin Elwood Road greatly enhances the
7L accessibility to the development and bene`ite not only the Meadows but
also the general public. By assessing approsfrately half of the cost to
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
the benefiting property owners with the remaining half being placed on ad
valorem taxes, I believe the Council is recognizing the fact that the
improvement does benefit both the City and the developers equally. In
addition, Lot 1 of the Meadows Second Addition would have total
assessments of $8,500, which should not be deemed excessive for this
developrDent .
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of assessment roll and resolution.
t
C
Dan Frie
CITY OF MONTICELLO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
Project 89-1 (Marvin Elwood Rd.)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on
January 8, 1990, at the Monticello City Hall, 250 East Broadway, Monticello,
Minnesota, to pass upon the proposed assessment against abutting property for
the improvement of Marvin Elwood Road extension to River Street with curb,
gutter, bituminous paving, and appurtenant work.
The amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot, piece, or
parcel of land as an assessment is $2,320.08. You may at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the entire assessment
on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City
Clerk. no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30
days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter pay
to the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with
interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made.
Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged
through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the
assessment before the date given above, the rate of interest that will apply is
8.75 per year. The right to partially prepay the assessment is not available.
The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City
Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $5,546.46.
Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be
taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is
filed with the Clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer
at the hearing. The Council may, upon such notice, consider any objection to
the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon
such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable.
If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following
procedure will be followed:
1. The City will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify
by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits.
After each witness has testified, the contesting party will be allowed to
ask questions. This procedure will be repeated with each witness until
neither side has further questions.
After the City has presented all of its evidence, the objector may call
witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desires. The same
procedure for questioning of the City's witnesses will be followed with
the objector's witnesses.
C
E.:gdr Klucas
#155-500-041402
CITY OF MONTICELLO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
Project 89-1 (Marvin Elwood Rd.)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on
January 8, 1990, at the Monticello City Hall, 250 East Broadway, Monticello,
Minnesota, to pass upon the proposed assessment against abutting property for
the improvement of Marvin Elwood Road extension to River Street with curb,
gutter, bituminous paving, and appurtenant work.
The amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot, piece, or
parcel of land as an assessment is $3,226.38. You may at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the entire assessment
on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City
Clerk. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30
days from the adoption of this assessmnent. You may at any time thereafter pay
to the City Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with
interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made.
Such payment must be made before Novemnber 15 or interest will be charged
through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the
assessmment before the date given above, the rate of interest that will apply is
8.75 percent per year. The right to partially prepay the assessment is not
` available.
The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City
Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $5,546.46.
written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be
taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is
filed with the Clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer
at the hearing. The Council may, upon such notice, consider any objection to
the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon
such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable.
If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following
procedure will be followed:
1. The City will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify
by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits.
After each witness has testified, the contesting party will be allowed to
ask questions. This procedure will be repeated with each witness until
neither aide has further questions.
2. After the City has presented all of its evidence, the objector may call
witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desires. The same
C procedure for questioning of the City's witnesses will be followed with
the objector's witnesses.
RESOLUTION 90-1
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passes upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
the improvement of Marvin Elwood Road extension to River Street with curb,
gutter, bituminous paving, and appurtenant work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereor, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein and each tract of land therein
included and hereby found to he benefited by the proposed improvements in
the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending
over a period of ten years, the first of the installments to be payable
on or before the first Monday in January 1992 and shall bear interest at
the rate of 8.75 percent annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest
on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until
December 31, 1991. To each subsequent installment. when due shall be
added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of
the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of
payment to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged
if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this
resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer
the entire aimunt of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such
payment must be ,made before November 15, nr interest will be charged
through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment of the County Auditor to be extended on the property lax lista
of the County. Such assessments shall he collected and paid over in the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the Council this 8th day of January, 1990.
Ken Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
l%
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
6. Conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2 (sirgle and two
family residential) zone. A variance request which would allow two zero
lot line duplexes and a variance request to allow two zero lot line
duplex residential lots to have less than the minimum lot square f000tage
and lot frontage. Applicant, fanners Custom Homes.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Lanners Custom Hones is proposing to develop the two vacant lots between
the existing Tele Baptist Church arca the single family resi•lence of
Vera Raumers to the west of these two vacant lots, Lots 3 6 4, Block 35,
Lower Monticello Addition, in the city of Monticello. These two lots of
record have 66' of lot frontage on 4th Street, with 165' of lot depth,
for a total of 10,890 square feet apiece for each lot. Lot 3 has two
easements which are recorded against it. The first easement is on the
easterly 10' of Lot 3, which is a water and sewer utility easement. The
westerly 10' of this eastern most 10' has a 10' sight line easement. If
you will look at the enclosed site plan, you will see the utility
easement and the sight easement highlighted.
Mr. fanners proposes construction of what he interprets to be a zero lot
line 4-plex on two platted residential lots.
Unfortunately, it is not clear whether or not this structure and site
plan should be reviewed in terms of the rules applying to a 4-plex or
reviewed in terms of the rules that apply to a duplex development.
Staff, therefore, has reviewed the development in terms of both sets of
regulations. As you will note in the information and potential
alternatives for action that follow, it is somewhat confusing because the
development proposal does not fit nicely into a category. Thank you for
your patience as you sort this one out.
Four-plex Versus Two Zero Lot Line Duplexes
initially, it appeared obvious that this structure is a 4-plex, as the
proposed structure contains four dwelling units under ow, roof. Under
our ordinance there is no definition of 4 -plea; however, there is a
definition of a multiple family dwelling which states that a multiple
family dwelling is "a building designed with three or more dwelling units
exclusively for occupancy by three or more families living independently
of each other, but sharing hallways and main entrances and exits." The
proposed structure will be occupied by four families; however, common
hallways and main entrances and exits will not be shared by all four
units. A separate entrance and exit is provided for each set of
duplexes.
In addition, the layout of the structure on the lot reveals a lot line
through the middle of the 4-plex which also extends through the garage
complex. This line is necessary so the developer can subdivide the
( 4-plex among two owners. The desire to create two separate identities
1 for each half of the "4-plex" creates the need for two driveways. If
this was a true 4-plox, only one driveway would be needed to a common
garage that all four units would utilize.
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
Following are two site plan reviews --one based on an interpretation of
the structure as a 4-plex, the other based on an interpretation of the
structure as two duplexes with a zero lot line.
4 -flex Site Plan Review
Under R-2 (single and two family residential) regulations, a 4 -unit
dwelling unit is an allowable use only as a conditional use. Following
is a review of the site plan in terms of the R-2 regulations.
1. Building setbacks - met or exceeded.
2. [and square footage - land square footage requirement is exceeded by
2,780 square feet.
3. Off-street parking provided meets requirements.
4. Curbing under a 4-plex designation - As it is a multiple family
unit, it does require continuous, nonsurmountable curbing. Developer
has not requested variance to curbing requirement.
5. Hard surfacing requirement - site plan complies.
6. Driveway setback - driveway setback requirement is met at the
minimum. It is suggested that the driveway on the church side of the
property be moved 3 feet to 5 feet farther away from the church
property.
7. Dwelling unit square footage requirement is exceeded. A 4-plex
requires a minimum of 720 square feet of unit area for a 2-bedroan
apartment, and a duplex requires a minimum of 864 square feet for a
2-bodroom unit. The developer is showing 1,080 square feet of unit
area for a 2 -bedroom unit.
Two Duplex Site Plan Review
According to ordinance, a duplex is not an allowable use in an R-2 zone
on "undersized" lots platted previous to the inception of the ordinance.
The ordinance states that "a lot of record which does not meet the
requirements of this ordinance as to area or width may be utilized for
single family detached dwelling purposes provided the measurements of
such area or width are within 758 01 Lhe requirements of the ordinance."
in this case, the lot area is big enough to allow a single family
residence on each lot; however, it is not large enough to accommodate a
duplex on each lot. Furthermore, issuance of a variance which would
allow development of a duplex on each undersized lot would be
inappropriate, as none of the basic requirements associated with a
variance request are present. The only way that a duplex can be properly
allowed in the R-2 zone on an undersized lot is through development of an
amendment to the ordinance section noted above.
r
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
If a zoning ordinance amendment is established to allow a duplex on
existing lots of record in the old part of town, other sections of the
ordinance regulating duplex development would also need to be updated.
For instance, a duplex in the R-2 zone requires 12,000 square feet and
must have 80' of frontage on a street.
In essence, if Council interprets the development as being a set of
duplexes side by side, then the development must be denied because such a
use is not allowed at this site.
If Council denies the permit based on the logic that the develpment
represents two duplexes which are not allowed, then the developer has the
option of removing the center property line and submitting an application
for a 4-plex, which is allowed as a conditional use.
4-plex - Conditional Use Permit
If Council interprets the proposal as a 4-plex, a conditional use permit
is needed and no variances are necessary; however, Council may attach
reasonable conditions that it determines necessary.
In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, when a conditional use permit
request is considered, the Council shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgments shall be based
upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
1. Relationship to the municipal comprehensive plan.
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
Council is asked to consider those five factors as the site plan is
discussed on Monday. At that time, we will be asking the questions that
will assist in determining the possible adverse effects of the proposed
conditional use request on properties located in the R-2 (single and two
family residential) zone.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS - DUPLEX:
1. Motion determining that the development represents two duplexes on
two undersized lots.
If it is Council's interpretation that the development is a duplex,
then the application mist bo denied becauso a duplex is not an
i allowable use at this site.
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
Please note that the site plan could easily be redrawn so as to
qualify the development as a 4-plex, which would allow the developer
to reapply for a conditional use permit at an upcoming meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS - 4-PLEX :
If Council determines that the development represents a 4-plex, then the
following actions could be taken:
LA. Motion to approve a conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an
R-2 (single and two family residential) zone subject to conditions
defined by the Council.
IB. Deny a conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2 (single
and two family residential) zone.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission received input from the public at the hearing as
described in the attached unapproved copy of the meeting minutes.
Planning Commission elected to interpret the development as a duplex and
acted to deny a variance request that would have allowed development of a
zero lot line 4-plex. This recomrendation is somewhat :root because after
the Planning Commisson review, staff discovered the section of the
ordinance which specifically limits development of undersized lots of
record to single family development only.
In response to the previous interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as
provided to the Planning Commission, the Commission voted unanimously to
deny the variance request which would allow the two zero lot line
duplexes. Stated reason for denial: The proposed zero lot line 4-plex is
inconsistent with the geographical area. The City has no zero lot line
4-plexes within the community and development of such would create an
unwanted precedent in the R-2 zone. The motion carried unanimously.
Essentially, the Planning Commission viewed this type of development as
being inconsistent with a neighborhood made up predominantly of single
family dwellings. Please review the attached map which shows locations
of existing tri-plex, 4-plex, and 8 -unit developments in nearby R-2
areas. As you can see, the area is predominantly single family in
nature; however, there are also numerous instances of higher residential
density uses as well.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Regardless of technical rules of interpretation, the bottom line appears
to be whether or not the development will create an adverse impact on tho
neighborhood. Ultimately, this question must first be answered by
Council; and if the developer does not like the answer, then the courts
will decide.
5a
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
Given the configuration of the development relative to the property
lines, it appears reasonable to assert that the development represents
two duplexes side by side. As such, the proposal should be denied. As
noted earlier, however, the developer can "get around" this denial by
simply removing the lot line and resubmitting the proposal as a
conditional use permit request. Under this scenerio, if the development
is ultimately approved by the City or forced upon the City by legal
action, there is a greater likelihood that the development will result in
a single owner with four renters.
If the issue is brought forth strictly as a conditional use permit
request, the Council will be faced with determining to what extent the
development will create an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Approval
or denial of the conditional use permit will be based on this finding.
At this time, it is difficult to say if there are sufficient grounds to
justify denial of the conditional use permit. In terms of density,
four family units on two single family lots in an area surrounded mostly
by single family housing may not be consistent with the character and
geography of the area. At the same time, however, there is sufficient
land area by ordinance to allow the development of a 4-plex, and the
developer is willing to meet reasonable conditions that the City might
attach to a conditional use permit. For this reason, a motion to deny
the conditional use permit may not be sustained in a court of law.
I have been informed by the applicant that he will pursue court action if
the conditional use permit is denied.
Finally, it appears that there is just cause to review the ordiance in
terms of 4-plex development in the R-2 zone. Whatever the outcome of
this case, it might make sense to adjust the ordinance or clarify it in a
manner that will allow it to reflect the values of the community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy of the
site plan for the conditional use request; Copy of the two front
elevations for the proposed zero lot line duplexes; Copy of the lower
level and upper level floor plans for the proposed zero lot line
duplexes; Copy of the Zoning Ordinance sections in regard to minimum
requirements and dwelling unit definitions; Map showing present
residential development patterns in the area.
5b
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 2, 1990 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Mori Malone, Richard Martie, Cindy Lem(
Members Absent: Dan McConnon
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, 011ie Koropchak
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:31 p.m.
2. Election of Planninq Commission Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
Motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Mori Malone to appoint
Dan McConnon as the 1990 Planning Ccmnission Chairperson and to appoint
Cindy Lean as the 1990 Planning Commission vice Chairperson. Motion
carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent.
_. Motion was nude by Richard Carlson and seconded by Cindy Lenin to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held November 7, 1989. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to approve
the minutes of the special meeting held November 13, 1989. Motion
carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent and Mori Malone abstaining.
5. Public Hearinq - A conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2
(Single and two-family residential) zone. A variance request which would
allow two zero lot line duplexes. A variance request to allow two zero
lot line duplex residential lots to have less than tie minimum lot square
footaqe and lot frontage. Applicant, Lanners Custom Homes.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members the background to Lanners Custom Homes' conditional use and
variance requests. The decision the Planning Commission members will
have to make is if they would consider this proposed request to be for a
4-plex or for a duplex. This decision would have to be determined prior
to making the fornul motion. Mr. O'Neill explained the requirements for
a 4-plex have been met or exceeded, and the applicant is requiring to
create two zero lot line duplexes, which on the outside look like a
4-plex; but by lot line division, there would be two separate properties
maintained with this to create two zero lot line duplexes. The developer
has also met many of the minimum requests for zero lot line duplex with
the exception of the minimum lot square footage required, 12,000 sq ft of
land area, where the developer has 10,890 sq ft of land area; and also
the minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way. The minimum lot
frontage requirement is 80 feet of lot frontage, and the developer has
66 feet of lot frontage. The previous size of the minimum lots in the
city of Monticello when they were platted were 66 ft x 165 ft in depth,
or 10,890 sq ft of lard area. The minimum requirements have been changed
C where the minimum required lot size is 80 feet of lot frontage by 150 ft
of lot depth for a total of 12,000 sq ft of land area.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/2/90
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for the input from
f� theblit. Information brought out from the
pu ug public, which consisted of
neighboring residents around the proposed zero lot line duplex site,
explained their concerns with the following:
1. The previous owners of the property indicated there would be two
single family houses built on these two lots and not a 4-plex.
Previous Council action indicated a screening fence to be constructed
to the rear of the Baptist Church property which has not been
installed as of tonight's meeting date; and if this is approved, it
should have additional six-foot high solid opaque screening fence
along the entire backline of the property and up the east and west
side lot line to meet the rear most portion of the existing Baptist
Church property and the rear most portion of the existing single
family house of Vera Raumer's.
c. The impact of rental property owners with single family
residences predominantly in the area. Congestion of parking and
at night goes off in the spring tenants from this proposed 4-plex
will be parking out into the street. There is already quite an
amount of congestion in the area; with the proposed 4-plex, there
would be even more congestion within this area. If the
construction of the proposed 4-plex and more than likely the
possibility of an absentee ownership of this 4-plex with tenants,
possibility of four rental tenants being in this property, the
property values could be diminished with the presence of this
4-plex to be constructed.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing. Motion was
made by Mori Malone and seconded by Richard Martie to deny the variance
request which would allow two zero lot line duplexes. Motion carried
unanimously with Dan McConnon absent.A*Reason for denial. The proposed
zero lot line 4-plex is inconsistent with the geographical area. we have
no zero lot line 4-plexes within this community and in the event this was
approved would open up for other areas of R-2 zoning other such requests
of this kind to occur."
6. Consideration to approve the resolution for the Heusinq and Redevelopment
Authority's modified redevelopment plan to redevelop Proiect M1, modified
tax increment financing plans for tax increment financinq District
Nos. 1-1 through 1-8, and tax increment financing District 01-9.
011ie Koropchak, Economic Developer, explained to Planning Commission
members Mr. Russ Martie's proposal for constructing a new sales and
warehouse facility in the Oakwood Industrial Park. The applicant,
Mr. Russ Martie has selected to choose the option of pay -as -you go tax
increment financing. That being Mr. Martie would be paid $2,500 per year
over a period of 7 years, for a total of $17,500. The (lousing and
Redevelopment Authority in their approval of this redevelopment plan had
a requirement for any outside storage to be screened from the public
right of way.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/2/90
CWith there being no input from Mr. Russ Martie who was present, or anyone
else from the public, motion by Cindy Lenin and seconded by Mori Malone to
approve a resolution for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's
modified redevelopment plan to redevelop Project $1, modified tax
increment financing plans for tax increment financing District Nos. 1-1
through 1-8, and tax increment financing District #1-9. Motion carried
unanimously with Dan McConnon absent and Richard Martie abstaining.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS:
1. A variance request to allow a residential subdivision lot to have less
than the minimum lot frontage on a public right of way. Applicant, West
Prairie Partners. Council action. No action required, as request did
not come before them. The City Council approved final plat for the
Prairie West Addition.
2. Request to allow expansion of existing mobile home park. Applicant,
Don Heikes. Council action. Approved as per Planning Commission
reeomnenda t i on.
3. Conditional use request to allow a tri-plex in an R-2(single and two
family residential) zone. Applicant, Brad and Cindy Fyle. Council
action. Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation with two
additional off street parking spaces required off of Maple Street.
4. Simple subdivision request to allow a B-3 (highway business) commercial
lot to be subdivided into two commercial lots. A variance to allow a
zero lot line setback requirement. Applicant, The Lincoln Companies.
Council action. Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
5. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission for
Tuesday, February 6, 1990, 7:30 p.m. On a motion by Cindy Lamm, seconded
by Richard Martie to set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission for Tuesday, February 6, 1990, 7:30 p.m.. The motion
carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent.
6. Adjournment. On a motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm to
adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted„
Gary 4jiderson
Zoning Administrator
v
A conditional use request to allow
_'�•. `cam, �� a 4-plex in an R-2 (single and two
/4 family residential) zone. A request
j• '�• 4' •' _ _ V F
ivide proposed 4-plex into two
�17 �• - ;4 zejt _ line duplexes. A variance
I'
J,- request to low two zero lot line duplex
/ •'OAAti� �,• •°I;sidential io to have less than the
,��(�•/�:(�J' •� / y - -.�, '�� mum lot square I footage and lot frontage.
