City Council Agenda Packet 02-12-1990AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 12, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
1.
Call to order.
2.
%pproval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 22, 1990.��
3.
Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4.
Public hearing on proposed increases in retail license fees for
non -intoxicating and intoxicating liquor licenses.
5.
Public Hearing - 7th Street improvement project.
6.
Consideration of a resolution ordering plans and specifications for
street and utility improvements and appurtenant work - 7th Street and
Minnesota Street.
7.
Consideration of the petition from Meadow Oak development residents.
8.
Consideration of an ordinance amendment further defining public
U
nuisances.
9.
Consideration of ordinance to regulate cigarette vending machines.
10.
Update by City Attorney on current litigation issues.
11.
Review of Monticello Softball Association financial report for 1989 and
update on expenditures relating to NSP softball field complex.
12.
Consideration of award of bids for Project 90-1, booster pump
refurbishment, at the water reservoir on Chelsea Road.
13.
Consideration of renewing contract for engineering and consulting
services and revised engineering fee schedule.
14.
Consideration of hiring an inspector.
15.
Consideration of adopting a resolution calling for a public hearing on
the proposed modification by the Housing and Rodevelopment 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.
16.
Consideration of adopting a resolution giving preliminary approval for
the Tapper, Inc., project and giving preliminary approval for the
issuance of small business development loan revenue bonds.
City Council Agenda
February 12, 1990
Page 2
17. Reconsideration of adopting a resolution relating to the modification by
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello
of the Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment
financing plans relating to Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1
through 1-10, and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-11, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the
approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan.
18. Consideration of change order 11 and final payment for Improvement
Project 88-06, water nein and appurtenant work rear the old wells and to
the new water tank.
19. Consideration of authorizing the purchasing of the Remnele property.
20. Consideration of resolution adopting a records retention schedule.
21. Quarterly department head reports.
22. Adjournment.
MINUTES
ROGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 22, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen,
Fran Fair
Members Absent: None
Approval of minutes.
Motion made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting held January 8, 1990, as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
Peter Bouley, 2780 Meadow Lane, reported to Council that he has been
informed that a real estate agency has purchased 19 lots in the Meadow
Oak development with plans to develop homes with 860 sq ft of finished
space with single car garages. Mr. Bouley and other residents expressed
their concern that such a development would undermine the value of the
existing homes in the area. Bouley and others went on to ask Council if
the restrictive covenants in the area could be amended. Assistant
Administrator O'Neill indicated that local ordinance requires that all
homes built in Monticello meet a minimum square foot requirement of 960
square feet. Ken Maus noted that restrictive covenants cannot be amended
by a city government and can only be changed if all property owners
affected agree on the restrictive covenants; therefore, any potential
owner that has plans for development of homes in the area must agree to
any restrictive covenants suggested by local residents.
At this point in the meeting, a general discussion ensued. Ken Maus then
requested that the citizens present meet with Building Official, Gary
Anderson, to discuss this matter further.
Public heari.9 and consideration to approve and adopt a resolution
relating to the modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City at Monticello on the -Redevelopment Plan relatinq to
Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the Tax Increment
Finance Plan relating t0 Tax Increment Finance Districts NOS. 1-1 through
1-8 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9,
all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Council reviewed an HRA proposal to utilize tax increment financing to
assist in development of an expansion to the Martie's Farm Service
operation. Council was asked to consider the pay-as-you-go TIF option at
an assistance level of $2,500 annually over seven years for a total of
$17,500.
G
Council Minutes - 1/22/90
Dan Blonigen noted his concern that the City may be getting too liberal
with its use of tax increment financing and that in this situation, tax
increment financing is not appropriate, as a direct subsidy is being
provided to a business that competes with other businesses in the
community. Ken Maus noted that a portion of the project will include
warehouse storage and manufacturing; however, it was not clear to Ken
what portion of the project will actually include such uses.
After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to deny use of tax increment financing in this case, as the
proposed use of tax increment financing is not consistent with the TIF
policy which limits expenditures that provide a direct subsidy or
assistance to a retail business. Such a subsidy provides no general
benefit to the community at large and, therefore, does not qualify as an
allowable TIF expense. In his motion, Blonigen noted also that use of
TIF in this case would set a poor precedent. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of authorization to purchase computer services from
Business Records Corporation of St. Cloud[fBY and consideration of
purchase of computer equipment from AmeriData, Inc.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that in response to Council's
direction to move forward with computer application development by
refining the proposal for development of phase I applications (finance,
payroll, utility billing, word processing), staff has moved forward by
examining the information needs of the organization and evaluated two
basic hardware configurations, both having the potential of satisfying
the City's phase I computer application needs. As a result of the study,
staff recommends that the City purchase computer services, including
vecxlov support and software, from Business Records Corporation of St.
Cloud and hardware from IBM via the state purchasing contract. The
recommndation also includes purchase of personal computers to work
within IBM mini -computer equipment, the personal computer equipment to be
purchased from AmeriData via the state purchasing contract.
Shirley Anderson reported that she participated in the system review
process and noted her confidence in the recommendation made by City
staff. Ken Maus asked if the proposed configuration utilizing a
minister for the finance applications would create a problem if the
mini -computer would go down. O'Neill reported that short periods of down
time experienced at the mini -computer level would not create a
significant problem. Under the configuration proposed, word processing
applications, which are vital to the operation of the organization, will
be conducted on four different micro-carputers, which eliminates some of
the potential for word processing related operational problems caused by
any potential mini -computer malfunction or down time. Warren Smith asked
if the disk capacity is sufficient to handle the needs of the City for a
period of time to come. Alain Aysta of Business Records Corporation
responded that she has reviewed the number of finance transactions made
by the City and incorporated that into the sizing of the equipment. She
reported that the system should be adequate to handle the disk
0
Council Minutes - 1/22/90
capacity needs of a well-managed system for time to come. O'Neill also
reported that the disk capacity can be extended by limiting the number of
word processing documents on storage at the mini-cmnputer level.
Documents that are not needed regularly can be stored off line on disk.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirle/ Anderson and seconded by
Fran Fair to approve a contract with Business Records Corporation/IBM
authorizing purchase of computer services in the amount of $42,455.
Motion to include purchase of computer equipment and software from
AmeriData, Inc., in the amount of $9,500 via the state computer
contract. 'Council directed staff to attempt to recover salvage value of
existing computer equipment to be replaced and be reimbursed for
undelivered software. Motion carried unanimously.
Based on the advice submitted by the City Attorney, further legal action
against DMDI or the City's consultant for problems associated with the
purchase made in 1987 was tabled. This item will be addressed after the
City has converted the existing utility billing system to the new
system.
6. Consideration of extendinq Monticello Heartland Express service to
Kjellberqs Mobile Hone Park West.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, reported that the Monticello
Transportation Advisory Committee recommends that the City Council modify
its management plan to allow service to be provided to Kjellbergs west
Mobile Home Park. O'Neill noted that a formal written request was
received from the board members of the Senior Center and that a
considerable number of individual requests have cone from Kjellbergs Park
West. In response to these requests, the Monticello Transportation
Advisory Cortmittee recammnds that service be provided at double the base
fare. It was the view of the MTRAC group that there is sufficient
capacity to service the new demand created by the 200 households existing
in Kjellborgs Park west and that delivery of such service should not
undermine the present level of service provided to the citizens of
Monticello. O'Neill also noted that doubling the base fare will recover
a portion of the City portion of the local share necessary to operate the
transportation system.
Shirley Anderson explained that the MTRAC group requires a $2 fare from
individuals living outside the city that use this transportation
service. A $2 fare is not charged to residents within the city that
utilize services outside the city limits such as trips to the River Inn,
Monte Club, and Gould Brothers Chevrolet.
After discussion, motion was mado by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith,
to provide Monticello Heartland Express service to the Kjellberg West
Mobile Homo Park, the base fare for this service to be established at $2
per ride paid in cash. Discount tickets do not apply. Motion carried
unanimously.
7. Approval of bills.
Motion made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to approve the
bills for the month of January as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
3
Council Minutes - 1/22/90
Other Matters.
Council discussed a petition for a feasibility study which would examine
the cost of public improverents to the Sandberg East development.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that John Sandberg has
re -acquired the Sandberg East development and wishes that Council examine
the feasibility of providing public improvements to the development.
O'Neill reported that Sandberg prefers that the development be served
across the front of the lots as they now exist. O'Neill went on to
report thast Sandberg requested that the cost of services not exceed
$5,000 per lot. According to the estimates prepared by staff, it appears
that the cost to service the lots across the front will amount to $7,000
per lot if the City utilizes the area assessment policy to finance the
cost to extend the sewer and water service from its present location to a
point where it can be used in the Sandberg East development. O'Neill
went on to note that serving the property across the rear of the existing
lots will cost approximately $6,500; and by reconfiguring the lots,
services may be installed at a cost of approximately $4,500 per lot.
Robert Krautbauer was in attendance and asked why the area assessment
policy was not applied to the East County Road 39 project. Mayor Maus
indicated that the East 39 project was established prior to the creation
of the area assessment policy; however, Maus suggested that the City look
at re -assessing the Krautbauer property based on the new policy. John
Simola discussed the importance of serving the Sandberg East area with
public utilities. Simla reported that the City has made a significant
investment in utilities to get them to a point where they can be easily
used by homes in this area.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to authorize the study of the feasibility of extending sewer
and water services to the Sandberg East development and across the front
of the platted lots. The study will also include development of a plan
for replatting the lots in a manner that would allow for the cost
efficient extension of public utilities. Motion included a request that
staff prepare information regarding potential retroactive application of
the area assessment policy to the East County Road 39 project assessment
roll. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council set a special meeting for January 29, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., at
which time The Lincoln Companies' K -mart addition project will be
discussed. The purpose of the meeting is to accept the feasibility
report and review the finance plan and proposed use of tax increment
financing.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
4. Public hearing on proposed increases in retail license fees for
non -intoxicating and intoxicating liquor licenses. (R.W.)
A. RFJ:FRENCE AIM BACKGROUND:
It has been nearly six years since any of the City's licenses pertaining
to beer, wine, on -sale, or off -sale liquor license fees have been
adjusted. The staff conducted a brief survey of some of the surrounding
ccrrmnities pertaining to the license fees charged for all types of
intoxicating and non -intoxicating liquor licenses. As a result of the
survey, it is proposed that the City's current license fees be adjusted
primarily for 1) on -sale liquor licenses; 2) on -sale 3.2 beer licenses;
3) on -sale wine licenses; 4) setup licenses; and 5) combination on -sale
wine/3.2 beer license.
According to state statutes, a public hearing must be held by the City
Council before any license fees are increased; and as a result, a notice
has been mailed to all current license holders 30 days ago informing then
of the date of this public hearing. The last time the licenses were
iacreasW was in 1904; and in the future, it is recom mcnded that the
license fees be reviewed every couple of years and, if necessary, adjust
the fees every two years rather than proposing larger increases after
five or six years have passed.
As you can see from the communities I surveyed, our on -sale liquor
license fee, except for the City of St. Michael, was lower than the City
of Big Lake, Buffalo, Elk River, Annandale, and Rockford. While the
other licenses for on -sale 3.2 beer, wine, setup licenses, and off -sale
beer were not far out of line, it is recommended that only slight
arijuatnwnrs he made to those categories. The major increase being
proposed is in the on -sale liquor license category, reconTwnding an
increase from the current annual $3,300 fee to $3,750. This $450
increase would still place Monticello equal to or under the fees
currently being charged by Big Lake, Buffalo, Elk River., and Annandale.
Although we certainly don't have to be the highest, I do not feel this
adjustment would be inappropriate at this time; and as I mentioned
earlier, the license fees would be reviewed every two years and a
recommendation made at that time as to whether any adjustments are
necessary.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. After closing the public hearing and receiving public comment, the
Council can adopt the proposed recommended fee schedule for all
intoxicating and non -intoxicating liquor licenses.
2. The Council could adjust the fees to some other fee schedule than
those proposed.
3. Council could leave the fees as is.
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation that the fees be increased and adopted
as proposed. The on -sale liquor license fee, which would have the
largest increase, would still be equal or less than surrounding
comrwnities, while the other on -sale and off -sale fees for beer and wine,
along with setups, would be adjusted by $25 annually.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of license fees currently charged by surrounding conmunities and
recomnended fee schedule for Monticello�.,Q ��crc*p
`r_
On -sale liquor
Sunday Liquor
On -sale 3.2 beer
Off -sale beer
On -sale wine
Set-up license
Off -sale liquor
Comb wine/3.2 on -sale
O
LICENSE FEES
Annandale
Elk River
St. Michael
Buffalo
Big Lake
Rockford
Monticello
Recamiend
$5,900
$4,000
$2,200
$3,800
$3,750
$3,360
$3,300
$3,750
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
150
none
200
150
180
250
275
25
75
100
60
75
30
75
75
300
500
none
100
500
180
250
275
300
-0-
-0-
300
-0-
300
250
275
100
-0-
100
-0-
-0-
-0-
450
500
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
5. Public Hearinq - 7th Street improvement project. (J.O.) AND
6. Consideration of a resolution ordering plans airy specifications for
street and utility improvements and appurtenant work - 7th St. and
Minnesota St. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to conduct a public hearing regarding this matter and
consider ordering plans and specifications for the 7th St. and
Minnesota St. improvements.
Council is also asked to determine which plan the engineer should focus
on: Plan 1 or Plan 2.
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the City Council, Council
reviewed the feasibility study and also discussed establishing a finance
plan. Council discussed two basic designs for installation of public
utilities in the area. After discussion, Council opted to distribute TIE
district proposals based on Plan 1, which was slightly higher in cost
than Plan 2. Council elected to defer a decision regarding Plans 1 and 2
pending input at the public hearing on the improvements and pending the
TIF public hearing scheduled for March 12, 1990.
Due to timing constraints, it may not make sense to not wait until
March 12, 1990, to decide on which plan to follow. OSM needs time
between February 12 and March 26 (plan acceptance date) to complete
plans. OSM would be unable to complete the plans in the time provided
between March 12 and March 26. As an alternative, Council could direct
development of two sets of plAns; hrwever, this option would
significantly add to the cost of plan preparation. Furthermore,
individuals affected by the project/TIF proposal will be present at the
February 12 meeting. It is likely that the bulk of public testimony
regarding the project will be received at the February 12 meeting.
Attached you will find an updated version of. Finance Plan 1, with slight
corrections made to the numbers. Finance Plan 2 remains the same. It is
expected that the City Engineer and/or myself will be providing a
presentation to the individuals in the audience.
Subsequent to last week's meeting, The Lincoln Companies has not formally
responded to the finance plan proposed under Finance Plan 11. I have
been inf.ormod by Chuck Dufresne that the financing for the K -Mart
addition looks likely; and according to DuFresne, The Lincoln Companies
should have closed on their mortgage financing by the time the meeting is
conducted. If this is true, it has some implications regarding any
potential proposal by The Lincoln Companies to increase the use of TIF.
Obviously, if the financing is available, then the life of the project is
less likely to depend on an increase in TIF contribution beyond that
which is described in Plan /1 or Plan A2.
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approvaPlan
tion directing OSM to prepare plans and
1 specificationsI or 2 contingent on The Lincoln Companies
paying allor aof the cost to prepare plans and
` specifications.
There is no development agreement betweeen the City and The Lincoln
Companies regarding this project. There is no guarantee at this
point that the K -Mart addition will be constructed. The estimated
cost to prepare the necessary plans and specifications is $20,000.
It is suggested that Council request that The Lincoln Companies
demonstrate intent by financing at least half the cost of the plans
up front. At such time that the project is ordered, the City would
reimburse The Lincoln Companies and then build in the plan
development cost into the total project cost for later payment via
TIF and assessments.
The Lincoln Companies has indicated that they will deposit funds
equal to one-half the cost of the plans ($10,000) prior to
development of plans.
2. Motion to authorize plans and specifications per Plan 1 or 2 with no
contingencies.
If The Lincoln Companies can in some other way demonstrate intent by
indicating evidence of a signed lease or by proving to the City that
financing is in hand, then Council might be comfortable in ordering
development plans and spec's without any other securities. Under
this option, however, there still is nn ahs0l11te guarantee that the
project will be completed.
3. Motion to deny adoption of resolution authorizing preparation of said
plans and specifications. In the event that The Lincoln Companies
refuses to finance all or a portion of the cost to develop plans and
specifications, Council may wish to deny authorization to procc4-+9.
C. STAN RDCOMKFNDATION:
The City Engineer recommends Plan 1 as outlined at the previous meeting.
TIF financing can be used to defer the impact of the higher assessments
associated with Plan 1, and the TIP revenue stream is of sufficient
capacity to finance Plan 1 project costs; therefore, staff recommends
that Council authorize development of plans and spec's contingent on
The Lincoln Companies providing a deposit in the amount of $10,000. It
Is staff's view that a deposit of $10,000 demonstrates The Lincoln
Companies' Intent. Even though The Lincoln Companies is not depositing
the full estimated cost of the project, the City is protected to same
degree in that plan development can be halted at midpoint if it looks at
that tine like the project may not procood.
CI
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Finance Plan 1; Finance Plan 2; As back-up information, you may wish to
refer to the information provided at the previous meeting, including the
feasibility studies and other data. Also included is the resolution for
adoption.
5
PRviScCY //3Y70
FINANCE MODEL VERSION:
?4A N +t I
USES ILINCOLN IHORNIG ITIF HH/PRAT (ASSESSABLE PROPERY
TOTAL I I
I ASSESS/TIFILINC. HORNIG
ROGEMNT BREN KRA14ER
SPRNG 1ITOTAL
A. MN AVE. SAN SEW 530,000 ( I
------------------- I ---------------------------
1 $24,000 16,000 1 $12,000
10
------------------------
$9,000 $3,000
11---------
SO II $54,000
S.
MN AVE. WATER 130,000 1 I
1 $24,000 16,000 1 $12,000
10
$9.000 13,000
10 I1 154,000
C.
MN AVE. ST IMPR $50,000 1 1
I $2,100 $2,550 I $0
$21,300
$17,400 f1,1SO
15,200 II $50,000
0.
7TH STREET $293,000 1128,000 1
1 543,75f 158.188 1 $58,625 $14,438
f0
t0 $0
$0 111$203.000
E.
7TH ST STORM 1100,000 1 1
1 $50,6:0 I $49,400
30
$22,9000 $0
$0 11$122.900
F.
ON-SITE PONDING $42,000 1$42.000 1
1 I
II $42.000
I
$4,950 1
II $4,950
G.
WRIGHT CTY BANK 1 1
I 1
11 10
Land $85,000 1 1
1 $86,000 I
11 $86,000
Dwy/curb $5,000 1 IS5,000 1 I
11 $5.000
1 1
1 I
I I so
H.
PRATT ACQ 161,000 1 t0 I
1 $51,000 10 I $0
$0
$0 to
$0 111 161,000
I.
HOLTHAUS ACQ $56,000 1 10 1
1 $56.000 10 1 $0
f0
10 to
$0 'II $56,000
J.
KRAMER ACQ 50 I 10 1
1 $0 $0 I . c0
$0
t0 $0
t0 '1I $0
K.
REMNANT PARCELS (TRADE - CITY REMNANT FOR
LINCOLN CO REMNANTS)
II 10
L.
DEMO/RELOCATION 14.000 1 10 1
1 14,000 10 I $0
f0
$0 $0
$0 111 $4,000
M.
SOFT COSTS INCL 1132.400 1 $0 1
11132.400 I
11$132,400
CAP INTEREST -I I
I I
II
OF HARD COSTS 1 I
............
_ _
I (Sub tot 172,738 I
....:::::::::..:n..:::.::::::nll:..::.:::
11
fr
1`
TOTAL COST 1799,400 11$70,000 11$5,000 111551,838 11 $132,025 114,438
121,300
158,300 17,150
15,200 111111875,250
TOTAL LINCOLN COMPANIES COST:
$ 025
TOTAL UP FRONT TIF EXPENSE:
$551,838
REMAINING TIF FUNDS:
$ ,
TOTAL DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS:
170,900
TOTAL TIF EXPENSE MINUS DEFERRED
ASSESSMFNTS MINUS REVENUE FROM
LAND SALE:
< 1401,93
uu........ uuuu.. an uaauu n.Man. nsuuu.am unnunuw uu..M.M
nnnnnnanua......
MIS ......
FINANCE MODEL VERSION:: -a 'AlUPS t�
USES ILINCOLN INORNIG ITIF HH/PRAT (ASSESSABLE PROPERY
TOTAL I I I ASSESS/TIFILINC. HORNIG RDGENNI BREN KRAMER SPRNG IITOTAL
-I- - -- I ---- I------------- 1-----------------------------------------------1 I--------
A. MN AVE. SAN SEN. 18500 1 I I 11,6E0 10 1 $3,320 $0 $3,320 $0 10 II $8,300
B. MN AVE. WATER 113,000 I I I $2,600 10 1 $5,200 $0 $5,200 so s0 II $13,000
C. MV AVE. ST IMPRV 150.000 I I I $2.100 12,550 1 $0 121,300 517,100 11, ISO $5,200 li $50.000
0. 7TH STREET 1202,000 1$28,000 I 1143,500 $57,895 1 $58,250 $16,355 s0 $0 s0 $0 -1 111202.000
E. 7TH ST STORM $70,000 1 1 I $25,200 1 $14,800 so so $0 $0 II $70.000
F. ON-SITE PONDING $12,000 1112,000 1 1 0.28 I II 162,000
I I I I I I $0
G. WRIGHT CTY BANK 1 I I I II s0
Land $86,000 I I 1186,000 1 11 $85,000
wry/curb 15,000 1 Is5,000 1 I I1 $5,000
1 1 1 1 i t so
H. PRATT ACO 111,000 1 so 1 1 161,000 $0 1 so so so 10 So $1I 161.000
I. HOLTHAUS ACO 156,000 1 s0 I 1 $56,000 so 1 $0 $0 so s0 10 -11 $56,000
J. KRAMER ACO so I s0 I I f0 10 1 $0 so s0 $0 f0 'l I so
K. REMNANT PARCELS (TRADE - CITY REMNANT FOR LINCOLN Co REMNANTS) II 10
L. DEMO/RELOCATION 14,000 I s0 I 1 $4,000 10 1 s0 s0 $0 10 s0 'Il $4,000
M. SOFT COSTS INCLUO $151,252 I s0 I 1$154,262 1 111154,262
CAP INTEREST - EST 151 I 1 1 _._ 1 11
OF HARD COSTS I I I (Sub tat $60,115 1 II
C ..-_..- ....... -.°........ I^======°I
I
TOTAL COST ST51,562 1$70.000 I$S,000 15697,068 1 1111,570 116,355 $21,300 125,920 11,150 15,200 -111751,563
TOTAL LINCOLN COMPANIES COST: $181,570
TOTAL TIF EXPENSE: $497,058 (�o,v •vILLu4(L �t tof4 � 1 y �
REMAINING TIF FUNDS: 1102,932
TOTAL TIF MINUS LAND
SALE: 1111,068
1414 una..u.. un nun$ ... uem......uuunnnuunounu..nnuu.uu.u.numu.n.uw.w.....uun.......
y/�GvSP FcpI, Iina.rc/ ��an x 1 W,fG Z4 S
juP J,, -i It
.
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPEICIFICATIONS FOR
7TH smer IMPROvEmEwr
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 29th day of January,
1990, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of
7th Street from Locust Street to Minnesota Street, and Minnesota Street from
the existing bituminous south of 6th Street to 7th Street, with bituminous
overlay, curb and gutter, and improvements to Minnesota Street and 7th Street
with extensions of sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer drainage facilities,
and appurtenant work.
AND WHEREAS, 10 days nailed notice and two weeks published notice of the
hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 12th day of
February, 1990, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an
opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed in the Council
resolution adopted January 29, 1990.
2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, the City's consulting engineer, is
hereby designated as the enjineer for this improvement. They shall
prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
Adopted by the Council. this 12th day of February, 1990.
City Administrator
C
Mayor
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
7. Consideration of the petition from Meadow Oak development residents.
(G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed you will fird a copy of a petition which was submitted on
Thursday, February 8, 1990, at the informational meeting with the Meadow
Oak development residents. In the petition, the Meadow Oak residents
feel the proposed low income/first time home buyer housing proposed for
the entire Meadow Oak Second, Third, and Fourth additions will
significantly decrease the value of their current residences.
The FaHA, Farmers Home Administration, is proposing to finance
construction of single family/first time home buyer single family
residences on 13 existing platted lots in the Meadow Oak Second, Third,
and Fourth additions. The proposed purchaser/developer of these 13 lots,
Barthel Homes of Rogers, Minnesota, is proposing to build the minimum
size square foot house allowed by ordinance, 960 sq ft; and they are also
proposing to build a 320 sq ft attached garage onto the 960 sq ft
houses. The square footages mentioned above include a fully completed
house on the inside and outside with the installation of a sod/seeded
lawn with trees. In other words, the prospective buyer will have nothing
to do with any type of sweat equity to get them into this single family
home, as all of the work will be done prior to them moving into the
residence.
The minimum square footage requirement of a single family house --a
1-story/rambler style house, a split entry house, or a split level
house --is 960 sq ft of finished living area; however, we have an
exception to this 960 sq ft minimum requirement, and that is we can get
down to as small as nn 86n sq ft homm if we build an attached or
detached garage of at least 14 ft in width and a total of 336 sq ft. we
would also be allowed to build the minimum 960 sq ft house without a
garage. we do not require within the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
that an attached or detnchod garage be constructed onto an existing
1 -story, split entry, split level, or 2 -story house.