USTOM HOME -
a
too
5j
�A
94
41
FLAZA
PA
..........
r[ •AAAA �P
O�
IXAV �Oip
V, G-A2FA
A
40
1%7
OC
CS
30Le
cp
"00 unaly Ewwf
SJMF
10
j\\I call '`I� {L� ,�.-.'i�l. 'S :T.`v_. _Mt:..1FI{_e•_ 1 ST
Y i-A
` S T
'x ST
of i .a la ,o '�Yy , 4, , .a s w T io i �, %•,<.. e..,`d:
I LI
LX
vi
.• 1. 1' W i 1 i 3 �� �
'j;
s
x �u ` _ a
t.,� [,w r,•: LD'4 (,� •� I �t"`,CONSSRXTi N '
x ad , Y x ., ..:� 5 • r
uplex
A u ex
0SU��ect rtGeR ND. 9 . -''�`I t f lex
0 is 8 Uldi f
0
w
10
CS)
I
N
I
10-7-1 10-7-4
CHAPTER 7
"R-2" SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Is
SECTION:
7-1:
Purpose
7-2:
Permitted Uses
7-3:
Permitted Accessory Uses
7-4:
Conditional Uses
7-1:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-2" Single and Two
Family Residential District is to provide for low
to moderate density one and two unit dwellings and
directly related, complementary uses.
7-2:
PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses
in a "R-2" District:
[A) All permitted uses allowed in a "R-1" District.
[B] Two family dwelling units.
7-3:
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in a "R-2" District:
[A) All accessory uses as allowed in an "R-1" District.
7-4:
CONDITIONAL USE; The following are conditional uses
in an "R-2" District: (Requ.iaea a Conditio nat use
peamit based upon paocedunea aet 6oath in and aegu.tated
by Chaptea 22 06 thio 02dinance)•
(A) All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions,
as allowed in an "R-1" District.
[B) Townhousco as defined by Chapter 2, Section 2 (TB)
of this Ordinance provided that the regulations
and requirements of Chapter 20 aro satisfactorily
complatod and mot.
(c1 Four family dwollinq unit.
(D) Day Care - group nursery provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for
the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. The front yard depth ohall be a minimum
of thirty-fivo (35) foot.
C3.
Adequate off-street parking and access
is provided in compliance with Chapter
3, Section 5 of this Ordinance.
Is
1. Clothes line pole and wire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areas.
5. Propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) feet of any property line.
6. wood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 41 x 41 x 81. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from roar
and side yard property lines and shall
be stored behind the appropriate set back
line in front yards. M
7. Solar heating systems.
3-3: Y;jRD
REQUIREMENTS:
[A)
PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning district.
[0)
110 lot, yard or other open apace shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open apace leas than the minimum required
by this ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open apace as existing is lose than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. its required open space provided around
any building or structure shall be included
as a part of any open space required for another
structure.
[c)
All aotback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 50 30 so
R-1 30 t0 30
R-2 3^ — 30
C
R-3 30 20 30
R.4 30 30 30
PZ -R See Chapter 10 for specific regulation:.
PZ.M See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
0-1 30 15 20
0-2 30 t0 20
(�%/@"�q��yj
V
f Inaddition, each condominium unit shall
l have the minimum lot area for the type
of housing unit and usable open space
as specified in the Area and Building
Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such
lot areae may be controlled by an individual
or joint ownership.
(Fj In residential districts, where the adjacent
structures exceed the minimum setbacks
established in Subsection (C1 above, the
minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet
plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference
between thirty (30) feet and the setback
or average setback of adjacent structures
within the same block.
3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum
area and building size requirements to
be provided in each zoning district as
listed in the table below.
DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
A-0 2scree 200 N/A
R-1 12,000 80 25
_ R-2 12,000 Bo 2y
R-3 10,000 80 2
R-4 48,000 200 1
PZ -R 12,000 Bo 2y
PZ -M 12,000 so 2
8-1 8,000 80 2
B-2 N/A 100 2
B-3 N/A 100 2
B-4 N/A N/A 2
1-1 20,000 100 2
1-2 30,000 100 2
1. The building height limitation in an
' R-3, PZ -M, B-1, 0-2, B-3, 0-4, I-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-3, PZ -M, B-1,
B-2, B-3, 0-4, I-1, and I-2, a (3)
three story building may be allowed
:5
a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of a requirement
that fire -extinguishing systems be
C installed throughout the building.
(Requ.itea a condi.ti.onat uae pe4mit
based upon paocedu4ea eel 6o4th in
and legut ted by Chaptet 22 o6 lhia
oadinance I .
A
C
[B] IAT AREA PER UNIT:
Single Family 12,000 square feet
Two -Family b.000 s..,:ere feet
Townhouse 5,000 square feet
Mobile Home 4,000 square feet
Mu��iple Family 10.000 square feet
fqvr�J=AL unit pi. -
2,000 sq. ft. for-:
each additional one
bedroom unit, plus
3.000 sq. ft. for
each additional twy
bedrpom_uni t -
Elderly Housing 1,000 square feet
(The tot anea pea uwtit nequiument boa
townhou6e6, condom.in,imum6 and planned
unit devetopmente ehatt be catcntated
on the ba4i6 ob the total area in the
poo j ect and a6 contutted by an indiv.iduat
and joint oanleaehip).
(C) UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areas in
which sever is not currently available
shall be designated as Utility Transition
Areas. The minimum lot area of any platted
lot in such areae shall be two and one-half (25)
acres. Any lot platted according to the
provisions of this subdivision, may be
replotted provided that public sanitary
sever will be made available and all conditions
and provisions of this Ordinance aro met.
[D] USEADLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family
dwelling site shall contain at least five
hundred (500) square feet of usaablo open
apace as defined in Chapter 2 of thim
Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained
thereon.
(E] EXCEPTIONS: The building height limits
established heroin for districts shall
not apply to the following:
1. Belfries
2. Chimneys or flues
3. Church spires
4. Cooling towers
5. Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space.
6. Elevator penthouses
7. Flag poles
B. Monument•
9. Parapet walls extending not more than
three (3) feet above the limiting
height of the building
10. Nater towers
11. Poles, towers and other structures for essential se
12. Necessary mechanical and electrical
appurtenances
13. Television and radio antennas not
exceeding twenty (20) foot above
roof.
14. Wind electrical generators
[F) No excluded roof equipment or structural
element extending beyond the limited height
of a building may occupy more than twenty-five (25)
percent of the area of such roof not to
exceed ten (10) feet unless otherwise noted.
[G) MINIMUM FLhOR AREA pER DWFLLF2iG UNIT:
1. ONE AND/ORTt�' M*`v-vire r.I.I r:rc AND
TOWNHOUSES: T49 minimum floor area
for such tvpo buildino= shy tre �s
Yellows"
(a) One Story Dwelling -.460 squaro-feot_
(b) Two Story Dwelling - 750 square foot per story.
(c) EXCEPTION: The mCmi utm aquake
600tage 06 a one etoau bu.i.Gding
mai be reduced to 864 aquaze
6evt i6 a gavage is added with
at teaat 336 squats beet. In
no ease, however, ahatt the minimum
dimenaion 06 that garage be W4
than 14 beet.
2. ULTIPLE DWELLING: UNI Except for
elderly housing. livino units c_ lase s^
as multiole dwal.lingg„aholl h_iLya jh_e
following minimum floor areas oqt
unit;
(a) Efficiency Unite 500 square foot
(b) Ono Bedroom Units 600 square foot
U, Two Bedroom Unite 720 omuare foot
(d) More Than Two Bedroom Unita -An additional 100
square foot for each
additional bedroom
3. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING:
C Living units classified as elderly
(senior citizen) housing units *hall
have the following minimum floor areae VDD
per unit:
(a) Efficiency Units 440 Square feet
(b) Ono Bedroom 52n 9nuare fent
(J) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per
one hundred twenty-five (125) feet
of @treat frontage. All property
shall be entitled to at least one ( 1 )
curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited
to ono (t) curb cut access par property.
L
(t)1 sjM AF CING: All areas intended to
be utilized fpr a�rki_n�_�e eco end
driveways @hq}„itipa eu�e wichmat:riala
suitable to control duet and drainage.
Except in the case of single, two
family and townhouse dwellings, parking
area design which requires backing
into the public street is prohibited.
(d)
No curb cut access shall be located
less than forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street
right-of-ways. This distance shall
be measured from the intersection
of lot lines.
(e)
Except in the case of single family,
two family and to•.nhouse dwellings,
parking areas and their aisles shall
be developed in compliance with the
followiry sandards:
WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO
TO INTERLOCK INTERMCK
A:YL2 MINIMUM MILTIMU:1 MINIMUM
30 46.6' 44.5' 40.3'
45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4'
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel Parking : Twenty-two (22) feet in length.
(f)
No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24)
feet in width.
()
Curb cut openings and Qriveways ahall
bg a[ a minimum three (3) feet from
the side vard oromorty line in residential
glatricts and five (5) foot from the
aide yard lot line in business or
industrial districts.
(h)
Driveway access curb openings on e
public street except for single, two
family and townhouse dwellings shall
not be located lose than forty (40)
feet from one another.
li)
The grade elevation of any parking
area shall not exceed five (5) percent.
(J) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per
one hundred twenty-five (125) feet
of @treat frontage. All property
shall be entitled to at least one ( 1 )
curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited
to ono (t) curb cut access par property.
L
(t)1 sjM AF CING: All areas intended to
be utilized fpr a�rki_n�_�e eco end
driveways @hq}„itipa eu�e wichmat:riala
suitable to control duet and drainage.
Except in the case of single family
and two family dwellings, driveways
and stalls shall be surfaced with
six (6) inch class five base and two (2)
inch bituminous topping or concrete
equivalent. Plans for surfacing and
drainage of driveways and stalls for
five (5) or more vehicles shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for
his review and the final drainage
plan shall be subject to his written
approval.
(1) STRIPING: Except for single, two
family and townhouses, all parking
stalls shall be marked with white
painted lines not lees than four (4)
inches wide.
(m) LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate
an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public right-of-ways
and be in compliance with Chapter J,
Section 2, [G) and [H] of this Ordinance.
(n) SIGNS: No sign shall be so located
as to restrict the sight lines and
orderly operation and traffic movement
within any parking lot.
() CURBING AND LANDSCAPMG : Except for
single, two family and townhouaas,
all open off-ntrant parking nh tt
have a perimeter curb barrier drouW
the entire narking lotacid curb
barrier shall not be closer than five (5)
[ggr,so aav tom_. i_ ie� Grana, olantinga
or apcJ;pslny-met_gr�e�,.pjiall, ba provide5l,
in•allarean bord-,4,9 the narkrking
fav
(p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-rcaidontial,
off-street parking areas of five (5)
or more spaces shall be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding
residential districts in compliance
with Chapter 1, Section 2 of thin
Ordinance.
- (j
9
PC
3. There shall be no off—street parking within
fifteen ( 15 )
feet of any street surface.
4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way
shall not be used for parking.
5. SETBACK AREA: Required accessory off-street
parking shall not be provided in front
yards, or in side yards in the case of
a corner lot, in R -I, R-2, R-3, P2, and B -I
districts.
6. In the case of single family, two family
and townhouse dwellings parking shall be
prohibited in any portion of the front
yard except designated driveways leading
directly into a garage or one (i) open,
surfaced space located an -,the aide of a
driveway, away from the principal use.
Said extra space shall be surfaced with
concrete or bituminous material.
USE OF REQUIRED AREA: Required accessory off-street
parking spaces in any district shall not be
utilized for open storage, sale or rental of
goods, storage of inoperable vehicles as regulated
by Chapter 3, Section 2 (M) of this Ordinance,
and/or storage of snow.
UUnBER OF SPACES REQUIRED: The following minimum
number of off-street parking spaces shall be
provided and maintained by ownership, easement
and/or lease for and during the life of the
respective uses hereinafter not forth.
.I - SINGLE FAMILY, TWO F MTI.v AND TOWNHOUSE
U)HITS: Two (2) spaces par unit.
2. BOARDING HOUSE, FRATERNITY HOUSE, SORORITY
HOUSE: At least two (2) parking spaces
for each three (3) persons for whom accommodations
are provided for *looping.
3. LtjLTIPLE FAMILY rRrLLI_-ICS_L At least two (2)
off-atreec mnr�+ao •ry�an mor snit w�
one (I enclosed soace oar two (2I units.
4. PUBLIC PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PLAY FIELD:
At least five (S) parking spaces for each
acro of park over one ( 1) acre; two (2)
parking spaces par acre for playgrounds,
and ton ( 10) spaces of each acre of play
flaid.
[DMI DWELLI IAC, MULTIPLE (APART=11.) : A build�q_d e�igned
with three (J) or more dwelling units exclusively, for
occupancy by three (J) or. more families living independently
of each other but sharing hallways and main entrances
end exits:
[ON) DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY: A detached dwelling unit designed
exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family.
[DO] DWELLING, T140 -FAMILY: A dwelling designed exclusively
for occupancy by two (2) families living independently
of each other.
1. DOUBLE BUNGALOW: A two-family dwelling with two (2)
units side by side.
2. DUPLEX: A two-family dwelling with one (1) unit above
the other.
(DP) DWELLING UNIT: A residential building or portion thereof
intended for occupancy by a family but not including
hotels, motels, nursing homes, seasonal cabins, boarding
or rooming houses, tourist homes or trailers.
(EA) ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING: A public agency owned,
controlled or financed multiple dwelling building with
open occupancy limited to persons over fifty-five (55).
[EB) EFFICIENCY APARTMENT: A dwelling unit consisting of
-one(1) principal room exclusive of bathroom, hallway,
cloaeta , or dining alcove, and has limited provisions
for cooking (kitchenette).
[EC) ESSENTIAL SERVICES: The erection, construction, alteration,
or maintenance of underground or overhead gas, electrical,
otoam, or water transmission or distribution systems,
collection, communication, supply or disposal systems
by public utilities, municipal or other governmental
agencies, but not including buildings.
(ED) EQUAL DEGREE OF ENCROACHMENT: A method of determining
the location of ancroachmant linea me that flooiwatars
flow. This is determined by considering the effect
of encroachment on the hydraulic efficiency of the flood
plain along both sides of a stream for a significant
roach.
(FA) FAMILY: One (1) or more parsons each related to the
other by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care,
or a group of not more than five (5) parsons not so
related maintaining a common household and using common
cooking and kitchen facilities.
C(FB) FAMILY OF ORIGIN - Mother, father, brother, sister,
son, daughter, grandmother, grandfather. '\
10-22-1 10-22-1
CHAPTER 22
ADMINISTRATION - AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
SECTION:
22-1: Procedure
22-2: Amendments - Initiation
22-3: Conditional Use Permit
22-1: PROCEDURE:
LA( Request for amendments or conditional use
permits, as provided within this Ordinance,
shall be filed with the Zoning Adminiotration
on an official application form. Such application
shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined
in Chapter 25. This fee shall not be refunded.
Such application shall also be accompanied
by detailed written and graphic materials
fully explaining the proposed change, development,
or use. Tiro Zoning Administrator shall refer
said application, along with all related information
to the City Planning Commission for consideration
and a report and recommendation to the City
Council.
(131 Tho Planning Commission shell consider the
request at Ito next regular meeting unless
the filing date fails within fifteen ( 151 days
of Raid mooting, in which case titre request
would be placed on the agenda and considered
at the rogular meeting following the next regular
meeting. Tho Zoning Administrator shell rofar
said application, along with all related information,
to Lilo City PLanning Commission for consideration
and a raport and recommendation to the City
Council.
(C( I'ho amendment or conditional use application
shall be referred to the City staff for a report
and recommendation to bo presenter) to tiro Commission.
A preliminary draft of the City ataff'o report
and racommondations shall be given to the City
Planning Commission at least throb (3) cbys-prior
to Lite meeting at which said report and recommendations
to the City staff is to be entered in and made
part of the pormanont written record of the
Planning Commission mooting.
C Tho Planning Commission shall consider possible-`
adverse effects of Lite proposed amendment a(.
conditional uno. Ito judgement shall be based
upon (but not limited to) the following factors,,
L
10-22-1 10-22-1
1. Relationship to municipal comprehensive
{ plan.
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
(E) The Planning Commission and City staff have
the authority to request additional information
from the applicant concerning operational factors
or to retain expert testimony with the consent
and at the expense of the applicant concerning
operational factors, cold information to be
declared necessary to establish performance
conditions in ralation to all pertinent sections
of this Ordinance.
(F) The City Staff shall set a 'date for a public hearing.
ltotice of nuch hearing sholl be published in
conformance with the State Law slid individual
notices, if it is a district change or conditional
tins permit request, ahnll be mailed not loss
then tan (10) days nor more than thirty (30)
days prior to the hearing to all owners of
property according to the Wright County assessment
records, within threo hundred fifty (350) feet
of the parcel included in the request.
IG) failure of a property owner to receive said
notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings
as sat forth vithill thin Ordinanca.
fill The planning Commisnion shall make a finding
of fact and recommend such actions or conditions
relating to the request an they doom naConnary
to carry out W o latent and purpose of the
Ordinance. Such racuasaandation shall be in
writing and accompanied by the report and recommendation
of the city staff.
Ill The city council shell not grant a conditional
ace permit until they have received a report
and rocommendntion from the Planning Commission
and the City staff or until oixty (60) dnyn
after the first regular Planning Commission
meeting at which the request wan considered.
C
f
(c) PLATTED AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY:
1.
Any person desiring to improve property
shall submit to the Building Inspector a
survey of said premises and information
on the location and dimensions of existing
and proposed buildings, location of easements
crossing the property, encroachments, and
other information which may be necessary
to insure conformance to City Ordinance.
2.
All buldings shall be so placed so that
they will not obstruct future streets which
may be constructed by the City in conformity
with existing streets and according to the
system and standards employed by the City.
3.
A lot of record existing upon Che effective
dote of this Ordlnanco in a Residential
District, which does not meet the requirements
of this Ordinance as to area or width may
be utilized for single family detached dwelling
purposes provided the measurements of such
area or width aro within seventy-five (75)
percent of the requirements of this Ordinance.
4.
Except in the case of planned unit development
as provided for in Chapter 20 of this Ordinance
not more than one (1) principal building
shall be located on a lot. The words "principal
_
building" shall be given their common, ordinary
meaning; in case of doubt or on any question
or interpretation the decision of the Building
Inspector shall be final, subject to the
right of appeal to the Planning Commiasion
and City Council.
5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2)
parallel streets), both street lines shall
be front lot linos of applying the yard
and parking regulations of this Ordinance.
[D) ACCESSORY BULDINCS, USES AND EQUIPMENT:
1. An accessory bulding shall be considered
an integral part of the principal bulding
if it is connected to the principal bulding
either directly or by an enclosed passageway.
2. No accessory buldings shall be erected or
located within any requlrad yard other than
the rear yard.
l
(S)
M I MPC Es
RDGl1LAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 2, 1990 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Mori Malone, Richard Martie, Cindy Lenin
Members Absent: Dan McConnon
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, 011ie Koropchak
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:31 p.m.
2. Election of Planning Commission Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
Motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Mori Malone to appoint
Dan McConnon as the 1990 Planning Commission Chairperson and to appoint
Cindy Iemn as the 1.990 Planning Commission vice Chairperson. Motion
carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent.
Motion was nude by Richard Carlson and seconded by Cindy Lain to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held November 7, 1989. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Motion was made by Cindy Lamm and seconded by Richard Martie to approve
? the minutes of the special meeting held November 13, 1989. Motion
carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent and Mori Malone abstaining.
5. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2
iSirv�le and two-family residential) zone. A variance request which would
allow two zero lot line duplexes. A variance request to allow two zero
lot line duplex resideetal lots to have less than the minim_un lot square
forme arvi lot frontage. Aplriicant, Tanners Custom Homes.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members the background to Lanner.s Custom Items' conditional use and
variance requests. The decision the Planning Commission members will
have to make is if they would consider this proposoi request to be for a
4-plex or for a duplex. Ihis decision would have to be determined prior
to making the formal motion. Mr. O'Neill explained the requirements for.
a 4-plex have been met or exceeded, and the applicant is requiring to
create two zero lot line duplexes, which on the outside look like a
4-plex; but by lot line division, there would he two separate properties
mvintairsai with this to create two zero lot line duplexes. The developer
has also met many of the minimum requests for zero lot line duplex with
the exception of the minimum lot square footage requireLl, 12,000 sq ft of
lamd area, where the dovelol-or has 10,890 sq ft of: land area; and also
the minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way. The minimum lot
frontage requirement is 80 feet of lot frontage, and the developer has
60 feet of lot frontage. The previous size of the minimum lots In the
C city of Monticello when they were platted were 66 ft X 165 ft in depth,
or 10,890 arl ft of land area. The minimum requireinants have been changod
where the minimum required lot: size in 80 foot of lot frontage by 150 ft
of lot depth for a total of 12,000 sq ft of land area.
i�
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/2/90
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for the input Cron
the public. Information brought out from the public, which consisted of
neighboring residents around the proposed zero lot line duplex site,
explained their concerns with the following:
The previous owners of the property indicated there would be two
single family houses built on these two lots and not a 4-plex.
Previous Council. action Indicated a screening fence to be constructed
Lo the rear of the Baptist Church property which has not been
installed as of tonight's meeting date; and if this is approved, it
should have additional six-foot high solid opaque screening fence
along the entire backline of. the property and up the cast and west
side lot line to meet the rear most portion of the existing Baptist
Church property and the rear most portion of the existing single
family house of Vera Raumer's.
c. 79re inpact of rental property owners with single family
residences predominantly in the area. ConyesLion of parking aril
at night goes off in the spring tenants f.rcxn this proposal 4-plex
will he parkhtg out into We street. There is already quite an
amount of congestion in the area; with the proposed 4-plex, there
would be even more congestion within this area. if the
construction of the proposed 4-plex anti more than likely the
possibility of an absentee ownership of this 4-plex with Lenan C9,
possibility of. Cour rental tenants being in this property, the
property values could be diminished with the presence of this
4-plex to be constructed.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing. Motion was
mide by Mori Malone and seconded by Richard Martie to deny the variance
request which would allow two zero lot line duplexes. Motion carried
unanhnously with Ban McConnon absent. Reason for denial. The proposed
zero lot line 4-plex is inconsistent- with the geographical area. we have
no zero lot line 4-ploxes within this community and in the event thin was
npprovcd would open up Cut: other areas of I1-2 zoning ocher such requests
of this kind to uccur.
3/
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
Consideration of ordering feasibility study for public iaprovements to
Sandberg East development. Applicant, Vic Hellman. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Vic Hellman has submitted a building permit application for construction
of a residence in the Sandberg East development. The Sandberg Fast
development consists of 1? one -acre lots which were allowed to be platted
in December of 1987. According to the Zoning Administrator for the OAA,
it was clear from the minutes of the OAA meetings that the intent was to
require that the lots be sold in increments of two lots which would allow
development of a home on one lot and a septic system on the vacant lot.
At such time that city services became available, it was the intent to
abandon the septic systems on the vacant lots and possibly sell those
lots off to help subsidize the cost of the septic system and water system
installation. Mr. Hellman purchased this land from John Sandberg with
the intent of following the game plan for development of his lots as
established by the OAA. Soon after this land was officially platted, it
was subsequently annexed to the city which placed it under a new set of
rules and regulations regarding development. Specifically, city
ordinance prohibits installation of private water systems or sewer
systems in the city except in such cases as the public water and sewer
system are not accessible to the premises. Ordinance requires that each
person desiring to install a private water or sewer system must first
make application for connection to a public system. Upon resolution of
the Council determining it is not feasible to connect the applicant's
premises to the public water or sewer system, then the applicant shall be
granted a permit to install a private water and/or sewer system. Thus,
Council is asked to consider ordering the study which would assist the
City in determining whether or not it is feasible to connect the 18 lots
to city services.
In addition to consideration of ordering the feasibility study, Council
is asked to define the scope of the feasibility study. This case is
somewhat complicated by the fact that the lard was platted prior to
annexation and in a manner that is not conducive to cost efficient
installation of city services, nor do the lots as designed integrate well
with the adjoining property to the west. The lots as now platted are
very long and narrow and were primarily platted under the concept that
the lots would all have private sewer systems. Fach lot frontage is
approximately 90 feet with a lot depth of 272 feet. This configuration
creates an inefficient use of land and, therefore, it may be an opportune
time to not only look at the feasibility of serving these lots as is but
also look at reconfiguring the plat in a manner that will gain a better
use of the land. Such a reconfiguration would require that the adjoining
property to the west now owned by Rod Norrel be included in the
analysis.
Rod Norrel has been included in recent discussions regarding the
potential for replatting the entire area using a concept plan that will
result in a better use of the land. initially, staff attempted to
encourage Mr. Norrel to work with Hellman in developing the land
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
jointly. Under this scenerio, Hellman and Norrel would work together to
establish a revised plat that would benefit both property owners.
Mr. Norrel has indicated that he is not interested ar, this time in
developing the property and is not willing to spend money on developing a
concept plan which would incorporate both his property and Hellman's
property. At the same time, however, he does not object to the City
developing a revised concept plan for residential development of the
area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
IA. Motion to order preparation of a feasibility report for public
utility construction addressing the Sandberg East subdivision as it
now exists.
�soD
The cost to prepare this alternative is estimated to be $YO. This
alternative will simply estimate the cost to run sewer and water
lines to the existing lots as they are now platted. Under this
alternative, the lot configuration would remain the same, and 18 lots
would be available for development in their present form.
1B. Motion to deny preparation of a feasibility study analyzing the cost
to extend utilities to the Sandberg East subdivision as it now
exists.
Council may wish to take the position that the lots as they now exist
should be replatted in order to gain a better and higher use of the
property; therefore, it may not make sense at this time to order a
feasibility study under the present lot configuration. On the other
hand, this matter can be simplified by simply accepting the lots as
they now exist and order the feasibility study despite the poor lot
configuration. Although the lot configuration is less than
desirable, it may be too difficult to coordinate and integrate the
development of Hellman and Norrel property.
2A. Motion to approve development of a feasibility report for public
utility and street construction dependent on a planning study which
would incorporate both the Norrel and Hellman property.
Under this scennerio, planners at OSM would develop a concept plan
which would incorporate both the Norrel and Hellman property in a
manner that would gain the highest and best use of the land for
residential purposes. In addition, the plan would provide for the
cost efficient installation of public utilities to the area. It
should also be noted that the development wishes or goals of the land
owners will be incorporated into this plan. The cost to prepare this
report, including the planning study, is estimated at $4,600. This
approach represents a proactive approach to planning for the proper
use of the area and may serve to give Council the information it
roods to determine the true feasibility of installation of public
improvements. It may be that under the original lot configuration,
it is not feasible from an oconomic standpoint to install public
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
utilities. However, with a reconfiguration of the lots, it may make
sense to install utilities in this area. In order to gain this
information for decision making, this study would need to be
completed.
2B. Motion to deny alternative 2A.
From a planning standpoint, it makes sense to complete a revised
concept plan for development of residential lots in this area.
However, it may become eorq:)licated and difficult to actually promote
the concept plan if the property owners are not willing or eager to
buy into the plan. ::t this time, it is impossible to tell how much
support the City will receive from Mr. Norrel with regard to
development of a plan for the area. Norrel has been careful to take
a neutral stand or a "wait and see" attitude regarding this
development and essentially has not been eager to spend money on the
concept. It could be that the City could complete the study and come
up with a wonderful plan for the area, but Mr. Norrel might not be
willing to cooperate which could result in a no-win situation for
everyone. Please note, however, that Norrel appears to recognize the
potential benefit to him as a property owner if the area is replatted
in a manner that would incorporate the Sandberg Fast development.
3A. Motion to approve development of both alternative Y1 and 12
feasibility studies.
Ultimately, Council may need the information contained in both of the
feasibility studies in order to decide which way to proceed. The
cost to prepare both feasibility studies is $6,100.
3B. Motion to deny preparation of either or both alternatives Al and ii2.
This alternative is not feasible, as the City is compelled by
ordinance to review the feasibility of installation of sewer and
water service upon application by the developer.
Feasibility Study Funding
At present, there does not appear to be a clear City policy on who should
pay for this type of feasibility study. It is suggested by staff that
Council consider paying the cost of this feasibility up front with the
costs then incorporated into future assessments. There appears to be
unique circumstances regarding this property which could justify City
contribution of 100 percent of the cost of the feasibility study up
front, those circumstances being that the property was platted prior to
annexation, and the City must now study the area after this fact. Under
normal circumstances, this property would have not been platted, and it
would not have been likely that this problem would have occurred without
the City annexation taking place. In a sense, the City created the need
T for the study through its action to annex the property. Therefore, a
41 case could be mado that the City should pay for the cost of the study.
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
C. STAFF ROCOMMERDATION:
Staff recommends that Council select alternative A3A. This alternative
will provide Council with the information it needs regarding the future
of the development of the area. Development of this area is at a
critical juncture. From staff's standpoint, it appears that an informed
decision regarding the future of this area can only be made through
preparation of both feasibility studies.
Related Hatter
Robert Krautbauer has been in contact with City staff regarding potential
development of his property which adjoins the Norrel property.
Krautbauer is interested in developing his lard and requests that the
Council consider funding a portion of the up -front costs associated with
the study of the feasibility to install public improvements on his
property in the area of the Hellman/Norrel development. As you will note
in the letter to the City submitted by 091, it will cost $2,200 to
conduct a feasibility study analyzing the cost to develop 20 lots on the
Krautbauer property in conjunction with the Hellrran/Norrel development.
Council is asked to indicate any interest in paying for a portion of the
up -front cost to conduct a feasibility study addressing the Krautbauer
land. Krautbauer noted that the City has recently indicated a
willingness to pay 25 percent of the cost to conduct the study of the
Highland Heights area, and the City has also provided up -front financing
of feasibility studies for costs associated with the K -Mart addition.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter to City from OSM regarding Hellmnn/Norrel/Krautbauer feasibility
report; Letter from 0.41 planning department regarding Norrel/Hellman
property schematic development plan; Map outlining development area;
Letter to Vic Hellman from City regarding city ordinance requirements.
Orr
Schelrn
om ZSNI A7ayeron&
ASSOCIdIC5, 111[.
A1,—apohs, Aly Hennepin21 EaSt enue
5J13
December 22, 1989 b12-331-ebeo
FAX 331-380b
Ens'n"M
Suney"M
Planners
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Norrel/Hellman Property -
Schematic Development Plan
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
At the request of Mr. John Badalich and Mr. Bret Weiss, 1 have prepared a
work proposal and probable estimate of cost for professional site design
and planning services in connection with the above referenced properties.
Mr. Weiss has provided me with a topographic map, section map, City base
maps, and a sketch plan for the proposed subdivision of properties lying
east of the subject property.
In response to the request and based on the above provided information
and internal our office discussions, 1 offer the following information
for your consideration.
1. The parcel of land includes Outlet A of Sandberg East. The site
area is approximately 42.18+ acres in area. The proposed site
planning area will extend from the centerline of County Highway 39
south to Northeast 95th Street and from the centerline of Gillard
Avenue east to the centerline of Section 18. The planning study
will accommodate the 18 lots in Blocks 1, 2, and 3 of Sandberg East
Addition.
2. The site is gently rolling with the predominant ground elevation of )1,4e6
950 occurring over the south 83% of the site.
3. The north 17% of the site includes slopes in the range of 9 to 25%.
4. The south 85% of the site is wooded, the size and species of the
trees are not known to me at this time.
5. The purpose of the development study will be to prepare a conceptual
lot layout consisting of the following:
- Approximately 16,000 square foot lot layout configuration.
Roadway patterns will provide continuity with existing and
proposed roadway alignments to the north, east, south, and west as
deemed appropriate.
6)
No public or private open space is contemplated in the proposed
development, however, it will be considered.
The adjoining property to the east envisions single family lots of
approximately 100' x 175'; these contrast in size with the plated
lots in Sandberg East Addition, which are generally 80' x 272'.
Our best professional judgement will be used in regards to the lot
size and configuration considering the contexts of the
neighborhood.
The topography and woodland will be considered in the various
schemes of proposed development.
We would estimate that work required to provide 2 or 3 alternative site
development schematics will consist of a more detailed review of the
topographic features. preparation of a base map, and the incorporation of
various access points from around the boundary of the site.
We will prepare 2 or 3 alternative lot layout configurations with the
idea of maximizing the number of lots within the context of the future
and existing neighborhood. These alternatives will be reviewed by John
Badalich and Bret Weiss.
With their comments and suggestions based on their "first-hand" knowledge
and familiarity with the City of Monticello, we will make necessary
revisions and provide the plans for their engineering analysis and use.
The estimated cost for the preparation of these planning materials is
estimated at $1,800. This will include the preparation of 2 to 3
alternative development lot configurations at a scale of 1" equal 100
feet, and a base map prepared from the County Section Map, and topography
as provided by Bret Weiss.
Meetings involving the review of these materials have been estimated
based on in -office meetings. Should the City require meetings in
Monticello, the cost will be billed on a hourly basis.
We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to working with the City.
Wa have conciderable experience in res! drtnti .l C�td1%-is!on and feel
confident we can meet your timeline achieve the intent'of the project and
assist the engineering analysis.
Kindest regards,
ORR-SCHELEN-NAYERON
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
M chael flair
MJG/cmw
12/89-80
On
sem,
clsx Mayeron
A55ociata,Uic
December 29, 1989
1021 Easuirnncpm Ave nuc
Minneapolis, Xi\ 55415
617-331.5660
Mr. Jeff O'Neill FAX3313806
Engineers
City of Monticello sur.ey„rs
250 E. Broadway Planners
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Hellman/Norrel/Krautbauer Feasibility Report
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
In response to your letter to Vic Hellman dated December 21, 1989, we have prepared
the following estimate of cost for preparation of feasibility reports for public
utility and street construction for the two alternatives stated in the
aforementioned letter. In addition to the Norrel .and Hellman properties, you have
requested via telephone for us to incli-de .20 lets from the pr --)posed F.rautta:cr
property concept plan. For this letter, Alternate 1 will consist of the Krautbauer
property and the existing 18 lot Sandberg East Subdivision (Hellman property).
Alternate 2 will consist of the Krautbauer property and the combined Norrel and
Hellman properties. The feasibility reports will contain information typical for
a public improvement project, including an estimate of cost and proposed assessment
of benefited parcels.
The estimate of test will include all interior streets, utilities and any trunk
improvements that may be required. The Alternate I feasibility report will be
completed in time for the January 22, 1990 Council Meeting as requested in your
letter. The feasibility report for Alternate 2 is dependent on the planning study
and can not be started until that report is finished, which means this report will
be completed by February 2, 1990. The report for Alternate 2 will include an
estimate of cost for all concepts outlined by our Planning Department for the
Norrel/Hellman parcel. Each of the reports will contain a breakdown of costs
between the Krautbauer and Norrel/Hellman parcels.
The cost for preparation of a Feasibility Report for Alternate 1 is estimated to be
53,500. The Krautbauer and Hellman portion of the fee is $2,000 and $1,500,
respectively.
The cost for preparation of a Feasibility Report for Alternate 2 is estimated at
55,000. The Krautbauer and Heilman/Norrei portion of the fee is ;2,200 ana S2,80u,
respectively. This report will be completed in conjunction with the concept plans
proposed by our Planning Department.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERO
8 ASSOCIATES, INC
Bret A. Weiss, EIT ohn P. Badalich, P.E.
Project Engineer Vice President
BAW/JPB/cnrei
12/89-
12/89 -BO 7
December 20, 1989
250 East Broadway
Ntonticello, MN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Mai.
lienneO \la"s
'
C", C-1
Mr. Vic Hellman
Dan Bl -igen
213 Mississippi Drive
F,an Fa„
Shir4r AriJenun
Monticello, M7 55362
Wr rTen Smuh
tim,",,,,o,,,,
Dear Mr. Helbnan:
Riel Rol(imlle,
n-.,am.tim-r,a,,.s
This is to inform you that at this time City staff may not
c1`d,y-, N ,e�N
legally issue a building permit for construction of homes on
N"I
lots located in the Sandberg East subdivision.
P.N. 1%,�.
John Simla
According to Monticello Ordinance, Chapter 7-2-3 W , "It shall
Ga,y An.L,:un
be unlawful for any person to install a private water system
or sewer system in the city except in such cases as the public
Gllir I�umlxhu4
011ie na"Pr&A
water and sewer system are not accessible to the premises
where such private systems are requested. To determine
whether or not such public water and/or serer systems are
available for connection, each person desiring to install a
private water or sewer system must first Hake application for
connection to a public system. Upon resolution of the Council
determining that it is not feasible to connect the applicant's
premises to the public water or sewer system, then the
applicant shall be granted a permit to install a private water
and/or sewer system."
The application for a building permit you have submitted,
along with your general interest in development of City
services, is construed by staff as your "application for City
services." Obviously, a feasibility study identifying costs
roust be completed prior to formalization of your request for
City services.
Following are general steps that must be conpleted prior to
identification of the final development plan Por the area.
C
G)
Mr. Vic Hellman
December 20, 1989
Page 2
1. City staff obtains cost estimates for development of feasibility
study, development plan for Norrel/Hellman property. Such a
feasibiltiy study would include two sets of analyses. One
analysis would include the cost to provide services to your lots
as they now exist. The other analysis would address the
potential of combining your property with the Norrel property in
a manner that will achieve the greatest development potential
for both properties.
2. At the January 8, 1990, Council meeting, Council will review
the feasibility study cost estimates and will be briefed on
this complex land development problem. After reviewing the
information, Council will act to define the scope of the
development plan/feasibility study and order it to be completed
by the subsequent Council meeting scheduled for January 22,
1990.
3. At the Council meeting of January 22, 1990, it is expected that
a decision regarding the design of the area development will be
made by Council. At this point you will have permission to
proceed with development of residential lots with private sewer
and water systems, or the process of installing public
improvements will be initiated.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call.
Yours truly,
CIITTYY OF
DONTICELLO
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
JOAd
cc: Tom Hayes, City Attornoy
Rod Norrel
Dean Hoglund
Robert Hrautbauer
Bret Weiss
Rick Wolfeteller, City Administrator
Gary Anderson, Building Official
John Simola, Public Works Director
Pile
r
tgl
lk-
to
J,.
Council Agenda - 1/8/89
8. Consideration of authorizing joint fire board to pursue alternatives for a
replacement tank truck. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may recall, as part of the 1990 budget review process, I had indicated
in a mann regarding the budget that the joint fire board had been discussing
the possible replacement of the present tank truck in the near future. Because
of the uncertainty over whether the department would be searching for a used
vehicle or requesting a new vehicle, no funds were designated in the capital
outlay revolving fund for 1990 for this purpose, but I believe the Council
indicated that this could be considered at a later date.