If the proposed house plans submitted by the lot purchaser/developer meet
the minimmn house square footage, minimum house and/or garage or
outbuilding setback requirements, and meet the minimum requirements of
the State Building Code, the City has no choice but to issue a permit for
the construction of a single family residence on one of these 13 lots.
The options to the City Council are limited to the following:
1. Do nothing. If the developer meets the minimum square footage
requirements as established in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, a
permit shall bo issued.
2. Consider amerv9ment of the current zoning ordinance establishing a
Chigher square footage minimum requirement for a single family
house.
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
3. Encourage this proposed developer to seek other available vacant
lots within the city of Monticello or encourage the developer to
plat existing vacant residential unplatted land into a proposed
new residential subdivision.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Acknowledge submission of the residents' petition but do nothing. If
the developer submits the minimum sized square foot house and meets
the minimum requirements of our Monticello Zoning Ordinance and the
State Building Code, a permit shall be issued to him by the
Monticello Building Official.
2. Table consideration of the residents' petition and consult the City
planner. Ask planner to consider possible amendment to the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance increasing the minimum size house square
footage requirement.
3. Encourage developer/builder to seek additional vacant residential
lots in other parts of the city of Monticello or encourage the
developer/builder to develop existing unplatted residential land in
the city of Monticello into a proposed residential subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff has no recommendation for the City Council other than to
consider the above-mentioned alternative actions or other alternatives
that the City Council members cane up with at the Monday night's meeting.
n. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the affected lots of the petition; Copy of the Meadow Oak
residents' petition; Copy of the Meadow Oak Second, Third, and Fourth
additions restrictive covenants; Copy of the Meadow Oak Estates
restrictive covenants; Copy of the zoning ordinance section in regard to
the minimum house srniare footage requirement; Copy of the Meadow Oak
Second, Third, and Fourth additions vacant lots on which to build; Copy
of the Meadow Oak Second, Third, and Fourth additions single family homes
purchase date and purchase price.
OAJC'
RED QAK .5—
R4LG.
I X4I
74(4'/O
2 S40
IV %J
-7
4]6 a
�, � y2t"
op
to
10
UN
10
7%01 28.2vi
!�Iw �Tlsl -Z-%Ol -2,
W LANG 3,
0 Vote
7600 2in 4
ol0
12 t7 Haves bits, Itavorb 0 46h (17) "
*a! &Vej Lob CIS)
d�l�i�u► Amu ZPIS
�I At duto Owers Lots Q)
00 Go
A ZS�OiZ '
LANE REO OAK
LrgL
tau
iy
Oli
ly
i
LO 4
O 9
ZV-O C? Q tc 0NPJJ — o
M�p`9
--- ► 0 0
s3o
,� 7 oa-
a
l 4 Q o
10
$ t• � 3 n W
1541
LANE
z VQ
_
• G�i/OW opt ieaa 79 2 29,Y zsu-1
l
p
a
• r tt/ ��z �� tv (A 3 f Z t
2 I o
We the Pen-ple of Meacow Oak and Meadow Oak Estates are
not In acreetrent with the proposed low income housing
throuchout Vie entire Meadow Oak leve-looraent. Tnis will
rl..-t 0mly cause problems and expense for,tme City of
Monticello but will also significantly decrease thp-value
of the current established residences of Meacow Oak. The
proposed homsing is far from compatible with the existing
housing.
The following signatures are in full support of this
petition as stated, above,
tipEi—E* ADDRESS: DTA
6.9
40
1 .7 VCI-il
I ;z
1.5 Aib
let
K:A nnjN LL. -,ft
j2 4, 15,A
J.
W4q0C ?Xe 'Lei C-06et ff- 6,,4 17
: --- /
Q:(K
A"
We the people of Meadow Oak and Meadow Oak Estates are
not in acreerrent with the proposed low income housing
throughout the entire Meadow Oak develloament. Tn4s will
not only cause problems and expense for, the City of
Monticello but will also significantly decrease thp, value
of the current established residences of Meadow Oak. The
proposed housing is far from compatible with the existing
housing.
The following signatures are in full suoport
of this
petition as stated above:
NA. C: ADDRSSS:
OAT
103o MecJou-) OcX- ()r
I
ICA 1-4-1
1-/ Y1Z avi"
40
J. ?-7q/
7- 2! 4 42
Qakv:a, L.,
21.21 0-qi(44k--' ICZ.&k,
__77'r ,
We the p=+o?le of Meacow Oak and Meadow Oak .=s'ta'tes a -•e
not in aereement with the proposed low income housing
ttirouchout tie entire Meadow Oak develooment. Tnis will
not only cause problems and expense for, the City of
Monticello but will also significantly decrease t".p value
of the current established residences of Meacow Oak. The
pro.posed housing is far from compatible with the existirc
housing.
The following signatures are in full support of this
petition as stated above:
'SAYIYIC: ADDRESS: QTs
,� [ %dT a 7(0 / /%Y1�.2�cYC+-s. • f _'�GC./z-E�
• �/'i di:;'/yin' / ii�l �7Sc� /i' //!//ni�J Lam/
. ��EA� lam•
./..ii��� ..
I
I '
! //-?'/9v
I
1
L, - . , . - ol , (fig/ 5e,
We the People of Meadow Oak and Meadow Oak Estates are
not in aoreerrent with the proposed low income housing
throu;hou4' the entire Meadow Oak development. Tnis will
not only cause problems and expense for the City of
Monticello but will also significantly decrease the. value
of the current established residences of Meacow Oars. The
proposed housing is far from compatible with the existing
housing.
The following signatures are ire full suoport of this
petition as stated above:
ADDRE'SS:
00X, LK
17MI
V ItAtu6vj Oak lane. i f /Z? /70
-7 17 WgytJ %rctc
I -
f 7A
----Lao
LAL YO
We the people of Meadow Oak and Meadow Oak Estates are
not in agreement with the proposed low income housing
throughout the entire Meadow Oak development. This will
not only cause problems and expense for the City of
Monticello but will also significantly decrease thm value
of the current established residences of Meacow Oak. The
proposed housing is far from compatible with the existing
housing.
The following signatures are in full su2port of this
petition as stated above:
ADDRESS: DATE;
LM -41 14,01 YA, XLZid 11.6190
fit Ilk X Y7 "-fl ltn,�F 1� LJ',) 1 6/:0
121AL 61,e&ki 04e 2i 712a
inj I
!_v9tpaAan��
Qe:==
I J���'�--?J90.
vat Ahahu) W. klm-fi- !A1 7/ 10
C
We the people of Meadow Oak and Meadow Oak =states are
not in aereernent with the proposed low income hQusina
throuehout the entire Meadow Oak development. Tnis will
riot only cause problems and expense for the City of
Monticello but will also significantly decrease the, value
of the current established residences of Meacow Oak. The
pro 'posed housing is far from compatible with the existing
housing.
The following signatures are in full su2port of this
petition as stated. above:
ADDRESS:
�6 �l�tlar7 G7/k G�. �o�r
I
I.i�GI
i
ZE-_r1rti
We the people of Meadow Oak and Meadow Oak sstates are
not in agreement with the proposed low income housing
throughout the entire Meadow Oak devela pment. Tnis will
not only cause problems and expense for the City of
Mo:iticelio but will also significantly decrease the value
of the current established residences of Meacow Oak. The
proposed housing is far from compatible with the existing
housing.
The following signatures are in full suzport of this
petition as stated above:
hAMc. ADDRESS: / A7,
i 1,/9:�9> 1N"�'�'��� 1 .��ol.i (/�i�r�..� /'A -.-.J � J / a / Q✓
I I
� I
I !
• I s / �
. I �
I
I
I I
MEADOW OAA 29D, 3RD, 6 4TH
Section 1. Land Use and Building TYoe. No Loc shall be
used except for residential purposes, ano no building shall be
erected, altered, placed or permitted on any Lot other than one
detached single-family dwelling.
Section 2. Sodding and Seeding. The homeowner will be re-
quired to sod the trout yarc, the oouievard and'the side yard (to
rear house line) and to seed the rear yard, within" th'e' groiiin&
season from the date of issue of the certificate of occupancy for
each home erected on these lots. If dxought conditions and con-
current city watering bans prohibit lawn development during is.t
growing season, the lawn shall be established by June 1 of the subsequent
growing season.
Section 3. Boats, Rec:eacional Vehicle, etc. Boats, recre-
ational vehicles, trailers ane similar vehicles may not be parked
or stored within the street right-of-ways. of the front yards of
these lots.
Section 4. Driveways or Parking Area. All private driveways
snall have a bituminous or concrete surrace. On lots that have
no garage, a parking area shall be constructed having a minimum
size of 400 square feet.
Section 5. Out Buildinst�. No out building or similar
structures may be erectea or installed in the front yards of any
of these lots.
Section b. Trees. Each open lot (a lot without trees) shall
have at least one tree, 1 1/2" diameter, installed in their front
yard, within one growing season from the date of issue of the
certificate of occupancy on these lots.
Section 7. Miscellaneous.
(a) Enforcement. Any owner of a Lot shall have the right
to enforce, by proceedings at law or in equity, all of the re-
strictions, conditions, covenants and conditions now or hereafter
imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. In the event that
any such owner should employ the services of an attorney in
connection with a breach of the terms hereof by any other owner
or his tenants, invitees or contract for deed purchasers, and if
the owner seeking cc enforce the same shall prevail in any such
action, the losing owner anall pay, in addition to any other
damages awarded by any court, the prevailing owner's reasonable
actorney'a fees, costs, and expenses. The failure of any owner
to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in
no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter
unless by the terms hereof, such right has been expressly waived.
(b) Severability. The invalidation of any one of these
covenants or restrictions by legislation, judgment or court order
anall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain
in full force and effect.
MEADOW OAK ESTATES
Section 1. Land Use and BuildinR Tvoe. No Lot shall be
used except for resLeen clal purposes, ane no building shall be
erected, altered, placed or permitted on any Lot other than one
detached single-family dwelling, with an attached garage having
a minimum capacity of two automobiles.
1 Section 2. Minimum Souare FoocaRe. No dwelling shall
be permitted on any Lot unless the ground floor area of the
dwelling, exclusive of porches and garages, has an area of not
less caan 1,100 square feet in cne case of one-story buildings,
nor less caan 1,000 square feet in the case of split 'level entrance
buildings, nor less tnan 900 square feet in the case of two-story
buildings.
Section 3. Driveways. All private driveways shall have
a bituminous or concrete surface.
Section 4. Maximum Uninterrupted Length of Front Facade.
The street -side facaae or any awelling small not exceee 44 Leet
in length unless a portion of such facade, having a minimum
length of at least five feet, is set back or set forward from the
remainder of such facade by a distance of ac least one foot
measured at a right angle from the remainder of such facade, it
being the intention of the Declarant and Co -Declarants that any
building having a facade of at least 44 feet facing the street
shall have at least one "jog" or change in direction in order to
avoid the appearance of a "wall" wnen viewed from the street.
Section 5. Sodding and Seedinr. The homeowner will be re-
quired to sod the yarn, the boulevard and the aide yard (to rear
house line) and to seed the rear yard, within the growing season
from the date of issue of the certificate of occupancy for each
home erected on these lots. If drought conditions and concurrent
city watering bans prohibit lawn development during let growing
season, the lawn shall be established by June 1 of the subsequent
growing season.
Section 6. Trees. Each open lot (a lot without trees) shall
have ac least two trees, 1 1/2" diameter, installed in their front
yard, wicnin one growing season from the date of issue of the cert-
iciate of occupancy on these lots.
Section 7. Miscellaneous.
(a) Enforcement. Any owner of a Lot shall have the right
to enforce, oy proceeaings ac law or in equity, all of the re-
striccions, conditions, covenants and cond scions now or hereafter
imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. In the event that
any such owner should employ the services of an attorney in
connection with a breach of the terms hereof by any ocher owner
or his tenants, invitees or contract for deed purchasers, and if
the owner seeking to enforce the same shall prevail in any such
action, the losing owner shall pay, in addition to any ocher
damage '
amages awarded by any court, the prevailing owner'. reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The failure of any owner
to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in
no event oe deemed a waiver of the right co do so thereafter CV)F
unless by the terms hereof, such right has been expressly waived.
a it. Po?es, tower3 and other strx::res !Or essential ser•:
l 12. Necessary mecianical and electrical
appurtenances
13. Television and radio antennas not
exceeding twenty (201 feet above
roof.
14. wind electrical generators
[F) No excluded roof equl;=ant or st=octural
element extending beyond the 1-1=ited height
of a building may occu=y more thea twenty -rave (25)
percent o: the area a such roof not to
exceed ten (10) feet unless otherlise noted.