After the recent joint fire board meeting which was held prior to the adoption
of the 1990 budget, Monticello Township representatives apparently felt the
idea of replacing the old tank truck with a newer model was a good idea and
have apparently been actively searching for a used, reliable vehicle. The
joint board had discussed the various options and although they did not make a
recommendation, the general consensus was that if a good used vehicle was found
for the chassis, possibly a tank could be built or bought that would suit the
needs of the fire department.
The reason this item is on the agenda at this point is that I received a call
late Tuesday night indicating that the Township officials had approved the idea
of purchasing a used vehicle, specifically an '82 Ford chassis, that one of the
board m mMers had located. I have been unable to contact Fire Chief Jerry Wein
to find out if the fire department members were aware of this as he is out of
town this week, but was able to discuss the matter with Tom Liefert, who was
aware that the Township had been looking for a used vehicle chassis. It was
his understanding that the Township was planning to acquire a good used chassis
and then approach the city about fitting it with our appropriate tank. The
Department was not necessarily discouraging their efforts, but had concerns
that the proper type of tank be acquired.
In my previous discussions with Jerry Wein and Tom Liefert, a new truck with a
properly built stainless steel tank and fittings would probably cost $50,000 to
$60,000. By acquiring a good used chassis, but outfitting with a new stainless
steel tank with compartments and valves, the cost should be able to be reduced
to $25,000 to $30,000.
The used chassis located by the Township is an '82 Ford with a gas engine arca
automatic transmission, at a cost of $6,500, and appears to be suited for a
tanker vehicle. But I believe the Township would also like to reduce the cost
further by installing a steel tank from a fabricator that manufactures
primarily gas tanks.
Although the fire department members feel a new truck will be needed soon, it
appears the Township Board is circumventing the joint board and is now seeking
approval for a purchase that I am not sure the fire department as a whole is in
agreement with. It appears that a number of questions should be answered
first, including:
10
Council Agenda -1/8/90
1. Does the Council wish to consider alternatives for a replacement
truck such as a new vehicle versus a used one?
2. If authorization is granted to pursue this possibility, I believe the
joint fire board members should outline the specifications for the
type of equipment they are looking for, including whether the tank
should be stainless steel or regular steel tank with a plastic liner.
3. If considered, a cost range should be established for the department
to work within.
One of the problems with obtaining a used vehicle is that sometimes when an
appropriate one is available, action must be taken quickly to avoid losing the
purchase. Although I believe the Township representatives have prematurely
begun searching for a used vehicle, it might be well for the City Council to
inform the Township as to whether we are actually willing to consider this type
of purchase this year or plan for it in a future year. Naturally, one option
could be for the Township to purchase the replacwlnent tanker themselves, but I
am under the impression they still want the joint agreement to apply in that
the city of Monticello would be responsible for the majority of the cost as is
the case with other purchases. Even if the Township is willing to purchase a
used vehicle on their own, I believe the department should be careful to
require that the truck and tank meet certain specifications or we could be
inheriting a problem in the future.
r R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the joint faire board to prepAre plans and specifications for
the type of replacement tank or truck that would meet the department's
needs. Council could specify a used vehicle or plan for a new one.
2. Do not authorize the joint board to consider options at this time, until
the funds are budgeted for in a future year.
3. Inform the Township of. the City's desire to wait until a future year, but
allow the Township to buy a replacement truck on their own if they so
(k \
des Ito
Authorize the purchase of the used vehicle located by the Township ('82
✓ Ford chassis) and direct the joint fire board to obtain prices on an
appropriate tank for the use chassis.
C. STAFF RE0014EMNrIons:
As I indicated, 1 have been unable to contact Jerry Wein as he is out of town
this week, and George Leifert, joint fire department representative, had little
information about the Township's activities. Although I am sure the Township
has good intentions in trying to find a lower cost vehicle, 1 believe that the
joint fire board should first agree on whether a used versus now truck is
appropriate. Many items concerning the specifications such as whether it is a
steel tank with a liner versus a stainless steel tank, arra other oquifinent
should be addressed before a purchase is made. Naturally, the most important
iL
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
j_ fact is that the City Council has not specifically budgeted money for a truck
in 1990, although we would have sufficient reserve funds available in the
capital outlay fund if the Council wished to pursue this idea soon. In many
cases, a used vehicle may be appropriate for the limited amount of use the tank
truck endures, but except in the case of our equipment van, all vehicles for
the fire department have been new equipment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
C
12
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
9. Consideration of active participation in operation and development of
Pilot's Cove Airport. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jim Hallila, present owner of the Pilot's Cove Airport, requests that
Council consider providing him help with operation of the airport.
Specifically, he asks that the City pay for one-half of the cost of the
snowplowing, with the City of Big fake paying the other half. He also
requests that the City pay one-half of the electric bill or purchase a
pilot controlled receiver that can be connected to runway lights,
installation of which will help Hallila conserve electricity. The cost
of this receiver is between $350 to $1,000. Although it is not
specifically stated in his letter, Hallila requests that the City
actively pursue development of the airport as a municipal airport.
Hallila has indicated that he wants to work with the City and the State
of Minnesota to develop an airport facility that this area can be proud
of.
As you know, the City of Monticello has worked with the City of Big fake
in an attempt to develop an airport at this site or at a nearby site. It
was the goal of the City of Monticello and Big lake to combine its
resources with the substantial resources from the State to design and
develop an airport that would serve the immediate community. Efforts to
develop this airport fell apart sometime in 1987. Due to the apparent
opposition of adjacent landowners and because the City of Big fake was
experiencing financial difficulties, Big lake opted to drop out of the
joint study. As a result, the City of Monticello likewise decided not to
pursue the study on its own.
Some time ago (March 1989), Jim Hallila expressed an interest in working
cooperatively with the City to develop his airport further. Such
cooperation might have included sale of the facility to the City with
liallila retaining a portion of the business operation associated with
supporting aircraft services. The goal of Hallila and the IOC was to
utilize state resources combined with City resources to purchase
Hallila's property along with additional lard necessary to create an
airport that would meet state and federal specifications. Unfortunately,
the airport as it now exists does not meet state and federal
requirements, which means that a substantial amount of property must be
purchased or easements must be gained over lard in alignment with
runways. In addition, the proposed expansion of the airport would
require a rezoning of the area. In other words, there is no guarantee
that permission could be obtained to expand the airport even if property
owners agreed to sell or provide easement rights at reasonable prices.
Obviously, development of this airport is not a simple nutter and would
require a very significant investment of staff time and effort.
One year ago the Industrial Development Committee placed dovelopment of
the Pilot's Cove Airport or other airport high on their list of
i priorities. A few months later at the joint meeting of. the City Council,
IDC, and Planning Comnission, development of the airport received a very
13
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
len rating in terms of community priorities. Therefore, staff has not
actively pursued development of the Pilot's Cove Airport. Staff now asks
Council to consider this matter specifically and consider directing staff
to direct efforts toward development of the Pilot's Cove Airport as a
municipal/state funded airport facility.
NQ B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
l 1. Motion to approve payment of one-half of the cost to snowplow the
Pilot's Cove Airport and pay one-half of the electricity bill
[� associated with operating the runway lights, or purchase a pilot
controlled receiver in the amount of $350 to $1,000 and direct staff
to pursue development of the facility as a municipal airport.
Enclosed you will find a summary of a survey conducted by Bob Voecks
which was designed to determine the interest from the business
community in development of the airport. The results of the study
are attached. The individual surveys are available for your review.
As you can see by the results of the survey, 20 out of 23 businesses
contacted indicated that they feel that Monticello and the
surrounding area need a public upgraded airport. Please review the
survey for more information which details the general sentiment that
the City needs a public upgraded airport. In addition to the survey
attached, the Industrial Development Comnittee supports the concept
of developing the airport and recommends that Council direct staff to
work diligently toward development of a municipal airport.
From an economic development standpoint, an improved airport facility
would likely enhance Monticello's ability to attract and maintain
industrial development. It is very dif.firtilt, however, to determine
if the benefits equal or exceed the cost of such a development. The
information provided to the City at this point is not conclusive in
this regard. It would be good to know how many industrial prospects
we could attract if we had an upgraded airport in the area.
Unfortunately, this information is not available, and the true
benefits of an upgraded airport at this time can only be determined
subjectively.
There are state programs available which provide up to 88 percent of
the funding associated with airport development. While we believe
Mr. Nallila is more interested in developing a municipal airport with
upgraded facilities such as paved runways, etc., rather than a full
blown "regional airport," a significant amount of work needs to be
done to determine if this airport could even qualify under the
programs operated by the State of Minnesota. Pursuing the option of
development of a municipal airport would take a considerable amount
of time. Further study of this matter will require that staff
resources be pulled off of other projects. If the present facility
would not meet state and federal standards for upgrading, the
possibility exists that no state or federal funding would be
available, and the City of Monticello could be responsible for all
improvement costs.
14
EI
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
2. Motion to deny further expenditure of City resources toward
development of municipal airport.
Council may take the position that the Pilot's Cove Airport, though
an asset to the community, should not receive benefit of public
subsidy in order to maintain its operation. Council could determine
that the public purpose associated with assisting the operation of
the airport is not clearly defined and sufficiently demonstrated in a
manner that could justify expenditure of City funds.
C. STAFF RDOOIOUNDAT ION :
It may make sense to assist Mr. Hallila with snowplowing and his
electricity bill in order to maintain the airport as a public airport.
Hallila has indicated that he will subdivide his property in the event
that he does not receive some assistance in maintaining the airport for
all of the flying public. The expenditure associated with snowplowing
and the electric bill might be justified by the public purpose associated
with maintaining an airport available to all citizens. Further
development or consideration of development of the airport as a municipal
airport will be a long, arduous, and complex task which will require a
significant amount of staff time. Staff does not oppose and would
actually look forward to working on such a project; however, we are very
concerned that we will be unable to maintain our present level of
activity, and we will have to drop other projects. If airport
-' development becomes a top priority, then Council needs to inform staff
which projects and activities need to be reduced in priority. As a
separate alternative under this heading, it may be that the Council views
this as a high priority item, and the City could possibly investigate the
potential of finding a consultant to assist with the development and
expansion of the Pilot's Cove Airport utilizing state funding. This
alternative, though saving staff time, could result in some relatively
high expenses with no guarantee that an airport could ultimately be
established.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Jim Hallila regarding the airport operation; Results of the
airport survey.
15
December 3, 1999
To: Jeff O'Neil and all cit.,,7 council and industrial development
committee members.
From: James and Mary Hallila
Subject: Local Airport (Pilots Cove)
*■.i:.k-tM **.x*Ya************R******fi* *tit*********k **.WF k+Ir.A Y�*:. ** Y* ** *:. *.* .k
This letter is to advise you of my intentions and possible future of
the airport.
The development and future growth of Monticello is very
important to me. I think a municipal airport is a must for that
growth. 1 know that there are some of you who may disagree but
Bob Voecks and I have taken a survey from some of the local
businesses and there is definitely an interest from there
standpoint. Please find these enclosed.
The fact that there are so many acres of open flat land within
walking distance of the city make it an entity in itself. I'm sure
many communities would love to have that kind of room for
tuture growth and expansion!
11Ay position is this:
1 will work with you in any way that I can but I would prefer not
to go broxe waiting for you and the State to decide on all the
details that must be worked out in order to develop it. By this I
mean it is costing me money to sit on my investment and not
develop it in other ways that would pay off a little quicker for me.
I have had many inquiries into developing the airport as a private
airpark and I have talked to the county regarding zoning
ordinances. I don't think I would have a problem selling off building
lots along the west side of the runway for residential construction.
This is not my preference but I must survive!
I also have envisioned the entire northwest corner as an airport
industrial park. This would possibly get the city of Big Lakes
attention. The railroad spur is already there and I believe there
are State and Federal funds available for such a development. The
tars base for Big Lake would increase and Monticello would collect
SO
revenues from the airport.
The bottom line is this; if you wish to work with me toward a
public airport I must have your support and you must have mine.
I will agree not to develop the area into residential if you will
sagree to help pay some of the expenses it cost to keep it open to
the public! If by May or June of 1990 there is no interest from
you or the State I will no longer expect any help from you and I
will do what I can to recapture my investment.
What I would like from you, if you wish to help, is for you to pay
1/2 of the snowplowing. The city of Big Lake has agreed to pay the
other half. Also I would like you to pay 1/2 the eletricity bill or
purchase a Pilot controlled receiver that 1 can connect to the
runway lights in which case I will take care of the electricity bill.
The cost of this receiver is between $350 to $1000.
I hope you don't think I am forward asking for help, but to operate
the airport in a manner less than professional is reflected back on
both of the cities. 1 would like to display an acceptable image.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Owner of Pilots Cove Airport
James Hallila
19525 181 ave.
Big Lake, Mn. 55309
Home phone: 263-6721
During the day: 295-1350
8
�La
C'
AIRPORT SURVEY
Please take a few minutes to fill out this questionnaire and
return it as soon as possible in the enclosed envelope.
Do you feel that Monticello and the surrounding area needs a
public upgraded airport?
AD Yes 3 No
Where do you feel the airport should be located?
/'J Present Location
—L New Site
What airport improvement needs do you feel should be included
in an airport improvement plan? Please place a check before
selected responses.
,0 Hard Surfaced Runway
Runway Length to Accommodate Corporate Aircraft
C' Airport Lighting
10 Instrument Approaches
% Chartered Fliqht Service
Airport Terminal Building
75 Aviation Fuel Service
"D Flight Instruction
I� Aircraft Hangers/Hanger Rental
_ 5 Agricultural Crop Spraying Service
Other I'�']a �..�on:.,rc ';P;r .,. /�rC ,r, l.R $Lyrr GS ia:a, —q yam_
Do you feel that, availability to a public airport. it; an
influencing fatter in industrial development?
Yes 1) No
if yes, please comment
CDo you represent a business/industrial interest?
I Yes No
If a new hard surface runway were constructed, would your
business/ industry use the new airport?
Yes oL No
Additional comments
Optional Information:
Name
Company
�- Address St. P.O. Box
City State Zip Code
Telephone
34
M
Z
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
10. Consideration of increase in sewer rates. (J.S.)
A. REFERU CE AND BACKGROUND:
At the November 13, 1989, meeting City staff presented a revised 1990 budget
for the serer plant arca lab and collection system that reflected increased
operational cost. At that meeting the City Council approved a new contract
with PSG and the 1990 budget for the sewer fund was set at $413,645. This was
a 9.48 increase over the 1989 proposed budget.
The actual final estimates for 1989 indicate a shortfall in the fund of $5,337
with projected expenditures of $354,437 and expected revenues of $349,100.
Even though the operational costs for 1989 were less than those budgeted, the
revenue was less than estimated. When the 1987 rates were set, predictions
were for more BOD and total suspended solids loading to the plant than what we
actually received. Therefore, the unit prices for these units were out of lime
from actual usage.
For the 1990 sewer rates, using 1989 year end projections, surpluses from
previous years and projected special revenues, we need to raise $400,793 from
users for this year. Based upon past history, discussions with Sunny Fresh
about their proposed operations in 1990, and considering a slight increase in
sewer usage due to increase in water pressure, we estimated the billable flow
and loadings to the treatment plant for 1990. Using the formulas as outlined
by City ordinance, the following rate structure is necessary for 1990.
Flow $ 0.811 per hundred cubic feet
BOD $ 0.150 per pound
TSS $ 0.273 per pound
Combined rate for residential, commercial
and ind natriAl i,aars $ 1.515 per hundred cu. ft.
The costs for flow or clear water were up 0.76 over 1987 when we last changed
the sewer rates. BOD and total suspended solid rates were up 53-616 due to
restructuring and shortfalls in revenues. The overall combined sewer rate
increased 13.96 from the 1987 rate of $1.33 per hundred cu. ft.. The following
is a list of typical users from small to large and the effect of the rate
increase.
16
QUARTERLY
1989
1990
SEWER USE
COST
COST
QUARTERLY INCREASES
USER
CUBIC FT.
QUARTER
QUARTER
IN DOLLARS
C. E. Family of 1
800
13.99
14.55
$
0.56
R.W. Family of 3
1,400
21.97
23.64
$
1.67
D.H., Family of 5
3,200
45.91
50.91
$
5.00
S Med. Restaurant
14,600
197.53
223.62
$
26.09
C.K., Lg. Restaurant 73,800
984.89
1,120.50
$
135.61
S.F., L.g. Ind. user 939,171
$17,778.80
$23,650.12
$
5,871.32
16
C
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
As can be seen by the above table, the rate increase has the most significant
effect on Sunny Fresh simply because they are an extremely large user and
produce 448 of the BOD loading and almost 208 of the total suspended solids
loadiry4 received at the treatment plant. I have made all of our data available
to Sunny Fresh and have discussed the cost and rate increses with Doug Luthenan
and Greg PauLnan from Sunny Fresh. Although not happy with the increases, they
are satisfied that the cost and distribution of same are appropriate and
correct.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACHONS:
1. Approve the proposed sewer rate increase as outlined above. The minimum
billing fr. $10.00 for the first 500 cubic feet remains the same.
2. Not to approve the rate increase as proposed, but to adjust the rates
either up or down. It does not appear to be applicable to adjust the
rates lower, as we would not recover enough funds to support the
operation and maintenance, and with a 13.98 increase already, it may not
be applicable to increase rates until we have a year of operation under
increased water pressure to make a better determination of revenues.
C. STAFF RDOOMM NDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director to approve the newer
sewer rates as proposed in alternative @1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the revised 1990 budget. Copy of the sewer rate worksheet for 1990.
Copy of the sanitary sewer revenues versus expenses for O&M. Copy of the
capital outlay sheet for 1983-1989.
17
REVISED
SEWER FUN2D
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
1990 BUDGET
FUND 110. 71
REVENUE
1989
1990
71 36
300 0
382
3582
Interest Income
$ 525
$ 15n
71 36
300 0
385
4085
Lindberg -Rental House
4,800
4,800
71 36
300 0
391
4591
Inspection/Admin. Fees
1.,200
1,000
71 37
300 0
301
1601
Special Asmt. Including
325
275
Interest
71 37
300 0
304
1701
P 6 I Asmt-Direct 1
-0-
-0-
71 39
309 0
378
3076
User Fees
37n,000
5406,820
71 39
309 0
379
3075
Hookups
300
300
71 39
309 0
381
3078
Penalties for Late Pymt.
800
300
71 39
309 0
388
3583
Miscellaneous
-0-
-0-
TOTAL
REVENUE
$377,950
$413,645
1) The increase in user foes needed is $36,820.
2) Total increase in overall budget is $35,695.
3) This is a 9.44% increase. The actual rate increase is expected to be
in excess of 15% due to lass revenue generated by users in 1989 than
expected, which mai• carry through in 1990 without an adjustment to cover
the shortage.
C
t
REVISED
SEWER FUND
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
1990 BUDGET
FUND NO. 71
1989 1990
Personal Services
71 10
436 1
411
7611
Salaries, Regular
5 18,200
S 18,400
71 10
436 1
412
7612
Overtime, Regular
2,15n
7.,150
71 10
436 1
413
7613
Salaries, Tesmnorary
3,600
4,150
71 10
436 1
415
7615
PERA
900
925
71 10
436 1
417
7617
Medicare
50
75
71 10
436 1
418
7618
Insurance, medical 6 Life
1,R0n
2,750
71 10
436 1
419
7619
Social Security
1,550
1,575
28,2 0 30,02
Sup ilea
71
10
436 2
422
7622
Small Tools 6 Minor Equip.