[G) MINI.1174 F14CR AREA PER D'W'ELLING UNIT:
1. ONE AND/OR TIWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND
TownOU5ES: The miai---ua floor area
for such tyre buildings shall be as
follows:
a) One Story Dwelling -.400 square fast
(b) Two Story Dwelling - 750 square feet per star*/.
r
Q
ION: The miniTum aqucne
e od a ane 4toay bu.i„idi.ng
seduced to $64 aquane
d a garage Ea added with
at 336 aquaae deet. In
e, however, 4haU the min.im+mi.on od that ga•tage be teen
d deet.
2. MULT:PLE D1:E'LLING UNITS: Except for
elderly housing, living units classified
as multiple dwellings shall have the
following mini--= floor areas per
unit;
(a) Efficiency Units 300 square feat
(b) One Bedroom Unita 600 square foot
(c) Two Badracm Units 720 square feet
(d) More Than Two Bedroom Units -An additional 100
square feet for each
Additional bedroom
3. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING:
C Living units classified as elderly
(senior citizen) housing units shall
have the following minimum floor arses
per unit: //�
(a) Efficiency Units 640 Square foot -
1b) One Bedraem, 420 Sear• feet.
i
Yr'%
-Yz55
94/0
Z3
—F.6cl. OAKCN � �2 I/'7.
Al
An aSS� 35�
T`ctv. - ,AX-U*,� 3145 M,`Z4,-.r4
,�'a-,.,,,,,,� �� � �6I O a �„�� �. a �s-- a 794•
-f ---
'�---�
i J
a �4 � z
I + 1
�C / L/d7 I
s r 6 00 cam
Ihlis fff �\
�_ pr 5/,W/J7 i-r/s/t, G2�
\ Z t gsaw
' \\ �'aK LANE RL°uL°6 sicT,�
---`-7--
• --"�. e � Q 350
-4 2SAO
00
to jshn�. O by O
yJAA �r� t,,p► 2$V in,vso
Ld /FY
a 000
0 M L
�71,tu`0 mlv/Ft -
1
[oWbD ` C, A
��;1.34?�1 B M%r/?i tiJ tr � G49dir
to
to l pJ ghJ�4 ? 213dt 7521 26 2 (ot
♦I ,I�ri „lntee 1,v�� LgNE a
.500 7522 ?g Ai t 1$ti: O eJi�A7
JpAg '111
• �4W V .._.r�q�'i ?-r"� ��,n1°' S'b,� 3 I -2
W
w�
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
e. Consideration of an ordinance amendment further defining public
nuisances. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For a number of years now, the City staff has been actively enforcing the
public nuisance ordinance in an attempt to eliminate blighted conditions
throughout the city of Monticello. Gary Anderson, as Building Official,
has been the primary source of documenting and enforcing the public
nuisance section of the ordinances for all types of violations, including
the storage of automobiles, trucks, and other vehicles. Notices are sent
to property owners who violate the ordinance; and although some cases are
referred to the City Attorney for prosecution, overall compliance has
been fairly well received without City Attorney intervention.
In regards to cars, trucks, and other vehicles being stored on property
:within the city of Monticello, our present public nuisance ordinance,
7-1-1 (A), defines any automobile, truck, or other vehicle that is not
currently licensed which are, because of mechanical deficiency, incapable
of movement under their own power as vehicles considered a public
nuisance. In the past, notices were sent to all property owners who had
on their property a non -licensed vehicle informing them that the vehicle
had to either be licensed or removed. Although compliance has been
pretty good, our City Attorney has indicated that if an individual were
to pursue the matter in court, Mr. Hayes thought that the City might have
a hard time enforcing the ordirkince, even if a vehicle was not licensed,
if the property owner could show that the vehicle was able mechanically
to be moved. Because of this, what could happen is that a property owner
could have a large number of vehicles unlicensed stored on his property
and be in compliance with our ordinance if they were mechanically able to
be started and moved. --
Since our underlying purpose in having a public nuisance ordinance is to
eliminate blight and unsightly conditions in both residential and
commercial neighborhoods, the staff and the City Attorney feel that it is
necessary to amend our ordinance to eliminate the possibility of
individuals storing a large number of automobiles outdoors. As a result,
it was suggested by the City Attorney that the following ordinance
amendment be adopted amending Section 7-1-1 (A) that would define any
automobile, truck, or other vehicle as a public nuisance if:
1) Any vehicle not licensed arca incapable of movement under its own
power;
2) A licensed vehicle but incapable of movement under its own power;
3) A vehicle capable of movemrnt under its own power but not
licensed and stored for more than 30 days at a time.
7bia ordinance amendment would eliminate the storage of vehicles on a
person's property even if they are licensed but are not able to be driven
away, and any vehicle that is able to be moved under its own power but
not licensed and stored for more than 30 days. m
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
1
Since our public nuisance ordinances seen to be enforced once spring
arrives, it is suggested that the ordinance amerxbment be adopted prior to
Mr. Anderson starting his spring cleanup notices.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the ordinance amendment definition as presented.
2. Leave the definition as is.
C. STAFF RWOMKENDATION:
Although it hasn't been a major problem, the City has encountered a few
cases where an individual has indicated that the vehicle cited was able
to move under its own power and felt the ordinance was vague. The City
Attorney had agreed that in oourt the City would have problems enforcing
a public nuisance statute against a property owner even if the vehicle
was not licensed but could nave under its own power. As a result, I
believe this amendment would cover all areas of a vehicle being stored
that is not used normally by the individual on a day-to-day basis. This
would keep with our intent of eliminating unsightly conditions and
amnnulations of vehicles in residential and/or commercial areas. As a
result, staff recommends that this amendment as proposed by the City
Attorney be adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of existing public nuisance ordinance; Recommended ordinance
amendment.
9
7-1-1
CHAPTER 1
PUBLIC NUISANCES 1
SECTION:
7-1-1: Activities, Business Prohibited
7-1-2: Exceptions
7-1-3: Public Nuisance
7-1-4: Enforcement
7-1-1: ACTIVITIES, BUSINESSES PROHIBITED: Subsequent to the enactment
hereof, the following acts, conditions, activities, business or
businesses are hereby prohibited except as hereinafter permitted:
7-1-1
(A) No unwholesome substance, garbage, refuse, offal, or similar substances
shall be brought, deposited, left, dumped or allowed to accumulate within
the City. For purposes of this Section of the City ordinances entitled
"Public Nuisances", refuse shall include but not be limited to the following
or similar items stared or parked outside: Passenger automobiles, station
wagons, trucks and other vehicles not currently licensed (if applicable) by
the State which are because of mechanical deficiency incapable of movement
under their own power; household appliances such as but not limited to wash-
ing machines, dryers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, television and radia
sets, phonographs, and similar items, vehicle parts, old machinery, machinery
parts, tires, tin cans, bottles, building materials (unless current building
permit for their use is in force), wood (unless used for fire wood and neatly
stacked), metal or any other material or cast off material, and similar items.
` (1-12-76 N5)
(B) A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the State
and consists in unlawfully doing an act or oamiting to perform a duty which
an act or omission shall:
1. Annoy, injure or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any
considerable number of persons.
2. Offend public decency.
3. Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct or tend to obstruct or render danger-
ous for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream canal or basin or a
public park, square, street, alley or highway or
4. In any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or
the use of proporty, and as such nuisances are hereby prohibited.
(C) In any area the existence of any noxious or poisonous vegetation such
as poison ragweed, or other poisonous plants, or any weed, grass, brush or
plants which are a fire hazard or otherwise detrimental to the health or
appearance of the neighborhood.
(D) In any area, within 100 feet of the nearest building, the existence of
( woods or grass in excess of six (6) inches in height or any accumulation of
dead woods, grana or brush.
"I
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ORDINANCE SECTION 7-1-1 [A)
PERTAINING TD THE DEFINITION OF ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED AS PUBLIC NUISANCES BE
AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
(A] No unwholesome substance, garbage, refuse, offal, or similar substances
shall be brought, deposited, left, dumped or allowed to accumulate within
the City. For purposes of this Section of the City Ordinances entitled
"Public Nuisances", refuse shall include but not be limited to the
following or similar item stored or parked outside: passenger
automobiles, station wagons, trucks and other vehicles not currently
licensed (if applicable) by the State which are because of mechanical
deficiency incapable of movement under their own power; passenger
automobiles, station wagons, trucks aril other vehicles which are
currently licensed by the State but because of mechanical deficiency
incapable of operation on a public street or highway under their own
power or passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks and other vehicles
which are capable of operation under their own power but which are not
currently licensed by the State when stored or parked outside for more
than 30 days; household appliances such as but not limited to washing
machines, dryers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, television and radio
sets, phonographs, and similar items, vehicle parts, old machinery,
machinery parts, tires, tin cans, bottles, building materials (unless a
current building permit for their use is in force), wood (unless used for
fire wood and neatly stacked), metal or any other material or case of
material, and similar iters.
Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of February, 1990.
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
C
Ken Mous, Mayor
NT
Council Agenda 2/12/90
9. Consideration of ordinance to regulate cigarette vending machines. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A few weeks ago at the citizen's cortments section of the Council meeting,
Morie Malone suggested that the City Council consider disallowing the
sale of cigarettes through vending machines. The Council directed staff
to research this topic and prepare an ordinance amendment for Council
consideration.
At this time staff has not prepared a formal ordinance amendment for
Council consideration; however, two potential ordinances are included in
your agenda packet for your review. In addition, it was felt that
preparation of an ordinance amendment at this point would be premature,
as staff needs some input from Council prior to drafting of the
amendment.
Complete ban versus a limited ban of cigarette vending machines.
Prior to development of the final wording of the ordinance, staff would
like to know if Council wishes to enact a complete ban on cigarette
vending machines.
The City of Big Lake prohibits cigarette sales through vending machines
everywhere except in an establishment that has an on -sale intoxicating
liquor license. The City of White Bear Cake does not allow cigarettes to
be sold through vending machines in any establishment.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACHONS:
1. Motion to direct staff to develop an ordinance amendment which
disallows the sale of cigarettes through a vending machine.
Under this alternative, a complete ban on vending machine sales of
cigarette would be enacted. Cigarettes could only be purchased
through over the counter transactions. Liquor stores would not be
able to sell cigarettes via vending machines.
2. Motion to direct staff to develop an ordinance amendment which would
disallow the sale of cigarettes through vending machines with
exceptions.
Under this scenario Council could indicate which establiehmenta would
be allowed to sell cigarettes via vending machines. As noted, the
City of Big Lake does allow cigarettes to be sold through vending
machines at all establishments that sell intoxicating liquors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 2. Since one must be 18 years old to enter
a liquor establishment, it can bo assumed that individuals purchasing
cigarettes from the vending machines in liquor establishments are of age;
10
Council Agenda 2/12/90
therefore, it does not seem appropriate to ban cigarette vending machines
in liquor establishments. Council may also wish to allow the sale of
cigarettes through vending machines where the use of cigarette vending
machines is easily monitored. To do so, however, might complicate the
ordinance and defeat its purpose. Therefore, staff recamrends that
Council disallow sale of cigarettes through vending machines in all
establishments except for those that sell intoxicating liquor.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Big Lake ordinance #422, an ordinance disallowing the sale of
cigarettes through vending machines. Copy of City of White Bear Lake
ordinance #1089-793, an ordinance amending the City of White Bear lake
municipal code disallowing the sale of cigarettes through vending
machines and increasing the fee for said license.
C
' � J OYNER LANES MONTICELLO, Inc.
i i P.O. Box 246 — Monticello, Minn. 55362
.2 -/z-So
IT t4't at
aj -- �-�
��� "t a-eP —fid .
c
�-' CITY OF BIC LAKE
ORDINANCE 0422
An Ordinance Disallowing the Sale
of Cigarettes Through Vending Machines
The Big Lake City Council does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION I CIGARETTES - PROHIBITED SALES. No person shall sell or
dispense any cigarettes or tobacco product, cigarette paper
or cigarette wrapper through the use of a vending machine,
unless the vending machines are located In an establishment
that has a on -sale intoxicating liquor license. No person
shall keep for sale, sell or dispose of any cigarette or
tobacco product containing opium, morphine, jimson weed,
bells donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other
deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine.
SECTION Il LOCATION. The cigarette vending machines shall be located in
the area of the establishment where Intoxicating liquor Is
served. The cigarette vanding machine shall at all times be
In visual observation of the employees of the establishment.
SECTION III This ordinance becomes effective ninety days after the date
Of Its adoption.
Adopted by the Big Lake City Council this 2nd day of January 1990.
Eugene B. Earney, ayor
mi� 1� . Ae-1
Michael J. 40_n4l�cyAdmlnistrator�
9
January 17th, 1990
City of Monticello,
Please find enclosed, a copy of the White Bear Lake ordinance banning
all cigarette machines from the city proper.
It is my intent to introduce a similar ordinance, with the exception
being, (if desired by the city or community members.) liquor and beer
establishments. The age of consumption of these beverages is higher than
the age to purchase cigarettes.
This ordinance will include all restaurants that do not recognize the
age of their clients as a factor in the sale of their primary goods. It will
include all gas stations, convenience stores, and any or all other stores that
now sell cigarettes from a machine. A machine does not care if the money
for it's product comes from a 12 year old. or an 18 year old.
I have noted so far, for our town, that Country Kitchen does not have
an age posted on their cigarette machine to warn minors of legal aspects.
I wish to thank -you for your consideration in this important matter
which has an impact on what we have to say to our youth, and our concern
for their health. I firmly believe that we should no more sell cigarettes from
a machine than we'd sell beer from a vending machine, or any product which
by law has a legal age attached to it.
Sincerely,
Maureen E. Malone
O
ORDINANCE N0. 10-89-793
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE
DISALLOWING THE SALE OF CIGARETTES THROUGH VENDING MACHINES
AND INCREASING THE FEE FOR SAID LICENSE
The Council of the City of White Bear Lake does ordain as
follows:
SECTION I. That Section 1104.010 CIGARETTES; LICENSE REQUIRED,
APPLICATION, ISSUANCE. is hereby repealed and replaced with the
following:
IIG4.G1C CICARET.TES; LT(7 NSE REQUIRED. APPLICATIO . ISSUANCE.
No person shall keep for retail sale, sell at retail or otherwise
dispose of any cigarette or any tobacco product or cigarette
paper or cigarette wrapper at any place in the City without a
license. Application for a license shall be made to the City
Clerk on a form supplied by the City. The application shall
state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of
the building and part intended to be used by the applicant under
the license, the kind of business conducted at such location and
such other information as shall be required by the application
form. Upon the filing of an application with the City Clerk, it
shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration. If
granted by the Council, a license shall be issued by the City
Clerk upon payment of the required fee.
SECTION II. That Section 1104.020 CIGARETTES; LICENSE FEE is
hereby changed to increase the license fee from twelve 1g12i
dollars per year to twenty two lf22) per year.
SECTION III. That Section 1104.080 CIGARETTES; PROHIBITED SALES,
is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
1104.ObO CIGARETTES; PROHISITHD SALES. No person shall eell or
give away any cigarette or any tobacco product., cigarette paper
or cigarette wrapper to any person under the age of eighteen 1181
years. No person shall sell or dispense. any cigarettes or
tobacco product, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper through the
use of a vending machine. No person shall keep for sale, sell or
dispose of any cigarette or tobacco product containing opium,
morphine, jimsonweed, belle donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana
or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine.
:91
SECTION IV. This Ordinance becomes effective npeiv.-spprovai--and
pubb►e alio a. ninety days after the date of its adoption.
Passed by the City Council of white Bear Lake, Minnesota, this
loth day of October , 1989.
First Reading September 12, 1989
Second Reading October 10. 1989
se Br a, a�d
ATTEST:
(� -���City ' . kR and R. ebenalerClerk
®White Bear Lake
Tobacco -Free Youth Project
Fact Sheet
The Issue: Youth Access to Tobacco.
• Results From A Recent University of Minnesota Survey: Actual Purchase Attempts By
Youth In White Bear Lake.
March, 1989.
Purchase Attempts Were Made At Each Outlet 4 Times By Youth Ages 13 - 15.
• Overall success: 60%
• Success raie fur vending inaci-Liue: 6570
• Success rate for over the counter purchases: 54%
July, 1989.
Purchase Attempts Were Made By A 15 Year Old Girl And 14 Year Old Boy.
(Afterthe law increasing the penalty went into effect.)
• Overall success: 46%
• Success rate for vending machines: 82%
• Success rate for over the counter purchases: 37%
• In a University of Minnesota study, over 25% of all tenth graders surveyed reported
having purchased cigarettes at least once from vending machines.
• In the same survey, over half of tenth graders who smoked named vending machines as
a primary source of cigarettes.
• The great majority of teenagers obtain their cigarettes by purchasing them. Only 19%
of the tenth graders in the same study reported getting them at home.
• Convenience store managers, police, and city officials say that as long as cigarettes are
available through vending machines minors cannot be prevented from purchasing
cigarettes.
• Almost 60% of people who smoke start by the age of 14; 90% begin smoking by the age
of 21.
• More than 6 million Americans under the age of 18 use tobacco;it is estimated that 81,000
Minnesotans 14-18 years old smoke on a daily basis.
*The earlier a child starts using tobacco, the more likely it is that he or she will be unable
to quit, and to subsequently die of a tobacco-indused disease.
(Over)
9
• A child who smokes just one pack of cigarettes will develop a substantial tolerance to the
drug effects of nicotine, which is the critical fust step in the addiction process.
• Nicotine, an addictive substance found in cigarettes, may be harder to quit using than
heroin. More than one-half of high school seniors who smoke daily have tried to quit
without success.
• Tobacco vendors have said that a ban on vending mac`dne sales would not have a
significant impact on their business since cigarettes play a minor and decreasing role in
I
heir sa:e;.
• According to Census Bureau data from 1982, vending machine sales of cigarettes
represents only 6.2% of all cigarette sales, suggesting that the absence of
vending machines would result in little inconvenience to adults who smoke.
• Many Minnesota businesses are removing cigarette vending machines from the premises
voluntarily to support their restrictive smoking policies, and their employees who are
trying to quit.
• A recent California project showed that a massive community education program
reduced the number of stores selling cigarettes to youth, but had no effect on illegal
vending machine sales. After the program youth could still buy cigarettes in 100% of
attempts from vending machines.
• Currently Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, and Utah all have restrictions on the sale of
cigarettes in vending machines.
• A 1988 survey of residents of six Minnesota cities revealed that more than half of all
_pendens favcred a law prohibiting the sale cf ciga: =ties in vending :nachirc :.
• U.S. Surgeon General E. Everett Koop has recently called for an end to the availability of
cigarettes to youth through vending machines.
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
1 10. Update by City Attorney on current litigation issues. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I had originally requested that the City Attorney attend this Council
meeting to report to the Council during the department head agenda item
an update and status report on our current litigation issues the City is
involved with. Rather than requiring Mr. Hayas to attend the entire
meeting, I have asked Mr. Hayes to provide an update after the Council
considers revisions to our ordinance that Mr. Hayes helped dcaft.
I believe it's Mr. Hayes' intent to update the Council on three lawsuits
the City is currently involved with, including the status of the Senior
Citizen Center Director's litigation and also litigation commenced by the
AV Room over the driveway elimination during the Highway 25 project.
C
12
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
11. Review of Monticello Softball Association financial r000rt for 1989 and
update on expeixiitures relating to NSP softball field complex. (R.W.)
A. RF-FEREIICE AND BACKGROUND:
In early 1989, City Council adopted a set of rules and regulations that
pertain to the softball/baseball complex which was recently completed on
West River Street. As part of the rules and regulations, the Monticello
Men's Slow Pitch Softball League had agreed to reimburse the City $125
per team annually to cover some of the maintenance cost associated with
the new complex. In addition, the softball league was required to submit
a financial report to the City Council outlining their revenue and
expenditures also annually.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the softball association's 1989
financial report. Last year the softball association had 19 teams
participating in league play, which resulted in a total of $2,375
reimbursed to the City along with a total of $425 additional for
tournaments held throughout the summer at $25 per field. This
corresponds to the same amount that war awed for 1988.
Although the softball association is currently in the process of
establishing a schedule, etc., for 1990, it is estimated that the same
amount of teams will be participating; and as expected, the same amount
of revenue will be collected in 1990. it should be pointed out that the
softball association primarily uses the fields at the NSP complex on
Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, plus their weekend tournaments
throughout the summer. The little league baseball team also utilizes one
field (the baseball field) practically every night of the week and also
utilizes two additional softball fields on Thursday evenings. During
1989, the women's softball association also held a district softball
tournament at the NSP complex. Normally, the girl's high school softball
league plays at Hillcrest and 4th Street Park, but they also utilize the
NSP complex for one tournament during one weekend. In addition to the
above organizations, the high school has also used the baseball field for
its junior varsity liome games, and the 9Lh grade baseball team has
practice occasionally at the NSP facility. Except for the women's
district softball tournament which was held one weekend, none of the
other organizations, including little league baseball, high school girl's
softball, or the high school for its junior varsity or 9th grade
baseball, have been charged any fees to utilize this complex. The only
revenue received has been from the man's softball association for their
use on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. As you can see, quite a number
of different teams are also utilizing the complex; and it my be a
misconception that the entire complex Is always utilized by the men's
softball association.
Enclosed you will find an estimate of the ballfield operation cost for
1989, which covers our mowing cost, fertilizer cost, irrigation system
parts and labor, and the electricity consumption at the NSP fields. It
is estimated that our annual costs are approximately $4,425, which
included the installation of new bases. The used bases are typically
removed from the NSP fields and relocated to our other park facilities on
a rotating basis, in some respects, the operational cost of the NSP
13
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
complex is probably less than it is for some of our other parks,
especially when comparing electciciLy consumption. For exairpie, the
4th Street Park in 1989 cost almost $1,700 for electricity due to the
warming house and lighting for the skating rinks. The West Bridge Park
electricity cost $626 for lighting and also the skating rink facility.
If the NSP facility is treated like a similar park within our system, the
operational cost compares favorably although more mowing may be necessary
to keep the ballEields in Lip -Lop shape.
Also enclosed you will find a construction cost summary relating to the
NSP complex for the years 1986 through 1989. The NSP facility was
started in 1986 under a grant program through the state whereby we
received $27,500 in matching funds for the initial construction. In
addition, the City also received a contribution of $300 from the
Monticello Jaycees and another $500 from a contributor to the Monticello
Softball Association. As you can see by the summary, total expenditures
are approximately $172,546 for the softball field development, including
fencing and the concession stand. Of this amount, $50,350 is actually
the time allocated for City employees who worked on the facility from the
maintenance department. As a result, actual outlay of City funds
amounted to $122,200, of which $28,300 was reimbursed through state
grants and local contributions. The net cost to the City through 1989
was actually $93,900 for the improvements plus City staff labor.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the financial report of the softball association as presented
and reaffirm the rules and regulations for 1990. This would continue
the practice of charging the softball association the $125 per team
and also a $25 per field charge for tournaments.
2. Amend the rules and regulations as desired if the Council feels an
increase in the fees is necessary or the addition of a charge for
little league baseball or women's softball usage.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the primary purpose of this agenda item is to update the Council on
the total expenditures at the softball complex to date and to review the
softball association's financial report, the staff does not have any
recom endations on altering the rules and regulations at this point and
recommends continuing the agreement as adopted last year. While it does
not seem that the fees collected from the softball association cover 1009
of our annual maintenance cost at the field, it again should be pointed
out that the men's softball association is not the only organization that
utilizes this field; and if the Council feels additional revenue is
needed, we my want to investigate charging other organizations that
utilize the complex also.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 1989 financial report for softball association; Copy of adopted
rules and regulations; Copy of maintenance operation cost for 1989;
Summary of construction cost for years 1986-1989.
14
l
M.M7TCELLO SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION 1989 FINANCIAL REPORT
I\'CnME 1989
Entry Fees
! 7,391.00
Tournament Fees
S 750.00
Raffle
S 2,100.00
Concessions
STn,ii6.2i
Interest
268,49
Total Income 1199 '20,615.70
EXPFNCF.S 1989
Umpires
3,065.00
City of Monticello
t 2,825.00
Minnesota Sports Federation
S 2,290.00
Dahlheimer Distributing
1,937.On
Moon !+otors
3 1,799.00
Team Choice
S 1,703.SS
Jude Candy
S 1,637.74
Viking Coke
S 1,455.50
Minnesota Rec. and Park Assn.
S 840.00
Concession Labor
't 650.00
Lindenfelser Ments
S 527.10
fisc. Expences
381.95
Field Maintenance
$ 318.00
Maus Foods
2R9,!12
Red's !+obiI
S 234.On
Rridgewnter Telephone
3 137.31
Joyner Lanes
f 125.28
Liquor License
t 122.5n
`tonticello Printing
' 98.14
Nnrry's Auto Supply
S 56.55
Martie's Farm Service
S 49.16
F1k River Printing
! 48.SO
Monticello Times
S 28. R()
Total Fxpences 1689
52n,62n.01
League President
4ebt!tichaelis
Lengue Secretary
Aes �41chaelis
1,
IV
Q)
MONTICELLO SOFTBALL/BASEBALL COMPLEX
RULES AND REGULATIONS
The City of Monticello's responsibilities:
a. Mow and maintain grass and irrigation system.
b. Clean the restrooms daily; provide paper and soap.
c. Provide electricity.
d. Provide rubbish removal from dumpster.
e. Provide bases.
f. Provide lime for infields.
g. Open and close restrooms on days when no events are scheduled.
h. Shall establish rules for use of the facilities by the public and
post them.
i. Shall schedule use of the facilities.
J. The City will not be responsible for any loss of goods or supplies
due to a break-in, etc.
k. Building care and maintenance, including fence.
1. City shall only issue to one (1) organization a non -intoxicating
liquor license for the concession stand.