$
100
$ 100
71
10
436 2
423
7623
General Operating Supplies
1,700
1,700
71
10
436 2
42.4
7624
Motor Fuels 6 Lubricants
500
500
71
10
436 2
425
7625
Clothing Supplies
250
250
71
10
436 2
426
7626
Mntce. of Equip. Supplies
1,000
1,000
71
10
436 2
427
7627
Mntce. of Vehicle Supplies
200
200
T-3-ITT15'
, , 50
1/
Other
Services and Charges
71
10
436 3
436
7636
Professional Services
$
4,000
S 4,000
71
10
436 3
437
7637
Comunication-Phone/Postage
100
250
71
10
436 3
438
7638
Travel -Conference-School a
200
200
71
10
436 3
441
7641
Insurance (non -personal)
1,575
1,975
71
10
436 3
442
7642
Utilities, Electrical
1,700
11500
71
10
436 3
444
7644
Maintenance of Equipment
3,000
3,000
71
10
436 3
446
7646
Maintenance of vehicles
300
300
71
10
436 3
448
7648
Dues, Memberships,
Subscriptions
-0-
-0-
71
10
436 3
455
7655
Miscellaneous
300
100
71
10
436 3
465
7665
Deprec.-Acquired Assets
u
5,600
166,7'
5,600
CapitalOutlay
71
IO
436 5
459
7659
imp. Other Than Bldgs.
5
2,500
$ 61000
71
10
436 5
460
7660
Furniture and Equipment
3,000
250
Other
Financing
Uses
71
10
436 7
464
7664
Deprec. Contrib. Assets
$
-0-
S -0-
TOTAL COLLECTIONS $ 54,275 $ 561950
$348,970
Other Financing Uses
71 10 431 7 464 7764 Deprec. Contrib. Assets S -0- $ -0-
TOTAL PLANT AND LAB $323,675 $356,695
010
1
REVISED
SEWER FUND
CONTRACT OPERATIONS
PLANT & LAB
J
1990 BUDGET
FUND NO. 71
1989
1990
Personal Services
71
10
437
1 411
7711
Salaries, Regular
$ 11000
S 11000
71
10
437
1 412
7712
Salaries, Overtime
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
1 413
7713
Salaries, Tesq:)orary
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
1 415
7715
PERA/Pension
50
50
71
10
437
1 417
7717
Medicare
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
1 418
7718
Insurance, Medical & Life
100
100
71
10
437
1 419
7719
Social Security
75
75
1,225
=,2
Sp l)ies
7
2 423
7723
General Operating Supplies
$ 6,000
S 6,000
71
10
437
2 424
7724
Motor Fuels/Lubricants
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
2 425
7725
Clothing Supplies
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
2 428
7728
Mntce. of Bldg. Supplies
500
500
$6,500
00
Other
Services and
Charges
71
10
437
3 436
77391
Professional Services -PSG
$285,000
$324,070
71
10
437
3 437
7737
Coimminicat ions
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
3 441
7741
Insurance (non -personal)
19,100
18,050
71
10
437
3 444
7744
Maintenance of Equipment
5,000
-0-
71
10
437
3 445
7745
Maint. of Building
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
3 447
7747
Rental of Equipment
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
3 453
7753
Taxes & Licenses
1,450
1,450
71
10
437
3 455
7755
Other
-0-
-0-
71
10
437
3 465
7765
Deprec.-Acquired Assets
5,400
5,400
$348,970
Other Financing Uses
71 10 431 7 464 7764 Deprec. Contrib. Assets S -0- $ -0-
TOTAL PLANT AND LAB $323,675 $356,695
010
1
SEWER RATE WORKSHEET 1990
I. 1990 Budget for Operation s Maintenance.
1. Collection System 56,950 13.88 Total
2. Plant 6 Lab 356,695 86.28 Total
413,645
3. Credits/Debits:
1990 Special Revenues $ 6,825
1989 Excess Revenue over
Operation & Maintenance (est.) $ 6,027
TOTAL CREDITS $12,852
4. User Fees Required for 1990:
413,645 06M Budget
- 12,852 Credits
400,793 User Fees Reg. for 1990
A. Collection System 13.88 of 400,793 - $ 55,309
B. Plant 6 Lab 86.28 of 400,793 - $345,484
II. Unit Costs
1. Flow - 1008 Col. Sys. Cost + 409 Plant 6 Lab '
Costs: 1009 of $ 55,309 = $ 55,309
40% of 345,484 - $138,194
TOTAL FLOW COSTS $193,503
Estimated Billable Flow for 1990 178.5 million gallons or
23,863,636 cubic ft.
Cost 193,503 divided by 238,636 .811 per 100 cubic ft.
2. BOD 309 Plant a Lab Costs
309 of $345,484 . $103,645
1990 Estimated Total Pounds of BOD a 680,000 lb.
$103,645 divided by 680,000 lb. _ $ 0.150
3. TSS . 308 Plant 6 Lab Costs
301 of $345,484 a $103,645
1990 Estimated Total Pounds of Suspended Solids a 380,000 lb.
$103,645 divided by 380,000 lb. m $ 0.273
III. Industrial Loadings Estimate 1990
Sunny Fresh 28.1 MG 300,000# 7700000
TOTAL 28 -.T -MC TO0,000 70,0001
Costs: 28.1 MG @ $ 0.811/100 cu ft e $ 30,467
300,000 lb. @ $ 0.150/pound . $ 45,000
{ 70,000 lb. @ $ 0.288/pound . $$ 19 1!.0
TOTAL 94,577
0
Sewer Rate Worksheet 1990
page 2
IV. Residential, ComTercial & Institutional Loadings Estimate for 1990
Flow: Total Billable Flow All Users 178.5 MG
Less Est. Industrial Flow 28.1 MG
- Res., Can., 6 Inst. Flow 150.4 MG
150.4 MG X .811/100 cu ft = $ 163,067
BOD: Total BOD = 680,000
Less Est. Ind. BOD = 300,000
- Res., Can., 6 Inst. BOD 380,000
380,000 lb. X $ 0.150 $ 57,000
TSS: Total TSS - 380,000
Less Est. Ind. TSS 70,000
= Res., Can., 6 Inst. TSS 310,000
310,000 lb. X $ 0.273 - $ 84,630
TOTAL RES., COM., 6 INST. COSTS: $ 304,637
RATE: $304,637 divided by 150.4 MG (Total Res., Com., b Inst. Flow)
or 201,070/100 cu ft - $ 1.515 per 100 cu ft
RATE COMPARISON
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Flow $0.680/100 cu ft. $0.641 $0.688 $0.688 $0.805
BOD .311/pound 0.072 0.095 0.095 0.093
TSS .183/pound 0.160 0.185 0.185 0.185
Combined 1.28/100 cu ft. 1.25 1.29 1.29 1.33
Rate Res.,
Com., 6 Ind.
1990 Change Chanqe over 1983
Flow 0.811 Up 0.76 Up 19.36
BOD 0.150 Up 61.39 Up 12.86
TSS 0.273 Up 47.68 Up 49.28
Canbined 1.515 Up 13.99 Up 18.09
C
a
S:WITMY S7]i!A
0]ILtt.T10N SYM'M, PLANT , IAB
RWM. y5. O DCIS PVR 0 4 N
'�-
Iluca not imludo dept9clatim,
but tatf- i -hs. full Coes of vi.l outlay)
E.
1987 1984 1985 1986
1987
1988
1909
R9tigan�
U- Pm 230,102 271,502 261,665 306,879
341,497
363,520
745,00015)
11-1 ti -682 "1 781 929
290
600"0
Rmt 3,735 1.105 4,200 4,350
41800
4,800
7,300
iLf.de 0-0-
234,899 ,��,i 734; Vii€ S.3R 11
}#T, m
.crw
349,00
So3ar lag 113,815 136,876 113,967 94.808
21,895
29,763
29,475
Tql, 6Lp, Gia t Oit 25,28b 70,22b 7],657 70.177
7,719
12,]09
II,500 t6y
U[Ili[i M 59.38R SR,517 61,159 40,378
I,N9
1,173
Ir700
R t N 31620 41229 10,964 9,176
9,171{2)
29,92713}
15,314(7)
Prof. Pica 31067 31515 7,397 108,078
277,764
284,730141
272.772(0)
C.O. 6 CA. 15,437 12,346 5,449 3,576
41993
-0-
4,426
Prtp. Te.a 0 -0- 1,260 3,326
1,745
1,680
1,15o
Im. -0- -0- -0- 16,471
15,766
IB, 004
17,500
Nise, T -I 6 Calf. 1,146 T4110009 597 2 501
3 360
1,708
80019)
27T,5Z7 Zt6.]"�$°'€A",Cli
537.417
fo-) laa»r 12,532 (10,395) (1,795) 18,063
31241
(11,082)
(5,33])
Rumlrq dlenw 12,532 71177 342 19.205
22,446
11,164
6,027
I0=.1
Iil 14rfunl R 6 N urea I' PVC tot 1986.
`
171 Irrr:lufea 68.511 owr11a1 R t N P. for 1907, bald In Cbc. 1988.
jl 137 ' B7S, 274 R t PM lot 1900.
t: -t" t
♦� 141 Irrivlal 87,205 mtleeted ca7trnn rl3ustamt far 1986, 1987, 6 1988
due to Irs-rr.,4an in 10.d irgs to W P,
751 Gsoa rat 1-1 , sit, 000 dq-lat IM, toaenu adjust. by tet{ mount
d,ro 10 -1-1 - by Barmy mesa,
(6) Jn I,dW 01,710 fm hold It-.
773 inc),dee 612,014 4mt[Mta3 -im 0 t M wrp 1989.
101 Ia:1,t10a 0973 MO Inadi rq 701. a,d 01.749 VI all Nt.
791 tnclaloe 6500 f iO3d .-ICmald nam.
D.- 17a , 29, 1989
8m Cnptta3 Out my lint and arnai I{ronclaY
rqurta for adill lomi Int atnaUm.
w�rld,mt 1aljCrmm.rclal IM.ro1 late
1983 - 6{.28/744 N ft
1981 - 01.29/100 N !4.
1985 - 01.79/!00 N I[
3986 - 81.79/100 N tt
1907 01.1)/100 N 11.
1900 - 8t. 71/700 N ft
1909 - 81.33/100 N !t
0
CAPITAL OUTLAY, CONTRIBUTED AND ACQUIRED,
IN SEWER FUND
FOR 0 6 M OF COLLECTION SYSTEM AND PLANT AND LAB
1983
1978 GPC Pickup, Iten, (WWTP)-
$ 3,506
15009 Skarnes Hyd. Crane (WWTP) •
1,422
Pressure Washer, Non -Grant Fund (WWTP) •
2,909
Lift Station Ladder, R. Knutson, Reservoir (Col. System)
1,800
&erg. Pumps Hookup, Chestnut Lift (Col. System)
1,803
Electronic Air Purifier (WWTP)
437
Mobile Radio Conv. (Motorola) Sludge Truck (WWTP)
406
Computer Programs (WWTP)
1,422
Gate Operator, Auto Garage Door (WWTP)
1,732
515,437
1984
Oscilloscope (WWTP)
$ 1,102
Neotronics Tri Gas Meter (WWTP)
1,501
Air Compressor, Sullair (WWTP)
7,543
Air Dryer, Compressed Air (WWTP)
2,200
12,34
1985
Portable Flow Meter (Col. System)
$ 2,212
Portable Electric Meter (WWTP)
627
Aux. Electric Heater (WWTP)
771
Root Spray Attach. Jet (Col. System)
1,250
Welder Air Vacuum Fed. Surp. Prop. (WWTP)
83
Safety Storage Cabinet (WWTP)
506
5,449
1986
Blower Control for Aeration (WWTP)
$ 2,616
Harley Davidson Cart (WWTP)
960
3,57
1987
LiFt Station Alarm System Bridge Park (Col. System)
$ 1,083
Pump Lift Crane (Col. System)
2,160
Man Lift Hoist & Fall Restraint $2,333.10
758 City, 256 PSC
1 750
5 4 993
1988
None
1989 (Est.)
'Lt Station Safety Equipment, DBI cable $352,
PSI Det. $1,741 (Col. System)
$ 2,093
Relocate Lift Station Alarms to Reservoir (Col. System)
700
Scale and D.O. meter, used, PSG (WWTP)
1 633
9�
Date: December 29, 1989
Note: Previous purchase costs, assigned in 1983,
to remove depreciation contributed assets
from 0 6 M Budget
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
11. Consideration of approval of plans and specs for booster purtp refurbishment or
replacement at the water reservoir at Chelsea Rd. and the authorization to
advertise for bids. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As previously stated, the capacity of the booster pumps at the reservoir at
Chelsea Rd. has been reduced and will be further reduced upon filling of the
new water tank to its maximum operating level in early summer. It is therefore
necessary to refurbish and replace the booster pumps so that they will again
have a combined pumping capacity of approximately 2,100 gallons per minute.
The specifications as drafted by OSM call for the replacement of all 4 existing
30 H.P. motors with high efficiency 40 H.P. units. The contractor will have the
option of refurbishing and adding to the existing pimp bowls or replacement of
same. Also included is the replacement of the existing starters and wiring, if
necessary, to coincide with the higher horsepower pimps. The engineer's
estimate for the construction costs of this portion of the project is $42,000,
whis is $9,000 higher than the last figure given the Council , due to the need
to now modify all 4 pimps and motors rather than only 2, as was proposed
earlier.
Originally included in this project was the installation of the 4
electronically controlled check valves. As you may recall, staff requested
that these valves be purchased and installed separately by city staff and local
,i electrical contractors to save money and provide uninterrupted use of the
'd reservoir during this project. The total cost for the valves and installation
is as follows;
4 check valves / Northwestern Purer Equipment S 9,764.00
Cherk valve inRtallAtlnn by City
Conduit and wiring / Little Mt. Electric S 466.84
Wire termination b startup / Automatic systems less than 1,600.00
Total estimated cost $ 11,830.84
The check valve installation and startup is expected to be complete by the
second week of January.
If approved by City Council, the proposed bid opening for the booster pump
project is scheduled for February 2 at 11 a.m., with award by City Council on
February 12th. Estimated :ompletion date for the reservoir booster pump
project is May 11, 1990. Due to the volume of material provided in the plans
and specifications, it is not included with your agenda packet. There are
copies available at City Hall for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACiONS:
1. Approve the plans and specifications as presented and authorize
advertisement for bids returnable on February 2, 1990.
2. Modify or change the plans or specifications as deemed necessary by the
` City Council, and then authorize advertisement for bids.
3. Not to advertise for bids for this project. This does not appear to be
applicable as the capacity of the reservoir is reduced to an unacceptable
level.
18
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENIDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Water Superintendant
that the Coundil approve the plans and specifications and authorize
advertisement for bids as outlined in alternative R.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the plans and specifications available at City Hall.
19
C
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
12. Consideration of approving 1990 contract for police protection with
Wright County Sheriff. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County Sheriff's Department has provided a new law enforcement
contract covering services for the year 1990 at a total estimated
contract fee of $150,080.50. This contract would be for a total of
7,321 hours of patrol coverage annually, which again includes an
estimated 416 hours that will be used by the Sheriff's Department for
providing additional patrolmen for Friday and Saturday evenings for
continued enforcement of the cruising and loitering activities.
As part of the 1990 budget, $150,100 was included for police protection
in anticipation of the hourly fee being increased to $20.50 as proposed.
The new contract has been rewritten to include a provision which states
that the County will hold harmless and defend the City from any and all
claims arising from acts or omissions committed by the County and/or
Sheriff's Department's deputies, previously, the contracts were vague in
this area, and this clarification acknowledges the fact that the
employees are not City employees but actually County responsibility for
their actions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the contract certifying the number of hours of coverage at a
maxinwn of 7,321 at a rate of $20.50 per hour. - '%
2. Do not execute a renowed contract. This alternative does not seem
feasible unless the Council is considering starting its own police
department imnediately.
C. STAFF REMMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the contract be ratified as proposed, including the
additional 416 hours to be used on Friday and Saturday evenings.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed contract.
20
LAM ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT
TH15 AG=REEMENT, made and entered into thin day of
I
-1 by and between the County of Wright and the Wright County Sherili
hereinafter referred to as -County- and the CITY OF MONTICELLO
nereinaf ter referred to as the 'Municipality'=
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the municipality in desirous of entering into a contract with
the County for trio performance of the hereinafter described law entorcemout
protection with the corporate limits of said municipality through the
County Sheritt, and
WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rendering such services, and
protection on the terms and conditions hereinafter net forth= and
WHEREAS, such contracts are authorized and provided for by the pro-
vision of Minn. Stat. 1957, Sec. 471.99 and Laws 1959, Chap. 372, and Minn.
at. Ann. 1961, Sec. 436.051
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid statutes, it is
agreed an followai
1. That the County by way of the Sheriff agrees to provide police
protection within the corporate limits of the municipality to the extent
and in manner as hereinafter set forth:
a. Except as otherviao hereinafter specifically not forth, such
services shall encompass only duties and functions of the type coming
within the ,jurisdiction of the Wright County Sheriff pursuant to
Minneoota Lava and Statutes.
b. Except on otherwise hereinafter provided for, as a standard
level of service provided shall be the name basic level of service
Which is provided for the unincorporated areas of the County of
Wright. State of Minnesota.
C. The rendition of services, the standard of performance, the
discipline of the officers, and other matters incident to the perform -
once of such services and control of personnel so employed shall
remain in and under the control of the Sheriff.
0
d. Such services shall include the enforcement of Minnesota State
Statutes and Lave and the municipal ordinances which are of the Game
type and nature of Minnesota State Statutes and Lava enforced by the
Sheriff within the unincorporated territory of eaid County.
2. That it in agreed that the Sheriff shall have full cooperation ano
assistance from the municipality, its officers, agents and employees, so as
to facilitate the performance of this agreement.
3. That the County shall furnish and supply all neceseary labor,
supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dispatching, coot of
Jail detention, and all supplies necessary to maintain the level of service
to be rendered herein.
4.- The municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of any
salaries, wages, or other compensation to any personnel performing services
herein for said County.
9. The municipality shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity
to any of the Sheriff's employees for Injuries or sickness arising out of
ite employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless the munic-
ipality against any ouch claims.
6. The County, Sheriff, his officers, and employees shall not be
deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negligent acts of ertd
municipality or any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
7. This agreement shall be effective from January 1. 1990
to Dncembor 31. 1990
a. The municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the sum of
$150.080.50 for law enforcement protection for SEE APPENDIX A
hours per day/woes of daily patrol aervice and 24 hours call and general
services from said Sheriff's office during said term of this agreement.
9. If the annual salaries of the Deputy Sheriffs are increased at any
.mo during the term herein stated, thio contract shall not be increaced.
1U. The municipality shall have the option of renewing this agreemart
zor an additional successive twelve-month period. To exercise this option,
l .,e municipality shall notify the County Administrator not later than sixty
days prior to the expiration date of this agreement.
11. it is understood and agreed that the offenses for which arrests
are made pursuant to State Statutes the County shall stand all costs of the
courts and its, prosecution. When arrests are made under municipal
ordinances of the municipality, the municipal attorney shall prosecute such
case. Any and all fines collected shall be paid to the Wright County
Treasurer's office.