2. User's responsibilities:
a. The last team or league to play on a field shall be responsible for
dragging and raking the field using only the tractor provided by the
Softball and Baseball Associations (no automobiles).
b. All trash and litter shall be picked up inside the fence and the
parking lot and place it in the dumpster by the concessionaire or
their designate nightly. All trash containers on site shall be
emptied into dumpster.
c. Concessionaire shall sweep and wash concession stand floor and
counters daily.
d. Concessionaire shall turn out lights (except security), lock all the
doors on the building and all gates before leaving for the evening.
e. League or teams shall provide umpires, balls, and chalk the fields.
f. All leagues or teams shall provide their own liability insurance with
$300,000 minimum coverage and shall submit a copy to the City, With
City named as additional insured.
g. Concessionaire shall provide dram shop insurance and submit a
certificate of insurance to the City.
h. The City shall be notified immediately of any damage that occurs to
the building or grounds.
i. Leagues or teams using the facilities shall be responsible for any
damage that occurs to buildings, grounds, and improvements be•:auso of
negligence.
J. No vehicles shall be allowed beyond the main gate except for delivery
or maintenance purposes.
k. The concessionaire shall notify the City or the Sheriff's Department
of any rule violations at the facility.
1. Softball and/or Baseball Association shall be responsible for
seasonal installation of phone.
0
Monticello Softball/Baseball Complex
Rules and Regulations
Page 2
3. Pees and Charges.
i
a. There will be no charge for youth or other organizations to use the
facilities.
bMen's slow pitch softball- league shall pay $12.5/team to__the-City of?
L_ MonticellobyOctober .l of -each year.
c. Tournaments (see next page).
Softball_ League will submit financial statement to City Council by
October 1 each year.
BASEBALL ASSOCIATION / SOFTBALL LT E C \
?_--R9
Date Date
C
01
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INVITATIONAL SOFTBALL/BASEBALL TOURNAMENT POLICY
I . Eligible sponsors listed in priority.
A. NSP's yearly softball tournament.
B. City of Monticello; Minnesota Sports Federation; any district, state,
or national tournaments.
C. Monticello Softball Association.
D. Non-profit association/organization within the city (Baseball, Lions,
Jaycees, etc.)
E. Team from a league.
F. Residents of the city.
G. Non-residents.
If more than one request for a given date is made by sponsors of equal
priority, the sponsor bringing in the largest number of out-of-town teams
will receive priority.
I1. Reservation of complex.
r
A. Tournaments may be held from April 15 to October 15.
B. Application dates and deadlines.
1. Tournaments conducted satisfactorily will receive priority
consideration in the upcoming season for the some weekend, unless
the date is needed for someone with a higher priority.
2. Application for a tournament must be made by March 1.
3. After March 1, all reservations shall be on a first come, first
serve basis.
III. /^Fees and Charges.
( A,) The charge for tournaments will be $25/field for length ofd
tournament.
B. Tournament fees are due prior to a tournament.
TV. Tournament director responsibility.
A. Drag fields after play has ended.
B. Chalk fields as needed.
C
City of Monticello
Invitational Softball/
Baseball Tournament Policy
C. Submit schedule to Park Director to facilitate maintenance
scheduling.
D. Police up area, empty containers, and place all trash in the dumpster
immediately after the tournament.
V. Inclement weather.
A. All play shall cease if tornado sirens are sounded.
B. Play shall cease in periods of extreme weather conditions that could
he unsafe for participants or detrimental to the playing fields.
VI. The City of Monticello reserves the right to make exception to the above
rules when it is in the City's interest to do so.
NSP BALL.FIEU) COSTS - 1989
Mowing (24 times -2 men --4 hours each) $1,000.00
Fertilizer & labor 2,100.00
Irrigation parts & labor 500.00
Electricity consumption 593.00
Replacement pitching mounds & basis 228.00
$4,421.00
Field usage
1. Men's softball, 19 teams, 3 fields, Monday through Wednesday.
(Approximately mid-April to mid-Auqust)
2. Little league baseball, baseball field, Monday through Friday; and (3)
fields, Thursday. (Mid -May through mid-July)
3. Girl's softball played at Hillcrest field and 4th Street Park field.
(One tournament held at NSP complex)
4. Women's district softball tournament held at NSP softball fields.
5. High school used baseball field at NSP for junior varsity home field and
9th grade baseball used field for some practice. i
Income 1989
Men's softball association, 19 teams X $125 $2,375.00
Tournaments 425.00
TOTAL $2,800.00
0
NSP BALLFIELD CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
19x6-1989
REVENUE:
LCMR Grant
$ 27,500
Contributions--TC's
300
Contributions --Monti Softball
500
R.E. Taxes
27,524
Transfers from Capital Outlay
112,275
TOTAL REVENUE
$168,099
•,r�„frit••i•i,r�rititt�t�*a�����,�,����������r����i��►�►����ti�r�,�re*rf ►f f��e
EXPENDITURES:
City Labor b Benefit Costs Allocated:
1986-1988
Sewer 6 Water Installation:
$ 8,666
Jae's Precast
$ 2,257
Water Products
6,354
Brentenson Construction
6,802
Irrigation System:
P 6 H Warehouse
Field b Parking Lot:
Barton sand
$ 8,666
Bryan Rock—Lime
12,902
Professional Turf
3,800
duality Lawn Maintenance
375
Sands Plains Soil
379
NSP—Service Installation
2,157
Olson Electric
1,412
Fencing:
Century Fence Company
Concession Buildinq:
Plimbery
$ 6,907
Olson Electric—Fixtures
784
AME Ready Mix
2,529
Davis Water Equipment
299
Simonson 6 Country Lumber
6,833
Granite City Electric
540
Ancon Block 6 Hanson Block
5,813
Ceramic Industrial
165
Barber Electric ---Fixtures
735
Superior Products—Fixtures
286
$ 50,353
$ 15,413
S 10,443
$ 29,691
$ 28,066
0
NSP BALLFIELD CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
1986-1989
Page 2
Concession Buildinq (continued:
Paulko Signs
185
Checkpoint weld
300
Dale Veches—Labor
1,950
Paul Hoglund—Labor
5,150
Little Mountain Electric
2,234
Misc. Vendors 6 Supplies
1,046
Interest Expense Fund Deficits
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS THROUGH 1989
DEFICIT TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM CAPITAL OUTLAY
C
$ 35,756
$ 2,804
$172,526
($4,427)
6)
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
12. Consideration of award of bids for Project 90-1, booster pump
refurbishment, at the water reservoir on Chelsea Road. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Bids for the refurbishment of the four booster pumps at the reservoir on
Chelsea Road were received on Friday, February 2, at 11:00 a.m. The City
received four bids. The bids were broken down into two sections. The
lowest bid for refurbishment of the existing pumps was received from
E.H. Renner b Sons of Elk River, Minnesota, for the amount of $35,296.
The low bid for complete replacement of the pumps was received from Trout
Wells, Inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota, in the amount of $38,900. The
difference between the refurbishment of the four Layne pumps and the
replacement of all four pumps with Fairbanks pumps is $3,604.
City staff was concerned about the possibility of change orders involving
the electrical work after comments from Olson Electric. Gene Anderson of
OSM assured us, however, that no change orders will be necessary. City
staff was also concerned about the overall lower pump efficiencies of the
new Fairbanks pumps at high head and low head conditions versus the
existing Layne pumps. The Fairbanks pumps will cost at least $300 to
$500 more per year in electrical costs; and because they are 5 -stage
versus 4 -stage, they will cost an estimated $600 more in repair costs
when they are pulled for maintenance. This all amounts to $9,204
(10 -year) cost difference in new Fairbanks pumps versus refurbishing the
Layne pimps. Lastly, the Fairbanks pump installed in well M4 never did
produce at its rated capacity (2150 gpm vs 2400 gpm), so there is also
some question in that area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to award Project 90-1 to E.H. Renner &
Sons for refurbishment of the existing pimps at a cost of $35,296.
2. The second alternative is to award Project 90-1 to Trout Wells, Inc.,
of St. Cloud, Minnesota, for replacing the four existing pimps with
new Fairbanks punps at a cost of $39,900.
3. A third alternative would be not to award the bids.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Engineer, Public Works Director, and t.
Water Superintendent that the City Council award the refurbishment of the
existing pumps to E.H. Renner 6 Sons of Elk River, Minnesota, as outlined
in alternative O1. The last estimate given the City Council for this
work was $42,000. Consequently, the bids are within our latest proposed i6
budget projections. The project is scheduled to be complete no later (i)
than May 11, 1990.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
�k
Copy of bid tabulation andletter of recommnrdotion from 041.
s /�4�
FEB 09 '94) 12:59 4:Sh1 IPLS414
P,2
clsxpen& i
Int
2020 East Hmnepm Avenut
MMeap011s. MN 5541J
612331.8660
FAXii31-3806 Ent,P'netts
surwyurs
Planners
February 9, 1990
I
Mr. Rick wolfstellor Administrator I
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, M 55362
RE: City of Hontic011o
Booster pump Refurbishment
Dear Rick:
Attached is a Bid Tabulation for the above referenced project. As
you will note, E.H. Renner of Elk River is the low bidder for the
pump rehabilitation base bid. bark J. Traut wells, Inc. of St.
Cloud was the low bidder for Alternative No.1 1, which included a
now pump option. j
After complete review of both the Renner and the Traut submissions
and consultation with both pump manufactures and other City staff,
it is my recommendation that E.H. Renner be !awarded the contract
for Dtooster Pump Refurbishment for $39,296. r
very truly yours,
ORR-SpCRELEN-KAYERON'
CIATE% INC. ;
I
Dan 5. Kling, p
DSK/cmw
02/90-com.rw
Attachment
l
9
i
DID TABULATION
FOR
CITY OF MONTICELLO
BOOSTER PUMP RBFURBISHMBHT
BIDS OPENED: February 2, 1990 !ORR SCHBLBN NAYERON
11:00 A.M. li ASSOCIATED, INC.
*Denotes Corrected Figure
C
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TRIS IS
A TRUE A11D;CORRECT TABULATI0IJ
OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ONt
DATE 199
Sy
OSM No. 17 .67
Comm.
011-
NEW PUMPS i
CONTRACTOR
BASE BID
ADDITIONAL i
TOTAL BID
E.H. Renner
$35,296.00
$12,400.001
$47,696.00
Bergeraon Caswell
$44,145.00
$ 0.00
$44,145.00
Layne Minnesota
$35,671.00
$16,240.00;
$51,911.00
Traut
$35,650.00
$ 3,250.001
I
$38,900.00
*Denotes Corrected Figure
C
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TRIS IS
A TRUE A11D;CORRECT TABULATI0IJ
OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ONt
DATE 199
Sy
OSM No. 17 .67
Comm.
011-
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
13. Consideration of renewing contract for ergineerinq and consultinq
services and revised enyineerinq fee schedule. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE ANI) BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello has utilized Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates as
its consulting engineer for the past 15 years. Although our contract for
engineering services is automatically renewable, the hourly rates
applicable for services performed have been adjusted, typically annually.
As you may recall, i had indicated that the consulting engineer did not
have to be annually appointed at the organizational meeting held the
first meeting in January but would be considered at a later date by the
Council. Enclosed with the agenda you will find an updated rc•ris;d
hourly rate schedule proposed by OSM for the year 1990. Generally
speaking, the hourly rates proposed are approximately a 4 percent
increase over 1989's rates.
It should be noted that the continuation of engineering services with 031
does not have to be a guaranteed commitment that all en3ineering services
have to be performed by OSM for the City. The City Council may wish --and
the staff would like the option --to utilize other engineering firms
should the need arise for a specific project or task. if the staff feels
that a future project would be more appropriately handled by another
engineering firm, this would be brought to the Council for their
approval.
One item you may wish to note in reviewing the fee schedule is the
current charge for a construction observer. The current rate is $24 per
hour times a multiplier of. 2.15 equaling $51.60 per hour. This fee will
relate to the next agenda item concerning the possible hiring of our own
inspector to do construction observation on improvenant projects.
Over the years, the City staff has rade a number of suggestions arid/or
requests of OSM concerning their engineering services that we feel should
again be noted now that we're looking at renewing their agreement. One
item that has come up is every few years, the City requests new updated
utility base maps that show locations and sizes of all sanitary sewer,
water, and storm sewer facilities on a city mup. When the City staff
requests an updated map, apparently OSM then utilizes one of. their
draftsmen to take all of the as -built information that has occurred from
the last update and incorporate it into a new base map. After
eomrpletion, the City 1s then billed for the engineering services of
updating the map long after the irrproverent project has been done and
assessed to the benefiting property owners. We have asked previously to
have OSM build into each project an estimate of the time it will take to
have a draftsman updato the base mop from the as-builts so that we can
properly assess these costs as part of the assessment roll. When we
receive the billing years later, it is very difficult to go back and ever
recapture this cost. Mr. John Badalich previously has indicated they
would be doing this; but as of this point, we are still billed when we
request an updated rap and do not have an estimnte of the cost at the
time an assessm:nt roll is adopted.
16
1•
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
Another item that has been mentioned to OSM in the past by the City staff
concerns providing a monthly status report on all improvement projects
they are associated with. For example, the report should indicate the
current project status, the amount of work completed, the estimated
completion date, whether the project is on schedule, and whether we
should be aware of any problems that might exist or change orders that
are needed. In line with this, OSM has also indicated they could provide
us with a status of the engineering fees and billings that will be
forthcoming relating to each project but yet not billed. In some cases,
a few months can pass before we're actually billed for engineering
services, which does make it hard for the staff to figure out if we're on
schedule according to cost. It may be well to note that these three
areas need improvement when considering their contract renewal.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize a renewal of consulting services agreement with OSM and
revised fee schedule as proposed. It may be well to request under
this item that the three areas noted above, and previously agreed to
by OSM, be provided in the future.
2. Do not authorize extending contract arrangement. At this point, this
alternative does not seen to be an option unless the Council directs
the staff to request proposals from other engineering firms.
C. STAFF RDC dDATION:
While the staff does not have any problems with continuing our
arrangement with OSI provided the three areas noted above can be improved
upon by then, the Council should be aware that the option always exists
for the Council to add additional engineering firms as consultants if
they should desire. This in no way ties us into OSM on a permanent
basis, and the staff may, depending on the specific project, be
requesting or recommending that the Council utilize other engineering
services. While the proposed rate increases in the fee schedule are
anticipated and seem in line with the cost of living, I am not sure
whether any adjustment to these fees can be negotiated.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of revised 1990 fee schedule.
17
Orr
Scheirn
OAS)& MayeNn&
Assodates. Inc
December 28, 1989 2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
bl2-331-9600
City of Monticello FAX 331-3906
Engineers
250 East rBroadway surveyors
Monticello, MN 55362 Planners
Attn: Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
Re: Engineering Services Agreement
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
According to the terms of our Contract for Engineering Consulting
Services with the City of Monticello, I am enclosing for your information
a copy of the revised schedule of hourly rates for 1990. These hourly
rates are applicable in 1990 for work performed on an hourly basis as set
forth in the Engineering Agreement.
The salaries for the engineering and technical staff catergory has
increaed an average of 4.1% over 1989 to reflect salary increases this
past year. The multiplier remains at 2.25.
The hourly rate for Construction Observer and Survey Crew(s) has 9
increased by approximately 4.3% over 1989 to also reflect salary
increases this past year. The multiplier remains at 2.15, and the rate
shown is a flat rate for this category of work.
All costs related to word processing, clerical, printing, and mileage
charges are again considered in our overhead, and no billing will be made
for these support services in 1990.
A schedule for Computer Costs is also shown, which when used on projects,
will reduce labor costs. The City will be informed prior to use of these
facilities if cost effective to the City on projects where compensation
is on an hourly basis.
We look forward to continuing our good working relationship in 1990 with
thp•.r.ity of Mnnt.icello in nrovtdino professional services as your City
Engineer and Engineering Consultant as we have for the past fifteen
years. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON
6 ASSOCIATESo, INC.
• �Q.dc'r1�^� V
C JohnD. Badalich, P.E.
Vice President
JPB/cmw
12/89.80
Enclosure
OR
OARS
schden
Mayeron &
CALENDAR YEAR 1990
2021 Ea51 Hennepin Avenue
Mmneapol6. MN 56413 Eng,neem
612.331.8660 Surveyors
FAX 331-3806 Planners
Fee Schedule
Schedule of direct personnel costs to be multiplied by 2.25 to determine
hourly fee:
Principal
$41.00
Senior Registered
Engineer, Planner, Surveyor
34.75
Registered Project
Engineer, Planner, Surveyor
29.75
Project Engineer,
Planner, Surveyor
23.50
Engineer, Planner,
Surveyor
19.25
Senior Designer
27.50
Designer, Level II
24.00
Designer, Level I
21.50
Senior Technician
19.00
Technician, Level
Il
16.00
Technician, Level
I
12.00
Schedule of direct personnel cost to be multiplied by 2.15 to determine
hourly fee:
Construction Observer $24.00
3 -Person Survey Crew 47.00
2 -Person Survey Crew 37.25
Schedule of computer cost per hour:
Intergraph CADD Workstation $35.00
Prime 2655 Mainframe Terminal 15.00
Microcomputer 5.00
Microcomputer CAD Workstation 15.00
'Direct personnel cost' is defined as salaries plus payroll burden and
fringe benefits. All personnel assigned to the project will be billed at
the rates shown above based on their respective classification multiplied
by the appropriate multiplier.
All other costs, such as vehicle mileage, survey equipment and vehicles,
word processing, clerical, printing and reproduction costs are included
in the hourly fee.
This Fee Schedule is subject to revision in subsequent years on an annual
basis, and subject to approval by the City Council.
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
14. Consideration of hiring an inspector. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For the last few years, we have considered hiring our own inspector for
various public improvement projects. In addition, the work load in other
departments, primarily the sewer and water utilities department, has
increased to a point where additional staffing is needed. We discussed
the possibility of having our own inspector with John Badalich of OSM.
John had no objection to the City having its own inspector as long as the
individual was competent arca knowledgeable concerning all phases of
construction, inspection, or observation. John indicated a willingness
to assist in the training of such an individual so that he would fit in
well with the City of Monticello and OSM's engineering staff. John
indicated that if he was satisfied that the individual was competent, he
would have no problem signing off on improvement projects.
In 1989, OSM provided 844 hours of construction observation on various
improvement projects within the city of Monticello at an hourly rate of
$49.45. This totaled $41,736. About 7.3 percent of this time was on
private projects. It is the staff's opinion that the City could hire an
inspector for between $23,000 and $26,000 per year depending upon
qualifications. with benefits, this range would be from $29,900 to
$33,800 per year. Based upon OSM's new rate for construction observation
of $51.60 per hour, it is easy to see that we need only to provide 655
hours per year worth of inspection work on public projects to pay for
100 percent of the individual's salary for the whole year. For 1989, if
we would have had this individual on board, we would have been $8,000
ahead. One must also consider, however, that engineering services may
increase slightly, as a sm311 amount of inspection on their part may
still be necessary before signing off on a project.
Aside from the public improvement projects, there are numerous other
duties that the inspector could perform for the City. Currently, Matt
and Tony handle all of the service inspection related work in the sewer
collection and water system departments. The duties that could be
performed by the inspector in that department are as follows:
1. Excavation permits, smill contractor coordination, and
inspections.
2. Sewer and water service locations for hookups.
3. Sewer and water service testing and inspection.
4. Gopher State One Calls for sewer and water locations (these
reached a maxinum of 25 calls per day in 1989).
S. Record drawings of service locations in non-public inprovementn.
6. Maintenance and updates of the City of Monticello as -built files.
7. Other.
A. Early spring and late fall hydrant flushing and gate valve
exercising.
B. Hydrant inspection and fall ping.
C. Water meter inspection and replacement coordination.
18
C
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
In addition to the above duties, it is possible, and if time were
available, that this individual could assist in the building inspection
department during periods when Cary is on vacation or his work load is
heavy. An experienced construction inspector could handle routine
inspections such as plumbing inspections, footing inspections, etc.
In addition, there are other various projects that come up from time to
time that this individual could cover. One more routine project is our
sealcoating project. Although the projects tend to last only a couple of
days, this individual could perform those inspections as well.
The inspector would be assigned to the administration and engineering
department under the direction of the Public Works Director. He or she
would then be assigned to the various departments on specific projects or
tasks.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to allow City staff to draft a job
description based upon the above task descriptions and advertise for
a full-time inspector with a salary range of $23,000 to $26,000 per
year depending upon qualifications.
2. The second alternative would be not to advertise but continue as we
a re.
C. STAFF RECOMMFXDATION:
It is the reemmendation of the public Works Director and City
Administrator that the Council authorize development of a job description
and advertisement for the position of inspector as outlines] in
alternative 61.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Tabulation of past inspection services; projection of 1990 projects
requiring inspection.
19
ANNUAL TNSPFIC'PiON COSTS
C
('ONS KT,'rION
YEAR
OBSERVATION HOURS
BURLY RATE
TOTAL OOSPS
1989
844
X
$49.45
$41,735.00
1988
1,012-1/2
X
$47.30
$47,670.86
1987
810
K
$45.15
$36,571.50
1986
1,379-1/2
X
$43.00
$59,318.50
1985
285
K
$38.70
$10,966.55
C
POSSIBLE INSPECTION PROJECTS - 1990
1. Seventh Street arca Minnesota Street extensions.
2. Kjellberg's Evergreens development.
3. Sandberg East development, extension of water and sewer.
4. Fallon Avenue realignment—Remiele Engineering.
l
0
0
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
15. Consideration of adopting a resolution callinq for a public hearing on
the proposed modification by the Housinq and Redevelocmant 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. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This agenda item is to call a public hearing for the adoption of the TIF
plan for Tapper, Inc. Tapper, Inc., does business as Genereux Fine Wood
Products and Westlund Distributing. Genereux manufactures a full line of
unfinished custom storage systems primarily for the single family home
market. Westlund Distributing distributes hardware to the cabinet
manufacturing industry. The company currently operates out of a
12,000 sq ft facility in St. Michael, which is leased.
The initial Monticello expansion will be a 24,000 sq ft manufacturing
facility with a 3,000 sq ft mezzanine/office area. Jobs will include the
retention of 25 plus the addition of another 25 skilled labor. Location
site is Lot 4, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, 7.6 acres.
The TIF plan relating to TIF District 1-9 is available at City Hall for
review. The total TIF budget is $125,000 (land acquisition $77,500).
Annual adjusted tax increment is $22,500.
Bill and Barb Tapper, owners of Tapper, inc., will attend the City
Council meeting on February 26, 1990.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACNONS:
1. Adopt the resolution calling for the public hearing date on
February 26, 1990, for TIF plan relating to TIF District 1-9.
2. Deny adoption of the resolution calling a public hearing for the TIF
plan relating to TIF District 1-9.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution calling for a public hearing
on February 26, 1990, for the TIP plan relating to TIF District No. 1-9.
This being consistent with Minnesota Statutory, the project mooting HRA
policy approval and HRA approval for the TIF Plan relating to TIF
District No. 1-9, and the project plan being consistent with the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan as approved by the Planning Commission.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution stating purpose of public hearing; Site location
map.
20
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
February 26, 1990, at approximately 7:00 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.
0
Section 2. Notice of Hearingi Filinq of Proqram. 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
February 15, 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 February 12, 1990.
ATTEST:
c
Administrator
Mayor
EXHIBIT X—A
OEPART&Sx-, OF ECONOMIC OE1jELOPAAV4
Industrial Park Profile
Oakwood Industrial Park
Monticello, Minnesota
0 200 •00 FEET Q WAFLAaLE FARCELg
N'T
9q
ThONAS PA RK '
• .na ��� , , + ~•_coq
1 c 1�lF� an 1
Fi SIG ��1. Il.n - •q 1.1 •►� ��•''r L••J: .•1'.r•�'yt::�+46
_ r ' •t L •_:�_ .ice
.h
X -A
01V
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
16. Consideration of adopting a resolution giving preliminary approval for
the Tapper, Inc., project and giving preliminary approval for the
issuance of small business development loan revenue bonds. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The financial package, having been drafted by Business Development
Services, Inc., for Tapper, Inc., includes the use of a Minnesota Small
Business Development loan, tax increment financing, and the Greater
Monticello Enterprise Fund. The Small Business Development Loan can
finance up to 808 of the project lard and building costs and up to 758 of
the project machinery and equipment costs.
This resolution states the City of Monticello is desirous of inducing and
encouraging the Tapper, Inc., project which was described in the previous
agenda item. The adopted resolution will encourage the State to finance
the costs of the project in the estimated principal amount of $820,00 and
to serve as the appropriate substitute for the bond resolution or other
form of official action necessary to document Tapper's intent. Further,
the adoption of the resolution allows Tapper, Inc., to start occurring
engineering/architectural costs or other project costs as allowed by the
state program.
Mr. Pat Pelstring, Business Development Services, Inc., will be present
at the Council meeting to respond to further questions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution giving preliminary approval for the Tapper,
Inc., project and giving preliminary approval for the issuance of
sm311 business development loan revenue bonds.
2. Do not adopt the resolution.
C. STAFF RECOM4IF"TION:
Staff recom a ds adoption of the resolution giving preliminary approval
for the Tapper, Inc., project and giving preliminary approval for the
issuance of Small Business Development Loan Revenue Bonds. Staff
recommends adoption to encourage the Tapper, Inc., project and to
encourage economic development in and for the City of Monticello, as the
project is consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution; Copy of the project uses and sources.