12. WHEREAS, legislation has been enacted affective July 1, 1973,
making it mandatory that the County Court remit to all municipalities
within the acid County, one half of all Sines levied and collected from
trasfic violation arrests made in said municipality. And,
WHEREAS, it is understood that the contract leas are based upon
the County receiving the entire amount of all fines.
It in understood that the Municipality shall return to the Wright
County Sherizl all zine monies received from the County. Said Municipality
shall remit by cnack no later than thirty t30) days from when said fine
monies are received by said Municipality.
13. For the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local control and
general inzormation an existing complaints and problems in said Municipal-
ity, one member oz the municipal council, the Mayor, or other person or
peroons, shall be appointed by said council to act as police commissioner/a
for said municipality, and shall make periodic contacts with and attend
meetings with the Sheritl or his office in relation to the contract herein.
14. The County shall Gave, hold harmless and defend the City from any
Cand all claims arising from the act. or dmiddione, including intentional
7
0/-1-
acts and negligence, committed by employees or agents of the County or
Sheriff vhile in the performance of duties in furtherance of this contract.
IN WITH6SS WHEREOF the Municipality, by resolution duly adopted by
its governing body, caused this agreement to be signed by its mayor and
attested by Its clerk, and the County of Wright, by the County Board of
Commissioners, has caused these presents to be subscribed by the Wright
County Sheriff and the Chairman of said board and the seal of said board to
be affixed thereto and atteetad by the clerk of said board, all on the day
and year first above written.
ATTESTS
Clerk
Mayor
BOARD OF WRIGHT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BYs
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Clerk, Board of County Commissioners
vrignt county 5nertil
4 CA -10
APPMMTX A
1990 Hourly Bate — 120.50
Annual Contract Fee — 1150,080.50
Services provided by Wright County Sheriff:
a) 16 hours per day, four days per week (3.328 total hours).
b) 19 hours per day. three days per week, two of which shall
be Friday and Saturday (2,964 total hours).
c) 613 hours ansigned at discretion of scheduling authority.
d)Additional 8 hours per day. Friday and Saturday, not to
exceed 416 total hours. assigned at discretion of
scheduling authority.
I
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
13. Consideration of sakinq annual appointments.(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of the new year certain
appointments be made. Past practice has been to pass a single motion adopting
all appointments at the end of the discussion. Attached you will find a list
of the required appointments, and I request that after the cortletion of the
discussion, a single motion be passed nuking the appointments.
a. City depositories. During the past year, three official depositories
were named, including Wright County State Bank, Security Financial
Savings s Loan, and First National Bank of Monticello. In addition,
under Minnesota Statutes 239, the Chief Financial Officer has also
been designated the authority to name other official depositories for
the purpose of investments. Since financial institutions not within
the city are depositories for investment purposes only, the official
depositories are usually just the three mentioned above and the
motion includes the authorization for the Chief Financial Officer to
designate other depositories when necessary for inves trnent purposes
only.
b. Official Newspaper. Monticello Times.
c. Health Officer. Historically, Dr. Maus has served as the City Health
Officer, and it is suggested that this appointment simply be renewed
annually.
d. Acting Mayor. Annually, one person on the Council must be stipulated
to act as Mayor in the absence of the elected Mayor. For the past
few year, Fran Fair has been filling this role.
e. Representatives to Other Multi—Jurisdictional Bodies. Three
appointments are necessary for selecting the City representative to
serve on each of the following bodies: Comnunity Education, Advisory
Board, Joint Fire Board, and the OAA Board. Currently, Warren Smith
has served on the Community Education Board, Rick Wolfsteller on the
Fire Board, and the Mayor on the OAA Board.
f. Housinq and Redevelopment Authority. Annually, one appointntnt is
required for the (lousing and Redevelopment Authority. The current 5
year term that is expiring has been filled by Bud Schrupp, who has
agreed to continue in this capacity and has been approved by the HRA
committee in general. The balance of the members do not expire until
the end of 1990 or 1991. The IiRA appointor nts are made by the mayor,
with form-kl radification by the City Council.
g. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is made up of 5 manbers
serving one year. appointments. For the year 1990, all current
members have been asked to respond whether they are willing to accept
Z reappointment for another year, and 1 believe all of the current
mrmbaers have indicated a willingness to continue serving in this
capacity. Present Chairman, Richard Carlson, has indicated a desire
to step down from the Chairmanship, which will be assumed by Mr. Dan
McConnon.
21
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
h. Library Board. The Library Board, by ordinance, requires a mayoral
appointment with Council radification. Currently, one term has
expired this year, that being held by Marguerite Pringle. This
position has actually been vacant for a number of months, as
Marguerite has moved out of state and the Library Board has not
appointed an individual to fill out the term.
The Library Board has not yet nude a recommendation for filling this
vacancy, but is now in the process of advertising for applicants. As
a result, no action will be necessary by the Council at this meeting
until recommendations can be nude by the Library Board concerning a
new appointment for the vacant board position.
The following appointments are not required to be made annually by statute, but
each of them performs services on an as needed basis for the City. In the
past, the Council has made a practice of nuking these appointments along with
the required appointments at the annual meeting.
1. City Attorney. Mr. Ton Hayes has been filling this position for the
past 2-1/2 years and has indicated a willingness to continue in this
position.
2. Consultinq Planner. Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban has been the City's
firm for a number of years and while it is not necessary to make a
formal appointment, such appointments can be made at such time to
continue this arrangement on an as needed basis.
3. City Auditor. This is also not required to be an annual appointment
but can be done on an as needed basis or by specifications and
bidding process. Historically, Gruys Johnson 6 Associates has been
the City's auditor and, as a result, they have become very familiar
with the City's accounting practices and I do not have any problem in
reappointing them to this position.
4. Consultinq Engineer. Over the past few years, the Council has not
nude the annual appointment for Consulting En3ineer within the
context of this agenda Sten, but rather has analyzed and evaluated
the contract services provided by OSM as a separate item. As the
staff did in 1989, we will be meeting with Mr. John Bodalich and
Mr. Dan Kling of OSM to discuss the proposed fee schedules for next
year and our overall relationship with their firm. it is assu:!d
that their engineering services will continue to be utilized on an as
needed basis and, as I am sure the Council is aware, appointment of
additional engineering firms to work for the City can be made at any
time the Council desires.
The attached sheet as supporting data lists all of the members of the various
commissions and the appropriate appointments, both required and discretionary,
for this year's meeting. The underlined names are the ones nodding appointment
this year, but in the library board's case, no individual has been listed until
a recommendation is made by the board, which the Council can consider at a
1 later date.
1 22
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
ANNUAL APPOINIMEKrS
Official Depositories: Wright County State Bank
Security Financial Savings 6 Loan
First National Bank of Monticello
Newspaper: Monticello Times
Housing and Redevelopment Authority: 1. Tan St. Hilaire 12/91
(5 -year staggered terms) 2. Ben Smith 12/90
Planning Commission:
Health Officer:
(1 year)
Acting Mayor
(1 year)
Joint Commissions:
Comm:nity Education
Fire Board
OAA
Library Board:
(3 -year staggered)
Attorney:
Planner:
Auditor:
Recycling Committee:
C
3.
Bud Schrupp 12/94
4.
Al Larson 12/93
5.
Everette Ellison 12/92
1.
Richard Carlson
2.
Mori Malone
3.
Cindy Lem
4.
Richard Martie
5.
Dan McConnon
Dr. Donald Maus
23
Fran Fair
Warren Smith
Rick Wolfsteller
Ken Maus
1. Ed Solberg 12/90
2. Dr. Donald Maus 12/91
3. Mary Jane Puncochar 12/90
4. Pat Schwarz 12/91
12/92
Smith & Hayes
Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban
Gruys, Johnson 6 Associates
Dan Bloniqen
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
14. Consideration of Maintenance Agreement with Wright County for County State Aid
Highways in Monticello. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For many years now the city of Monticello has each year entered into an
agreement with Wright County to maintain certain County State Aid Highways in
Monticello. In the past years our amount of maintenance under the contract has
been reduced to the following:
CSAH 39 - From the Public Works Building to CSAH 75 (Broadway) -
25B of snow and ice removal.
CSAH 58 - Walnut and 7th Street from CSAH 75 to Highway 25
All routine maintenance.
CSAH 59 -Locust and 4th Streets, from CSAH 75 to Highway 25
All routine maintenance.
CSAH 75 -Fran Willow Street on the west to County Road 118 on the east -
Ice and snow removal only.
The County reimburses us each December an amount based upon the types of
maintenance we do and the number of road miles calculatcil at the County's
actual cost per mile for the previous year. We, therefore, receive a check in
December of 1989 for the work performed in 1989, but based on county costs in
1988.
We generally receive approximately $4,000 for the above maintenance. Our
December '89 check was for $5,420.25, which was unusually high and probably
will not reoccur. The County reimburses us for all types of maintenance that
we do, with the exception of snow removal by hauling.
A copy of the proposed 1990 Maintenance Agreement is enclosed for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Maintenance Agreement as presented.
2. Release the maintenance back to Wright County for all or a portion of the
above referenced streets. This alternative may not be feasible, as the
level of service, in my opinion, would drop.
3. Request a higher dollar amount per mile than is currently being offered
by the County. This alternative, I believe, would not be successful, as
the County establishes their costs and uses those costs to administer
contracts with various townships and municipalities throughout the
County.
24
i�
7
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you approve the 1990
Maintenance Agreement as outline in Alternative }1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Dec. 12, 1989 letter from County. Copy of Maintenance Agreement. Copy
Of map of maintenance areas.
]9
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. 1 •Box 97-8
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Jc f. T. H. 25 and C. R. 138
Telephone (612) 682-3900
December 12, 1989
Kenneth Maus. Mayor
City of Monticello
1230 Y. River St.
Monticello, MN 55313
RE: 1990 Maintenance Agreement
Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilpersons:
It is once again time to renew our annual municipal maintenance
agreement for the maintenance activities and the roads listed on the
eaclosed agreement.
WAYNE A. FINGALSON, P.E.
COUNT' HIGHWAY ENGINEER
You may remember that the costs used in computing the raimbursamont
for the maintenance agreements is the highest average annual cost per mile
for either the rural or municipal roadway segments in the previous year.
Thisis consistent with state -aid procedures. In most cases maintenance
activities are more costly in municipal areae therefore these aro the
routine maintenance costs that are used in computing the cost per mile for
reimbursement. To give you an idea of the cost for each maintenance
activity we have shown the 1988 average cost per mile for each activity in
the 1990 maiatenaace agreement.
I nave enclosed two copies of the 1990 agreement for your review and
approval. Please return one copy of the signed agreement and retain the
other copy for your files.
Lastly, I have enclosed a check reimbursing your city for the
maintenance activities covered under our 1989 agreement.
If you have any questions concerning this please don't hesitate to
contact our office.
Sincoraly,
Wayne A. Pingalson
V[ight County Highway Engineer
by, Davo Montebello
Projact Engineer
Enclosure: (2) 1990 Municipal Maintenance Agraamants
(1) Check for 1989 Maintenance York
0
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT endo sad entered into by and betwena the City of Moo ticel to
he to lnaft., referred to as the -City' and the County of Wright hersimftar cofercod
to as the 'County'.
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate certain rands
and street$ within the City as County Stste Aid Htghweys, God
WHEREAS, the City has concurredto the designation of the County State Aid Highway
within Its limits as Identified I County (bard's resolutions of August 28, October 8,
November 5, December 3, Decmbor 27, 1957 and January 7, 1958, and
WHEREAS, It Is dammed to the best Interest of all parties that the duttes and
res possibilities of both the City and the County as to maintenance on Gold County State
Aid Highways to be clearly defined,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway maintenance:
That the City will be ceapomlble for routine maintenance an the following highways.
MA I NT.
PLAN ROAD SEGMENT MILES COST MI.• TOTAL COST -
1. CSAR 75 Fro.WI Ilow St. to E. Jct. CSAH 39 3.76 1,064.46 3,906.28
(lac l udos fou[ Is" portion.)
2. CSAH 39 Prom City Pub. Works Bldg. to 0.32 261.12 63.55
W. Jct. of CSAR 75
4. CSAR 58 Prom T.H. 25 to CSAR 75 0.465 2,046.39 951.57
4: CSAR 59 From Walnut Street to CSAH 75 0.234 2,046.39 478:85
TOTAL 3-'7T� 3,ifs zs
That the routine mtateaatres shall consist of the following: (Motor. Plan)
1. (CSAR 75) -San and
Ice daoval
2: (CSAR 39) - 255 of the ana. sad ice removal
4: (CSAH 58 6 59) — Patching, crack-seallog, drainage matotamace, ars, and fee
removal, and tree trimming 6 brush removal.
$Based on 1988 average annual costs.
That when the City dams It desirable to remove sear by haul log. It shall do to at Ito
ow •$peau. Th City shall also be responsible for ail snow sod lee rmasysl one sidewalks
sad other soul sward [al sled mlDiseases outside the curb or stcoat arm.
That the County will be re$poamible for all other maintenance .
That to December of 1990 , the City shall receive payment from the County for that,
rock. This aeau.t slu��asad oa the 19 89 average annul coat per mile for routine
melot urac• one Municipal Couaty State AidNlg�ys. The average annual cost per al Is wt 11
raflact only those costa assocloted with the areas of routine maintenance for which the
City Is respo.alble.
ADOPTED,
19_
ATTEST,
Mayor
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the above Is a it Us
and correct copy of a resolution duly passed,
adopted a,.d epp.... d by the City Council of nal. City no 19
City Clerk
APPROVED AND ACCEPT®,
Nam of City
COUNTY Of
Cchat rano of the Board
ATTEST,
County Coordinator
AUDITOR'S WARP.ANT tii�llili111irYe1.�{iLiert.7�1i� u�lil±
Thii instrument, l6on signed Dy rho County T,ealum,, Nal/ D'—" BUFFALO NATIONAL BANK 'S• IS%7
018956 Cho Yk=aole;o me order o l the payee named!.. meamwn r —ea. BUFFALO. M11N 55773
TO THE TREASURER OF
NO. IS95G
- WRIGHT COUNTY • BUFFALO, %11155717
a DATE CHECK NO. .+:.iCUCT
12/21ZE39 IB556 E5,420.25
................,sere....... FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY AND 25/100 DOLLARS a
r
nONTICELLO CITY
r
RICK WOLFSTELLER. ADM
PAYTo P 0 BOX 1 147
THE
OFI0 FDER MONT I CELLO. MN. 55362
IIe0L895611' I:0919157351: 0q -0001711,u6
UENDOR NO. 1343 CNEC. N0. 1 C95
PLEA SH OL TAO, OE/0.L DEPOSITING
STATE AID HWY$e 20 2 —EI O ---V
5.420.2`
19 q o w R1G NT C,,..
Tr
A i �- AT�
�1 Geeevitmti
RIVE RI •- _ . _ _- _ •".
F'."..,. =,=Z
,,....,ir - ••• , �lrr�rf :�.J•�^Mf �•.�i pr..'+�..}�^ �(:'.�}. �.^i5]•e.'^�'�:.1., �� G.,. ` � �1..•:..Yi¢!^.'tli�" j ;il.r+�s:�� �� - 'l- `.i�` -7X
}}��yy . t�,t.., f. C'.' i C�a� �.+-d :-+� -+•a t .1J: �; �'f.-+.3 L-..: (�'•'`''_7 �'�"�+. l`^���.+.�..rC^ t i oq ! 1. i,:t L.. ,�•.r
�...:i t_.. � •—`' � `may ��� ' '-^-'--i �r�---- G�._..., t»-� � % }t t �` +.., � + �,^'�
., . � .v .,i ., � :""' ��..:�"� ;� 1i�7 ._r.,c`�-�^a, ' c,.'--' i ! �," _.Y -,: v - -�..._—,..�---,_'._.�-y �...: -t-'•_``-rte
�•" %�as`.��,ri'7ia�• '"t "'""^�''w �:; "' (�'y�" "i�� t�' �""� ice' ` r4 � +ar"".7�; �� \\ '� ,���.
`� +.. . �q ,� _.,.�/'" �� � ` �; f�� •...r � r� a \ _ • ,eft. �.rt ^''�1,
a . � ' � �.: �''�� , \ fir, . .-' � {• ��1
• . � � Pte.'" � .
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
calling- t5. Consideration to adopt a resolution
� p ng_ for a public hearing on the
Proposed mnd1firari.on by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the city of Monticello, of the redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans for tax increment
financing districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the approval and adoption of the
tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing district No. 1-9, all
located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to call for (set) a
public hearing date on the proposed above named modifications and adoptions on
the Plans. Establishing the public hearing date for Monday, January 22, 1990,
meets statutory requirement for notice of a public hearing in the local
newspaper (January 11 and January 18) and meets statutory requirement of 30
days notice for the school, county, and hospital districts to make written
comments(s) of the Plans.
At the December 6, 1989, Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
meeting, the HRA authorized Business Development Services, Inc. to draft a Tax
Increment Finance (TIF) Plan for TIF Economic District No. 1-9. The Plans were
distributed to School District @882, Wright County Commission, and the
Monticello -Big lake Hospital District on Friday, December 22, 1989.
On Tuesday, January 2, 1990, the Monticello Planning Commission approved the
resolution of the same above named modifications thereby stating the Pians as
submitted were consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. On
Wednesday, January 3, 1990, the HRA agenda includes the adoption of the
resolution approving the same above modifications and adoptions of Plans.
Project: TIF Applicant, Russell V. Martie and Sharon F. Martie. 9,720 sq. ft.
metal building (2,268 sq. ft. of retail/comrercial display/office and
7,452 sq. ft. of agricultural warehouse) to be completed in
Year 1990.
Increased employment of 3 full time.
Estimated Market Value of $152,647.00.
TIF level of assistance, pay-as-you-go, $2,500 over seven years or
$17,500 for land write down. Contingent upon proper screening.
Additional project information will be presented to the Council at
the public hearing.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To adopt the resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed
modification by the [busing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
city of Monticello, of the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project:
No. 1, the modification of the tax incremm-nt financing plans for tax
increment financing districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the approval and
adoption of the tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing
district No. 1-9, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
26
L
C
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
To deny adoption of the resolution calling for a public hearing on the
proposed modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the city of Monticello, of the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans for
tax increment financing districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the
approvaland adoption of the tax increment financing plan for tax
increment financing distric No. 1-9, all located within Redevelopment
Project No. 1.
C. STAFF RDOOK4END►TION
Staff recommends alternative $1 to meet statutory requirements for a public
hearing notice and to continue the process for TIF assistance for the
applicant.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution. Copy of a site nap.
27
Councilmember introduced the following
resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous
consent, and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION
OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS.
1-1 THROUGH 1-8 AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION
OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-9, ALL
LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the
City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearinq. This Council shall meet on
January 22, 1990, at approximately 7:30 p.m., to hold a public
hearing on the following matters: (a) the proposed modification,
by increased project costs, of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority's (the "Authority") Redevelopment Project No. 1; (b)
the proposed modification, by increased project costs, of Tax
Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8, located
within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-9, located within
Redevelopment Project No. 1; (d) the proposed adoption of the
Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1; (e)
the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax Increment Financing
Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8;
and (f) the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, all pursuant to
and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179,
inclusive, as amended.
6S
t -
Section 2. Notice of Hearingi Filing of Program. The City
Administrator is authorized and directed to cause notice of the
hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A,
to be given as required by law, to place a copy of the proposed
Modified Redevelopment Plan, Modified Tax Increment Financing
Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the
Administrator's Office at City Hall and to make such copy
available for inspection by the public no later than
January 11, 1990.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted by the Council in and for the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, on January 8, 1990.
ATTEST:
C
Administrator
Mayor
hh� 0 200 400 FEET
l.'
Minnesota
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Industrial Park Profile
Oakwood Industrial Park
Monticello, Minnesota
Q AVAILABLE PARCELS
/At
9q
THOMAS PARK
�nW .nal aaW axial
a a' II
o e
s
� 1 � \\1\2 3 � I •
�y3 u..r ewc�\. to cc ++nnn
\`• ;HELSEA
�l
8 'NF1 II
} .Y.. LOW :sa.W '�� •!1.•
\ \ 8
>. 12 g 11 Ion,\.: u
7 \ 1
U '\
Irq .I+OW .riW •\� �\ M.O.
= DUNCAS •\1•
c - sw w •\ \ ..ma
\
E i i 3
•\ 1
•• r. ve Y .eem was •. \.
rnW wi .\
Q
�I.
,apm
RD.
silo. raw Yw\
¢� s
a • g 3
rnro aeon. ^ C
J • J
a
K
r—
•MM rrlM IIaY (A
RD,
Soe ww ww
1+
.Y m ..•Y ..a 4 •
1�
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
16. Review of Heartland Express monthly activity report. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Following is a narrative review of the report that the Heartland Express
must submit to the State of Minnesota on a monthly basis regarding the
operation of the Monticello Heartland Express.
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses for the month of December amount to $4,869. Of this
amount, $.,039 can be attributed to City staff services. Operation
charges paid to Hoglund Transportation Company amounts to $3,830, which
is based on 185 hours of service at $18.36 per hour and 5.31 per mile
with a monthly total mileage of 1,396 miles.
Revenue Summary
In the month of December, the Heartland Express collected $1,673.50. Of
this amounr, $673.50 came from direct purchases of tickets or fares, and
$1,000 caarme frau Wright County. Please note that the Heartland Express
expects a check in the amount of $2,000 from the MS Society for the
purchase of tickets to be distributed to the needy and others as part of
marketing the system.
vital Ex _nses
The Heartland Express purchased a mobile telephone unit ($733) for the
bus which is consistent with the budget. The State of Minnesota will be
reimbursing the Heartland Express 80 percent of the cost of the
telephone.
OLieratinq Statistics
This is the information we've all been waiting for. In general, the
operating statistics are positive for the first month of operation.
MN/DOT has been Informed of the numbers and has indicated that they look
good for the first month. Howeve , it is clear that the ridership [mist
improve as the system matures. In summary, 737 rides were provided by
the system, of which 306 riders were elderly, 26 handicapped, 96
children, 43 free rides or toddlers, and 266 members of the general
public outside of the groups listed above used the system. Total number
of miles driven amounted to 1,396, which crested a per ride mileage of
1.89 miles.
The average number of rides per day equaled 36 rides.
it is interesting to note that for most system the elderly make up
66 percent of ridership. For Decanbur, the elderly wide up less than
50 percent of total ridership.
28
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
Although the system is in its infancy, it should be noted at this point
that ridership needs to grow substantially in order for the Heartland
Express to achieve its goals for 1990. According to our goal statement,
it was hoped that the system would provide around 70 rides per day.
During our first month of operation, the Heartland Express achieved about
one-half of our projected ridership. In addition, the projected miles
per ride amounted to 1.5 miles. The actual December miles per ride
amounted to 1.89 miles. As the system matures and more people ride the
bus simultaneously, our miles per ride should decrease.
A number of patterns are starting to shape up with regard to ridership.
On a day -today basis, it appears that Monday ridership is very low and
Wednesday ridership is relatively low. It appears that on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and Fridays, ridership jumps appreciably. It may make sense
to capitalize on some of these trends by eliminating service on one day
and extending it later hours on another day or possibly by eliminating
service on Monday and extending service to earlier hours throughout the
rest of the week or extending those hours to Saturday or Sunday. At this
point in time, however, it is recommended that we continue to collect and
analyze the data and hold off on making scheduling changes until we have
more experience with the system. This will allow us to truly understand
the trends and to get a feel for the best plan for adjusting the
schedule.
As a final note, the Heartland Express has received considerable input
regarding hours of service. It appears that there is a fairly strong
denund for the hours to begin at 7:00 a.m. or 8:00 a.m. instead of 9:00
a.m., and there have also been a few requests to provide service on
Saturday or Sunday. These suggestions will be examined by the MTRAC
committee sometime in January after additional data regarding ridership
is assembled.
29
I
Council Agenda - 1/8/90
». Consideration of a bid for locksmith services and hardware for the
Monticello Fire Station and the Monticello Hi -Way Liquor building. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello sent out bid proposals on December 12, 1989, for
locksmith services and hardware Lor the Monticello Fire Station and the
Monticello Hiway Liquor building. The bid proposals were to be received
no later than January 2, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. As of the writing of this
agenda supplement, we have received only one bid from L & R
Services/Locksmith.
We submitted letters for proposals with the bid documents to three other
security locksmiths in the area --those being Security Locksmiths in
St. Cloud; Buffalo Glass and Lock in Buffalo; and Floyd Security with a
branch in Elk River. All four of the locksmith companies were bidding
off of the same bid proposal form, and L & R Services/Locksmith was the
only company to submit a bid proposal for the work.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the two bids submitted by L & R Services/Locksmith for $892
for the Monticello Fire Station and $359 for the Monticello Hi -Way
Liquor building.
2. Deny the bid proposals for $892 for the fire station anri $359 for the
liquor store building.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since staff sent out bid proposals to a total of four companies, we feel
the process of obtaining competitive bids has been met. Unfortunately,
having only one bid for the services does not give us anything to compare
with; but we have experienced the services of L b R Services/Locksmith of
Annandale when they completed the locksmith work at City Hall and the
Monticello Library. They have been very beneficial in suggesting to us
the best alternatives with the least amount of cost involved to complete
the new secured lock system.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the letters to each of the locksmith companies; Copy of the bid
proposals for the fire station and liquor store building; Copy of the two
bids which were submitted by L & R Servicr_s/Locksmith from Annandale.
30
NOTE; Locksmith to warranty all labor and imnufacturer to warranty all
hardware.
BID PROPOSAL FOR LOCKSMITH SERVICES AND HARDWARE
MONTICELLO FIRE STATION
303 WEST 6TH STREET
MOIRfICELLO, MN 55362
I.
Change existing mortise lever locks
A. To passage function
1. Electric panel room door
2. wash closet room door
3. Fire bathroom closet door
B. Remove deadbolt function
4. Public room door
5. Kitchen door $
II.
Install biaxial Medeco System
A. 13 mortise cylinders including
1. Three double cylinder doors
2. Seven single cylinder doors $
III.
Keys for Medeco System
A. All fire station doors
1. 35 Medeco biaxial keys
B. Fire otation public room
1. Five Medeco biaxial keys
C. Restricted Medeco biaxial keys
1. Per each key $
2. Minim in Order $
S
TV.
Locksmith charges for service and
travel for each call. $
TOTAL BID PROPOSAL $
NOTE; Locksmith to warranty all labor and imnufacturer to warranty all
hardware.
BID PROPOSAL FOR LOCKSMITH SERVICES AND HARDWARE
{ MONTICELLO HI -WAY LIQUOR
515 PINE STREET (Highway 25)
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
I.
Six (6) 1OWO700-624 Medeco mortise cylinder
keyed to biaxial Medeco Master Key System
$ each X 6 $
II.
one (1) thumb turn cylinder $
III.
one (1) Medeco padlock keyed to system $
IV.
Labor for system including welding of
pipe for back door to secure padlock $
V.
Ten (10) master keys $ each X 10 $
A. Extra Medeco keys $ each
$ minimum
VI. Locksmith charges for service and
travel for each call $
CTCPAL BID PROPOSAL $
NOTE: Locksmith to warranty all labor and manufacturer to warranty all
hardware.
0
0
L "N" R SERVICES - LOCKSMITH TELEPHONE 612-274-3247
LEO VOLKMANN MOBILE 250-1976
P. 0. BOX 1 400 NORTH MAPLE AVE.
ANNANDAL E. MN 55302
CITY OF MONTICELLO
CITY HALL
MONTICELLO MN 55362
BID FOR LOCKSMITH SERVICES AND HARDWARE
FIRE STATION MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT
CHANGE EXISTING MORTISE LEVER LOCKS
TO PASSAGE FUNTION
1) ELECTRIC PANEL
2) WASH CLOSET
3) FIRE BATHROOM CLOSET
REMOVE DEADBOLT FUNTION
4) PUBLIC ROOM DOOR
5) KITCHEN DOOR
100.00
INSTALL BIAXIAL MEDECO SYSTEM
13 MORTISE CYLINDERS INCLUDING 3 DOUBLE CYLINDER DOORS AND
7 SINGLE CYLINDER DOORS 647,00
KEYS FOR MEDECO SYSTEM
35 MEDECO BIAXIAL KEYS ALL FIRE STATION DOORS
5 MEDECO BIAXIAL KEYS FOR STATION PUBLIC ROOM
RESTRICTED MMEDECO BIAXIAL KEY 3.00
MINIMUM ORDER 10.00 120.00
L "N" R SERVICES -LOCKSMITH CHAI.GES •25.00 SERVICE AND TRAVEL
FOR EACH CALL. WE WARRANTY ALL LABOR AND THE MANUFACTURER
WARRANTEES THE HARDWARE.
TOTAL 892.00 0 c/7)
L "N" R SERVICES - LOCKSMITH TELEPHONE 612-274-3247
LEO VOLKMANN MOBILE 250-1978
P. 0. BOX 1 400 NORTH MAPLE AVE.
ANNANDALE. MN 55302
CITY OF MONTICELLO
LIQUOR STORE
MONTICELLO MN 55362
BID FOR LOCKSMITH SERVICES AND HARDWARE :
SIX (6) 1OW0700-624 MEDECO MORTISE CYLINDER KEYED TO BIAXIAL
MEDECO MASTER KEY SYSTEM 9 39.00 EACH
X6 9234.00 TOTAL
ONE (1) THUMB TURN CYLINDER 10.00
ONE (1) MEDECO PADLOCK KEYED TO SYSTEM 75.00
LABOR FOR SYSTEM. INCLUDING WELDING OF PIPE 9105.00
FOR BACK DOOR TO SECURE PADLOCK
( 10 MASTER KEYS 9 35.00
` 4359.00
EXTRA MEDECO KEYS AVAILABLE FOR 63.50 FROM L "N" R SERVICES
WITH PROPER IDENTIFICATION $10.00 MINUMUM
L "N" R SERVICES -LOCKSMITH CHARGES 925.00 SERVICE AND TRAVEL
FOR EACH CALL. WE WARRANTY ALL LABOR AND THE MANUFACTURER
WARRANTEES THE HARDWARE.
C
0/7
I*mm
December 12, 1989
MONTICELLO
250 East Broadway
%tomicello, MN 55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Security Locksmiths
538 - 25th Ave. N.
Northgate Shopping Center
St. Cloud, MN 56301
Re: Bids for locksmith services and hardware;
Monticello Fire Station and Monticello Hi -way Liquor Building
Dear Sir or Madam:
The City of Monticello is seeking bid proposals for locksmith services and
hardware at the Monticello Fire Station and Monticello Hi -Way Liquor buildings
to be received at the City of Monticello City Rall by Tuesday, January 2, 1990,
9:00 a.m.
Enclosed you will find a bid proposal sheet for each of the two buildings.
The contact person at Monticello Hi -Way Liquor is Manager Joe Hartman, 515 Pine
Street (Highway 25), (612) 295-5222.
The contact person at the Monticello Fire Station is Jerry Wein, Fire Chief,
303 West Sixth Street, (612) 295-3850.
In approxieately two to three weeks, we will have the bid proposal ready for
the Monticello Public Works facilities.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
11!iY4�
Gary Anderson
Building Official
GA/kd
C cc: Ren Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfateller, City Administrator
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Ad,oinistrator
John Simola, Public Works Director
Roger Mack, Street Supt.
Joe Hartman, Liquor Store Manager
Jerry Wein, Pire Chief ' ,
File ✓
December 12, 1989
MON (CELLO
250 East Broadway
Nlontieello, biN 55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Buffalo Glass 6 Lock, Inc.
1010 Highway 55 East
Buffalo, MN 55313
Re: Bids for locksmith services and hardware;
Monticello Fire Station and Monticello Hi -Way Liquor Building
Dear Sir or madam:
The City of Monticello is seeking bid proposals for locksmith services and
hardware at the Monticello Fire Station and Monticello Hi -way Liquor buildings
to be received at the City of Monticello City Hall by Tuesday, January 2, 1990,
9:00 a.m.
Enclosed you will find a bid proposal sheet for each of the two buildings.
The contact person at Monticello Hi -Way LiyuuL is Manager Joe BarL,ran, 515 Pine
Street (Highway 25), (612) 295-5222.
The contact person at the Monticello Fire Station is Jerry Wein, Fire Chief,
303 West Sixth Street, (612) 295-3850.
In approximately two to three weeks, we will have the bid 'proposal ready for
the Monticello Public Works facilities.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerer
GaAnderson
Building Official
GA/kd
cc- Ren Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfateller, City Administrator
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
John Siutola, Public Works Director
Roger Mack, Street Supt.
Joe Hartman, Liquor Store Manager
Jerry Wein, Fire Chief
Pile ,, /'
1 Decenber 12, 1989
MONTICELLO
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
,Metro: (612) 333.5739
Floyd Security
9036 Grand Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55420
Re: Bids for locksmith services and hardware:
Monticello Fire Station and Monticello Hi -Way Liquor Building
Dear Sir or Madan:
The City of Monticello is seeking bid proposals for locksmith services and
hardware at the Monticello Fire Station and Monticello Hi -Way Liquor buildings
to be received at the City of Monticello City Hall by Tuesday, January 2, 1990,
9:00 a.m.
Enclosed you will find a bid proposal sheet for each of the two buildings.
The contact person at Monticello Hi -Way Liquor is Manager Joe Hartitan, 515 Pine
Street (Highway 25), (612) 295-5222.
The contact person at the Monticello Fire Station is Jerry Wein, Fire Chief,
303 West Sixth Street, (612) 295-3850.
In approxim telt' two to three weeks, we will have the bid proposal ready for
the Monticello Public Works facilities.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gary Anderson
Building Official
GA/kd
cc: Ren Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfateller, City Administrator
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
John Simla, Public Works Director
Roger Mack, Street Supt.
Joe Hartimn, Liquor Store Manager
Jerry Wein, Fire Chief
File ✓ / 7
GENERAL FUND A.MOUN'1' CHECK NO.
CASH DISBURSEMENTS -- DECEMBER -- 1989
Alan Wojchouskl - Recycling prize
100.00
28962
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft, snowmobile d ATV Reg.
495.00
28963
Bridgewater Telephone - Phone Charges
1.447. 55
28964
Midwest Gas Co. - Utilities
1,374.63
28965
Karen Doty - Mileage 6 parking expense for seminar
40.25
28966
Wright County State Bank - Investments
500.000.00
28967
Wright County State Bank - Investments
550,000.00
28968
Monticello Fire Dept. - Firemen's Wages
973.16
28969
Wright County State Bank - Investment Fee Charges
10.00
28970
Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Insurance premium
7,467.44
28971
Patty Salzwedel - Animal control contract 6 Adoptions
509.00
28972
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
227.50
28973
Henning 6 Associates - Professional services -New City Brochures ✓
3.364.02
28974
Monte Club - Recycling seminar
587.00
28975
C.J. Brown Business Services - City Bus Brochures
123.00
28976
Simplex Time Recorder Co. - Repairs - City Hall Clock
242.00
28977
Quest Tranfer, Inc. - Freight Charges - Parts
39.96
28978
Arrow Star - Supplies - Park Dept.
290.36
28979
Dyna Systems - Parts - Shop 6 Garage
363.95
28980
Ziegler, Inc. - Cutting edges - Snow 6 Ice Dept.
1,220.39
28981
Gopher State One Call, Inc. - Professional Services
35.00
28982
Communication Auditors - Repairs - Fire Dept.
42.26
28983
D.L. Anderson 6 Associates, Inc. -Supplies - City Hall
127.37
28984
ty Hall - Bus Tickets
25.00
28985
I d T Info Systems - Fire Phone Charges
3.96
28986
Wright County Assessor - Valuation Listing Fee - Fire Dept.
12.00
28987
Jay Miller Const. - Repairs - Installation of water gauge
150.00
28988
KMOM Rndin - Advertising - Bus Transportation
50.00
28989
Olson, Usset, Agan, 6 Weingarden - O.A.A. Board - Professional Serv.ces
1.725.00
28990
LeRoy Engstrom - O.A.A. Board Salnry 6 Mileage
114.00
28991
Franklin Denn - O.A.A. Board Salary
75.00
28992
Ken Maus - O.A.A. Board Salary
75.00
28993
Gloria Cooler - O.A.A. Board Salary d Mileage
119.85
28994
Tom Snikowskt - O.A.A. Board Salary d Mileage
269.13
28995
Plant 6 Flange Equipment Co. - Parts - Street Dept.
42.32
28996
Smith b Hayes - Professional Legal Services
1,417.10
28997
Olson h Sons Electric, Inc. - Repairs 6 Labor
1,738.47
28998
Copy Duplicating products, Inc. - Copy machine mnintennce - Library
41.91
28999
Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile, watercraft d ATV Reg.
729.00
29000
Monticello Fire Dept. - Add'1 Firemen's Wages
20.00
29001
Wright County State Bank - Investments
150,010.00
29002
Lindberg Painting - Staining 6 Wallpaper - City Hall
3,637.91
29003
Nona Zempal - Recycling prize
50.00
29004
Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile, watercraft, 6 ATV Reg.
255.00
29005
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll Deductions
210.16
29006
PERA - Payroll Deductions
1,661.6 5
29007
I.C.M.A. Retirement Trust - Payroll Deductions
881.38
290OR
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
70.04
29009
Vold
- 0 -
29010
ram Tnterprises, Inc. - Patching b Overlay of Parking Lot
1.750.00
29011
,achy Shuman - Seminar expenses
30.00
29012
D B Industries, Inc. - Supplies
80.56
29013
O.F..I Business Forms - Copy Paper
130.95
29014
Bob Cyr - Labor - City Hall 6 Fire Dept.
195.00
29015'
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CIIECK NO.
CASH DISBURSEMENTS -- DECEMBER -- 1989
George Poach - Labor - City Hall 6 Fire Dept.
195.00
29016
Monticello Fire Dpet. - Misc. supplies for 1989
806.50
29017
Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Professional Services - HRA
176.60
29018
Marco Business Products - Computer Tables, copy paper 6 repairs
780.70
29019
AmeriData - Computer Equipment
3,006.50
29020
Egghead Software Discount - Computer Clip 6 Paper Holder
27.50
29021
University of 114. - Reg. Fee for Gary Anderson - Seminar
90.00
29022
Jim Ennis Cabinets - Cabinets 6 Counter top - City Hall
1,681.00
29023
U.S. Postmaster - Presort Annual Fee
60.00
29024
Trueman -Welters, Inc. - Parts
58.59
29025
Materials Distribution Fund - Office furniture - P.Works
130.00
29026
Water Products Co. - Supplies - Water Dept.
516.84
29027
Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Installation of Phone - Heartland Rus
733.60
29028
Elk River Vet. Clinic - Animal Control Services
13.50
29029
Turnquist Paper Co. - Paper Towels, etc. - City Hall 6 Fire Dept.
233.90
29030
Holiday - Gas - Fire Dept.
21.87
29031
Rick Wolfsteller - Travel expense for seminar
52.06
29032
Automatic Garage Door Co. - Repair cables at garage
44.00
29033
Century Labs - Supplies - Street Dept.
130.19
29034
Dyes:-- Sy-.tc- - Blades - Street Dept.
64.53
29035
Automation Supply - Computer ribbons
37.56
29036
Holmes 6 Graven - Pofessional services
316.20
29037
Mobil Oil Co. - Gas
104.07
29038
MIN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. Fee - Seminar - M. Theisen
60.00
2'
Plastics Recycling Conference - Recycling cassette tape
24.95
2:�10
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H
4,743.15
29041
Diane Jacobson - FICA reimbursement paid on iisurance premium
15.77
29042
Pat Kovich -
9.01
29043
Roger Mack -
22.53
29044
Al Gapinski -
28.14
29045
Tom Moores -
28.14
29046
Rich Cline
28.14
29047
Keith Trippe -
28.14
29048
Rick Wolfsteller -
22.53
29049
Cathy Shuman -
20.28
29050
John Simoln -
22.53
29051
Jeff O'Neill -
22.53
29052
Karen Doty -
22.53
29053
Tony Strando -
28. 14
29054
Matt Theisen -
22.53
29055
Marlene Hellman -
22.53
29056
Gary Anderson
22.53
29057
Dept. of Natural Rosaurces - Watercraft, annwmobile 6 ATV Reg.
464.00
29058
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage Service
12,071.67
29059
Adopt A Pat, Inc. - Animal Control Services
130.00
29060
Patty Snlzwedel - Animal Control Services 6 Adoptions
503.00
29061
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial Services at Library
227.50
29062
Hoglund Transportation - Heartland Express Contract
3,838.41
29063
Simons Allyn Marketing, Inc. - Prof. Services - Heartland Bus
286.51
20144
Feedrite Controls - Supplies - Water Dept.
2,472.53
2. i
Unocal - Gas
50.56
29066
Polka Dot Recycling - Recycling contract
1,155.22
29067
Gary Anderson - Travel expense
52.54
29068
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
CASH DISBURSEMENTS - DECEMBER -- 1989
Commissioner of Revenue - Payroll Withholding for December
2,264.89
29069
Marco Business Products - Computer table
59.95
29070
MacSoft - Computer supplies
120.00
29071
Ben Franklin - Supplies
51.63
29072
Agency Closers - Reimbursement on overpayment of sever 6 water bill
72.65
29073
Loch Jewelers - Reimbureement on overpayment of sewer 6 water bill
19.00
29074
Jeff O'Neill - Travel expense
89.50
29075
Adam's Pest Control - Library Pest Control Contract
44.00
29076
General Rental - Rentals
47.52
29077
Kangas Auto Radiator Services - repairs
257.00
29078
Harry's Auto Supply - Parts
275.48
29079
Taylor Land Surveyors - Surveying fees - Oakwood Ind. Park
200.00
29080
Northern Oxygen Service - Supplies - Fire Dept.
12.30
29081
J M 011 Co - Gas
20.88
29082
Nelson 011 Co. - Gas
1,887.61
29083
North Star Waterworks - Shipping charges
8.00
29084
Simonson Lumber Co. - Material 6 supplies
997.44
29085
Coast to Coast - Supplies
629.28
29086
Unitog Rental Service - Uniform rental
115.63
29087
Country Lumber - Ceiling lights - Shop b Garage
121.60
29088
National Bushing b Parts Co. - Supplies
1,528.34
29089
Payroll for December
26,627.60
TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS FOR 2ND HALF OF DECEMBER
1,305,827.28
C
LIQUOR FUIID
CASH DISBURSEMENTS - DECEMBER -- 1989
AMOUNT
CPrCK
NO.
Central Park Whse Liquor - 2 Decanters with Liquor
195.28
14826
NSP - Utilities
480.86
14827
Commissioner-of Revenue - Sales Tax for November
7,764.88
14828
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
4,726.49
14829
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor
2,371.81
14830
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
612.50
14831
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor Co. - Liquor
3,360.93
14832
Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Phone Charges
76.91
14833
Persian's Business Equipment - Repairs
36.00
14834
KMOM Radio Station - Advertising
120.00
14835
O'Hara Company - Supplies
128.75
14836
Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. - Insurance premium
775.07
14837
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
3,162.27
14838
Griggs, Cooper 6 CO. - Liquor
3,335.15
14839
Eagle Wine Co. - Wlne
1,454.09
14840
PERA - Payroll Deductions
207.18
14841
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
250.00
14842
Ed Phillips 6 Suns Cu. - Liquor
46.53
14843
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor Co. - Liquor
2,091.25
14844
Griggs, Cooper b CO. - Liquor
6,488.89
14845
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
280.94
14846
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co.- Liquor
1,041.52
14847
-' Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare W/H
532.70
14848
Joe Hartman - FICA Reimbursement paid on insurance premium
22.53
14849
Cindie Erickson - FICA Reimbursement paid on insurance premium
22.53
14850
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Liquor - Liquor
2,719.16
14851
Commissioner of Revenue - Payroll deductions for December
224.51
14852
Ed Phillips b Sons Co. - Liquor
1,301.12
14853
Payroll for December
3,016.43
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR 2ND HALF OF DECEMBER
46,846.28
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of DECEMBER , 1989
IPERM
OLGCRIPT:O:!
TYPE
I:AML/IgCATI0t1
VALUATION
. NUMMB�
PERMIT �
SURCHARG!lSPLUMOICG SURCHARGE
89-1475Damolieh
house, shod and barn
AD
Inure Rovl end/711 Elm BL[eot
S O.Of
10.00
.50
89-1436
Apartment building repair
AD
Duck aya Menegomant SorViee•/I06 M. 6th St.
5.000.0,
50.00
7.50
TOTALS
5 S,000.OS
60.00
7.00
ELVI REV I LY
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW 5 .00
TOTAL RCVENUZ 6 67.00
1, �
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Monthly Building Departmant
Report
Month
of DECEMBER
1989
PERMITS AND USES
'
La It
ThI.
Soma Month
Leet Year 'Thio
Yaar
PERMITS ISSUED
Month
Month
Leal Year
To Date
To Date
RESIDENTIAL
Number
2
1
a
116
101
ve luatlon
5 53,300.00
5 5,000.00
$ 115,700.00
$4,842,500.00
52,92],400.00
Fede
453.69
50.00
994.35
40,176.87
21,353.96
Surcharg..
26.65
2.50
57.85
2,412.05
1,452.25
COMMERCIAL
Number
1
5
33
23
ll=tlon
3,100.00
28,000.00
1,316,900.00
1,751,000.00
F.ee
31.00
286.50
10,059.77
11,803.55
Surcharged
2.60
13.25
656.70
074.805
INDUSTRIAL
1
3
1
Numtwr
80,000.00
10,700.00
60,000.00
Ve luatlon
549.50
107.00
549.50
Feoa
40.00
5.10
40.00
Surcharge•
PLUMB IND
Ilumber
1
2
42
34
Paas
23,00
46.00
1,665.00
1,060.00
Surcharge.
,50
1.00
21.00
17.00
OT".
Number
1
1
1
]
9
Velu.tlon
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fee.
10.00
10.00
10.00
]0.00
90.00
Surcharge.
,50
.50
.50
1.50
4.50
TOTAL NO. PIAMITS
6
2
12
197
168
TOTAL VALUATION
5 136,400.00
S 5,000.00
5 143,700.00
56,170,100.00
14,754,400.00
TOTAL FEES
S 1,067.19
5 60.00
S 1,336.05
5 52.058.64
5 34,057.01
TOTAL SURCIIARCES
S 70.25
5 3.00
8 77.60
9 3,097.15
5 2,388.55
CURRENT W14TIl
'
Ft'A
Ilumber
to Data
PERMIT NAWftE
-h- 1'IIIMIT
SURCNAR4M Valise tloN
- 'thio year
I.ael Year
Oingle really
S
B
5
23
26
Uu pie•
0
1
Mu t: -family
2
G
Co®ercl a l
1
5
Indu.lrlel
0
2
Ilea. Cat age.
7
14
Big-
0
0
Publ la BU IId IUg.
0
7
ALTERATION OR It:VAIR
1
50.00 2.50
5.000.00
56
60
OMell:n.
7726
Con®eltlgel
1
1
Indu.lr l al
PLUM I11110
]4
47
All Type.
ACCESSORY STRUCTIIBES
a. lamming Pool.
0
0
Deck.
13
9
0
0
TEMPORARY PLRMIT
\
r`
DEMOLITION
1
10.00
.50
0.00 9
3
TOTAB
2 6
60.00 1
3.00 $ 5,000.00 160
197
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
I (we), the undersigned owner(s) of the property described below
petition that such peoperty be improved pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429 (Local Improvements, Special Assessments)
and hereby petition the following improvements:
Please indicate with an X the
improvements requested
Sanitary Saver
VCity water
Storm Sever
jBituminous Surfacing (blacktopping)
Street Lighting
Y Curb and Gutter
I ( ), a uv — 100% of o improve t costa
wit in a ays of a com Ef roj c ora benefit
pro rty a re al i Ii..
i 61
dip o her h defe al suant a nnee S tea
435. -195, ich is hereby app od for.
Description of Property: CVACvj knor,_
signature of Ownsss:i tt�k
•_~t'L'f� j„yam, +
da
Orf 2021 Easl Hennepin Avenue
O�� SC11N[TI Minneapolis. MN 55413 Engineer
MdyQOrl& FAX
Manners
As506t1G5,lne FAX Jll-Ja06 Planner
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
250 East Broadway
Monticello MN 55362
Invoice
January 9, 1990
Comm. No. 068-1748-65
In conjunction with determining existing and proposed flows into an existi— a ^-
drainage pond on the K -Mart Site. Time and expenses for the n
1989.
DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS
J. Badalich 2.00 hours @ $39.75 per hour $ - 79.50
B. Weiss .50 hour @ $22.50 per hour 11.225P5
Factor x 2.25
This Invoice $ 204.19
TOTAL AMOUNT BILLED TO DATE IS $4.044.94
I ( _10, unirt the poral A of penury that due clam
.� .0 ' corn ' and thnt no t�r! of 11 nne V—In Md
1� �e
SWnstum
OR 2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Engineers
ONNI ASSOOdt6.660 survey rs
InG FAX JJ13806MN 55413 612-33 Planners
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Invoice
January 9, 1990
Comm. No. 068-1748-64
In conjunction with 7th Street Study for Mall. Time and expenses for the months of
November & December, 1989.
DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS:
J. Badalich
D. Kling
P. Willenbring
-?009
3.50 hours @ $39.75 per hour $ 139.13
18.00 hours @ $33.50 per hour 603.00
1.00 hour @ $33.50 per hour 33.50
$ -77M
Factor x 2.25
This Invoice $1.745.17
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE IS $1.745.17
1 ck• 10w uW1,11 tha penal ., o! Fnnury thm thle claim
,e I andco //1/e�3 . the' o ixn of 11 hee t -M Mid
SWnatum
f
On 2021 East Hennepm Avenue
O.S%tSCile i Mmneapolt5. MN $5413 su neem
Mayaon& 612 -aa -380 surveyors invoice
Assodalas,tK FAX 3313906 Planners
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
250 East Broadway
Monticello MN 55362
December 5. 1989
Corn. No. 068-1748-65
In conjunction with determining existing and proposed flows into an existing storm
drainage pond on the K -Mart Site. Time and expenses for the month of November.
1989.
DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS
B. Weiss 10.00 hours 0 $22.50 per hour $ 225.00
P. Willenbring 8.00 hours @ $33.50 per hour 268.00
Factor x _ 2.25
2 3o mJ
This Invoice $1,109.25
TOTAL AMOUNT BILLED TO DATE IS $3,840.75
dr_;an• urrler P. Vis, , o� t'^.^,:;r• chc• t' ,s .ha'
� rust and coracl and thot no pDrt c. n ha t.i— psi-
SI?:atu,o
OFT
Srhelen
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
250 East Broadway
Monticello MN 55362
2921 Fast Hennepin Avenue
Mmneapohs. MN 55413 Engineers
612.331.8060 surveyot5
FAX 3313806 PWnnerS
Invoice
November 6. 1989
Comm. No. 068-1748-65
In conjunction with determining existing and proposed flows where the K -Mart site is
filling in an existing storm drainage pond. Time and expenses for the month of
October. 1989.
DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS
B. Weiss 9.00 hours @ $22.50 per hour E 202.50
P. Willenbring 9.00 hours @ $33.50 per hour 301.50
4. 0
Factor x 2.25
This Invoice $1,134.00
TOTAL AMOUNT BILLED TO DATE IS $2.731.50
I cv kni w.inr ew Fxmat .. 0' renun thm thcr claim
.i w rd mr a eud nm no pv1 Of it har :..:n pan$
C.............
S 7..mtuto
I
r' 2021 Ea51 Hcnneprn Avenu[
—ncapo115. MN 55413 Ens';ncers
612-331-8660 survcyon
ry,L FAX 331-3a06 Planncn
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
invoice
November 6, 1989
Comm. No. 068-1748-64
In conjunction with 7th Street Study for Mall. Time and expenses for the month of
October, 1989.
DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS:
C
D. Kling
4.00 hours @ $33.50 per hour $
134.00
Factor
x 2.25
This Invoice $
301.50
X156
,��y'S
A
TOTAL
AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE IS $301.50
d» t,enal ^
1 driam `01'u
o! r n,,ry Thal d"t clave
has 1C.— VAZ
1 end c T71 ad that
no pari of rt
jj
,s
����rsvvv �jIT5a
tuff
Orr 2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue
0.SNt
�
612.33:
12.3 : $6s. MN 55117 Engineers
MayaonA FAX31.6660 Maarten; Invoice
ASSOdi0t5, atc FAX 331'-3906 Planners
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
250 East Broadway
Monticello MN 55362
October 16, 1989
Comm. No. 068-1748-65
In conjunction with determining existing and proposed flows where the K -Mart site is -
filling in an existing storm drainage pond. Time and expenses for the month of
September, 1989.
DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS
l
E. Anderson 2.00 hours @ $33.50 per hour
f B. Weiss 15.00 hours @ $18.50 per hour 277.0„
P. Willenbring 10.00 hours @ $33.50 per hour 335.00
M. Zabel 2.00 hours @ $15.25 per hour 30.50
0.00
Factor x 2.25
This Invoice $1.597.50
!qb fsq fo
230 7S k�
TOTAL AMOUNT BILLED TO DATE IS $1.597.50
rfi•'le rc u rr t»!•^e� m n! (�`r+u.')' dist ��.'.: .� n1
.1.,,�. ntii trro:f utd era: no part of rt hal [.+i:� 4=,J
$rQ110111N
C
Orr 2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue
r.:d9kn Minneapoha, MN 55413Qms)t fagrnttrs
Mayeiona 612-331.6660 Surv=
Asoda or- FAX 331.3806 planners
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello. MN 55362
Invoice
October 11, 1989
Comm. No. 068-1748-64
In conjunction with 7th Street Study for Mall. Time and expenses for the month of
September, 1989,
DIRECT PERSONNEL
COSTS:
.I
J. Badalich
B. Weiss
D. Kling
G. Frazier
E. Ames
4.00 hours @
15.00 hours @
16.00 hours @
0,50 hour @
1.00 hour @
$39.75
$18.50
$33,50
$23.00
$33.50
per
per
per
per
per
hour
hour
hour
hour
hour
$ 159.00
277.50 i
536,00
11.50
33.50
St M -;D
Factor
x 2.25
This Invoice
$2.289.38
140
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE IS $2.289.38
n.: ir. ,:'tir. • n "'nal a o' :unuryy 1,161 - , c,n
11�1�((tAAV�I1'I1Yra�an.. cc' .'cnr )u: no par: uli hw
$L4nSh1» .... ..
-- I
2621 East Hennepin Avenue
on'
SchEkn Minneapolis. 331-86MN 55413 sura M
I�iyppndi 612.131-8660 5tn'�'eFoK
V hSSpdatCSM FAX 331-39e6 planners
City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'lleill
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello. MN 55362
invoice
September 12. 1989
Comm. No. 068-1748-64
In conjunction with 7th Street Study for Mali. Time and expenses for the month of
August, 1939.
DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS:
J. BadaIith
B. Reiss
0. Kling
R. Duval
H. Wander
150,Erf(
ti3 07 4 L'S 9 4f
3.00 hours 0 $39.75 oer hour $ 119.25
44.00 hours
0 $18.50
per
hour
814.00
11.00 hours
cQ $33.50
per
hour
368.50
17.50 hours
T. $20.50
per
hour
350.75
2.00 hours
r $23.00
per
hour
46.00
$1.706.5
Factor
x _2.25
This invoice $3,839.63
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE IS $3,839.63
t ciw9nm ureb., dr Ental e W Fnnury tha' Zhu calm
u tu,li purm't that no Tnrr of ,i has Ga. Sven
,
$t.2rsaiuv
Northwest Eranch YMCA
198'? Monticello Detached Worker Summary
° ( Dstached Workers
c t.rni I Corin seIor
° Chemical Awareness Counselor
Detar.hed Work: Methods of Program Delivery
a One -to -One Counseling y _a Restitution Programs
o Alateen Groups a Warren & Menogyn Camping Experiences
n Self-esteem Groups a Therapeutic Recreational Activities
i* Sexuality Groups o Vocational Assistance
o Chemical Awareness Oroups a Crisis Intervention
a Family Counsel ins c Referrals to Appropriate Sources
c NYPUM Mini -bike Program c Advoca.cr
a 24 hour crisis availability
Number of Clients carved • Weekend retreats
Ma 1 e: -ASL-- rerna l e: ---L4-- TOTALS AV---
Ethnic
LV __
Ethnic Background
------------------
Black: _ ? __ White' _LLfi- Astant __4.__ Native Americans
Hispanics Other'
Referral Sources
_ YCourt ServicesS__12_ Schooll__3.2_ Wolfare'-____
Family'_ 2fL_ Selfa_____ Peerst __2t1_ Others_____
NUMBER OF
STUDENT$
Truancy
Runaway
Inappropriate School Behavior
Drug Abuse
Property Crimes
Non-Vioiont Crimes
Violent Crimes
Unmanaooablo Home Behavior
Family Problems
Solf-Esteem
Sexual Abuse
Physical Abuse/Neelect
Emotional Abuse/Negloct
Eating Disorders
Pregnancy
Vor_ntional Assistance
Sexuality Concorn9
Survival Needs
NW-DW13312/ZO/941
Average Ase of Client'
Low Income Families'
Single Parent Fasniliess
Blended Families' --_-_-