21
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT WITH
TAPPERS, INC., A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, AND OTHERS GIVING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE ISSUANCE BY
THE MINNESOTA AGRICULTURAL AND 92040MIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF
SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IRAN PROGRAM REVENUE BONDS TO
FINANCE THE PRDJECT AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City Council, in and for the City of Monticello (herein, the
"City"), is desirous of inducing and encouraging (i) Tappers, Inc., a
Minnesota Corporation, (ii) and William R. and Barbara R. Tapper, individuals,
either individually or collectively (herein, the "Applicant"), to cause to be
acquired, equipped, and operated a 25,000 square foot office/production
facility to be located in Monticello (described as Lot 4, Block 2, Oakwood
Industrial Park, Wright County, Minnesota) (herein the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, Applicant has filed an application for the financing of the Project
through the Minnesota Agricultural and Economic Development Board (the "State")
by the issuance of Small Business Development Loan Bonds under the State's
general band resolution (the "Resolution") for the Minnesota Small Business
Development Loan Program (the "Program"), as amended and restated by the
Authority on September 24, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Agricultural and Economic Development Board has been
established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 41A (and including certain
provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1986, Chapter 116M notwithstanding the repeal
thereof) (collectively the "Act"), to act on behalf of the State of Minnesota
within the scope of powers granted to it in the Act to implement loan programs
under the Act by which the State, along or in cooperation with private or
public lenders, may provide adequate funds or incentives to finance or assist
in the financing of projects and otherwise assist the development,
construction, and installation of such projects; and
WHEREAS, the State has yet to act officially on the Applicant's application but
is expected to do so in the near future; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also advised the City and the State that with the
aid of a business loan and other financial assistance that may be provided by
the State pursuant to the Act and its resulting low borrowing cost, the Project
is economically more feasible and financing for the Project is more likely to
be available; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has specifically requested that the State undertake to
issue its revenue bonds under the Program and resolution to finance the costs
of the Project in the estimated principal amount of $820,000 and with a final
maturity not to be in excess of the estimated average economic useful life of
the Project; and
WHEREAS, pending such action by the State, Applicant has requested this City to
adopt this resolution to encourage the State to finance the Project and to
! serve as the appropriate substitute for a "bond resolution or other form of
+ official action" necessary to document the Applicant's intentions and the
intentions of a state of local subdivision to cause the Project to be financed
with tax exempt bonds under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
OAR
Resolution 90 -
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council in and for the City of
Monticello as follows:
Section 1. The City hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the application
of the Applicant to the State (the "Application") for financial assistance with
respect to the Project.
Section 2. Based on the Application of the Applicant and on other submissions
to the City and on other information available to the City, the City hereby
finds and determines that:
(1) financing of the Project by the State or the City of Monticello is
necessary to permit Applicant to expand or remain in Minnesota, and
Applicant has demonstrated that it cannot obtain suitable financing
from other sources;
(2) the Project will create or retain significant numbers of jobs in the
city of Monticello;
(3) the Applicant has a significant potential for growth in jobs or
economic activities in Minnesota during the ensuing five-year
period;
(4) the Applicant will maintain a significant level of productivity in
Minnesota during the ensuing five-year period; and,
(5) tax-exempt bonds issued by the State under its program appear to
provide a more favorable means of financing for Applicant and the
Project.
Section 3. Subject to Section 5 heroof, and based on the financing request and
other submissions to the City Council and on other information available to the
City Council, the City Council of the City of Monticello hereby conditionally
finds and determines with respect to the Project that:
(a) The project will create or maintain a sufficient number and type of
jobs to justify State or City participation in its financing; and
(b) The Project and its development is economically advantageous to the
State ani the City of Monticello, the provision to meet increased
demand upon public facilities as a result of the Project is
reasonably assured, and energy sources to support the successful
operation of the Project is adequate; and
(c) The project will (1) tend to maintain or provide gainful employment
opportunities within or for the people of the State and City of
Monticello, (2) aid, assist, and encourage the economic development
or redevelopment of any political subdivision of the State and the
City of Monticello, and (3) maintain or diversify and expand
employment promoting enterprise within the State and the City of
Monticello; and
Resolution 90 -
Page 3
(d) The Project will assist in fulfilling the purposes of the Act.
Section 4. The City Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the Project
and its financing by the State by the issuance of the State's Small Business
Development Loan Bonds.
Section 5. Subject to the conditions herein stated, the City of Monticello
hereby encourages the State to give preliminary approval to the proposal that
the State issue its Bonds in an amount not to exceed $820,000 to use the
proceeds thereof to make the Loan to finance the costs of the Project or a
portion thereof pursuant to the Act. Such issuance would be made upon such
terns and conditions and with such provisions as the State may require and the
proceeds of the Loan shall be used solely for costs as described in this
resolution. If the State is unwilling or unable to issue such Bonds, it is the
present intention of the City to do so. Notwithstanding any other terms and
provisions set forth in this resolution to the contrary, this resolution shall
not obligate the City to issue such bonds but only shall serve as the necessary
preliminary official action of the City to encourage the State to issue its
Bonds for the project.
Section 6. The Bonds would be special obligations of the issuer thereof
payable solely from the revenues realized from the loan agreement with respect
to the Loan financed with bond proceeds, from the application of amounts on
deposit in any debt service reserve fund established by the issuer thereof with
respect to the Bonds and from other revenues, moneys, or assets specifically
pledged to the benefit of the bondholders. The Bonds would not constitute a
debt or loan of credit of the State or any political subdivision thereof (other
than the Minnesota Agricultural and Economic Development Board) nor any
political subdivision thereof shall be liable on the Bonds. Neither the faith
and credit nor the taxing power of the State or of any political subdivision
thereof shall be pledged to the payment of the principal of or the interest on
the Bonds.
Section 7. Based on the Application of the Applicant and on other submissions
to the City and on other information available to the City, the City hereby
finds and determines (a) that the availability of financial assistance (in the
form of the Loan) with respect to the Project under the Act and the willingness
of the State or the City to furnish such financial assistance with respect to
the Project would be a substantial inducement to the Applicant to undertake the
Project and (b) that the Project, if undertaken, will promote the welfare and
prosperity of the State and the City of Monticello by maintaining and
increasing the career and job opportunities of its citizens and by protecting
and enhancing the tax base on which State and the City of Monticello depend for
the financing of public services.
Section B. In anticipation of the approval by the State of the Bonds and the
Project and of the disbursements to the Applicant of the proceeds of the Bonds
as and for the Loan pursuant to any indenture or similar instrument and loan
agreement to be entered by the State with respect thereto, and in order that
the completion of the Project shall not be unduly delayed when approved, the
City has adopted this resolution so as to permit the Applicant, or any duly
Oo
Resolution 90 -
Page 4
authorized person or corporation acting on the Applicant's behalf, to pay or
incur qualified costs under the Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
"Code") with respect to the Project to be financed by the Loan and to pay such
costs either by direct payment of such costs from proceeds of the Loan when and
if funded from Bond proceeds or by reimbursement to the Applicant from the
proceeds of the Loan when and if funded from Bond proceeds for such costs paid
directly by the Applicant or aforesaid agent of the Applicant from its own
funds, including the use of interim, short-term financing, subject to
reimbursement from the proceeds of the Bonds, if and when delivered, but
otherwise without liability to the State or the City.
Section 9. In the event the State is unable or does not issue its Bonds to
fund the Loan or otherwise to provide financial assistance with respect to the
Project, the City is presently favorably inclined to issue Bonds for the
Project, but neither the City nor the State shall be liable for such failure to
the Applicant or any other person with respect to any moneys disbursed or
expended by the Applicant or any other person in accordance with Section 8 of
this resolution or otherwise.
Section 10. The Applicant has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and
all costs incurred by the City in connection with the financing of the Project,
whether or not the Project is carried to completion and whether or not the
1 Bonds are issued, shall be paid by the Applicant.
Section 11. This resolution shall take effect immediately and, subject to
Section 5 hereof, shall be effective for a period of 24 months from the date of
adoption, unless extended by subsequent resolution of the City of Monticello.
Adopted this 12th day of February, 1990.
Mayor
City Administrator
6)
USES OF FUNDS
Land $ 75,000
Building Construction/Soft Coots 670,000
Equipment 150,000
Escrow Account 82,000
Issuance Costs 49.30Q
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $1;028,300
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Small Business Development Loan Program
Bond Issuance S 820,000
Owners` Equity/Tax Increment Financing/
Monticello Revolving Loan Fund 208,300
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $1,028,300
p_ecne_�ec
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
17• Reconsideration of adopting a resolution relating to the modification by
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mon tic*llo
of the Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment
financing plans relating to Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1
through 1-10, and the establishment of Tax increment Financing District
No. 1-11, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the
approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) wholeheartedly supports the
Martie Farm Service project and approved the tax increment finance plan
as drafted by Business Development Services, Inc., because the project is
consistent with HRA policies 1, 2, 3, and 8, the project increases local
employment, the project increases the local tax base, and the project
encourages local business retention and expansion. The HRA passed a
motion requesting the City Council reconsider the adoption of the
resolution for the TIF plan relating to TIF District No. 1-11 because of
the lack of information provided to the City Council at the last meeting
relating to the nature of the company's business. Enclosed is a copy of
the nature of the business as prepared by Sharon and Russ Martie. Also,
Council is encouraged to visit their current business located on South
Highway 25.
The addition of the agricultural warehouse and the level of TIF
assistance provided for this project were negotiating tools used by the
HRA as suggested by BDS, Inc., to encourage consistency of the HRA policy
and does not encourage a larger development. with the agricultural
warehouse of 7,452 sq It, the total project generates an annual tax
inrremrnt of $4,500 (8 years X 54,500 - S36,000) compared with the
original agricultural warehouse of 4,860 sq ft, which the total project
generates an annual tax increment of $3,200 (8 years X $3,200 - $25,600);
therefore, the level of TIF assistance (7 years X $2,500 - $17,500
pay-as-you-go option) could support either size of agricultural warehouse
development.
On January 26, 1990, a public hearing was opened and closed with no
public oral or written comment. With no comments at the public hearing,
the HRA requests the City Council reconsider adopting the resolution for
the TIF plan relating to TIF District No. 1-11 based on the additional
new information.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution relating to the modification by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of. Monticello of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment
financing plans relating to Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1
through 1-10, and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-11, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1,
and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan.
2. Do not adopt tho resolution.
22
L
c
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
Staff reco7nnends adoption of the resolution for the TIF plan relating to
TIF District No. 1-11 because the project is consistent with HRA policy,
the project increases local employment, the project increases the local
tax base, the project encourages local business retention and expansion,
and the project is consistent with the Monticello Cortprehensive Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution and exhibit A; Copy of nature of business
information; Copy of the HRA policies.
23
02/08/90 16: 16 6127869033 6USIIESS DEVELOPMEIJT SEPVICES PAGE 02
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.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY
THE HOUSING AND,REDEVELOMENT AUTHORITY IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF MONTIC ELLO, OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NOS. 1-1 THROUGH
1-10 AND THE ESTABLISIIMENT OF TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-11, ALL LOCATED WITHIN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE APPROVAL
AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN RELATING TRERETO.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council*) of the
City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City (the "authority')
that the Authority modify, by increased project costs,
Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as
amended. It has been further proposed and adopted by the
Authority that the Authority modify the Tax Increment Financing
Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-10
and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11, located
within Redevelopment Project No. 1. and approve and adopt the Tax
Increment Pinancing Plan relating thereto, pursuant to and in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469,179#
inclusive, as amended.
1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this
Council has investigated the facto with reepect thereto, a pro-
posed Modified Redevelopment Plan (the "Modified Redevelopment
Plan') for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely
the increased project costs to be made to Redevelopment Project
No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plane for
Tax Increment Financing Districts Noe. 1-1 through 1-10 and the
proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment
Financing Plan*) for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11
(collectively referred to as the "Plans"). , 7
0'.%06/90 16:-16 6127365034 SUSIHESS DEVELQFMEr1T SEPVICES Pm;E 03
1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions
required by law to be performed prior to the modification of
Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of Tax Increment
Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-10 and the establishment of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 and the adoption of the
Plans relating thereto, including, but not U mited to, notifica-
tion to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and
Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdication over
the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-11, a review by the City Planning Commission of the proposed
Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the
proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment
Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-10, and the proposed Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-11, and the holding of a public hearing upon published and
mailed notice as required by law.
1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary
and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify
Redevelopment Project No. 1, to modify Tax Increment Financing
Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-10 and to establish Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-11 and approve the Plane relating
thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and
Assessment Agreements by and between the Rousing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello, and the
Monticello Development Corporation.
Section 2. Pindinqs for the Modification of Redevelopment
Proiect No. 1. Modification of Tax Increment Financinq Districts
Nos. 1-1 through 1-10, and the Establishment of Tax Increment
Financinq D Cstrict No. 1-11.
2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that
the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1
through 1-10 and the establishment. of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-11, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1,
is intended and, in the judgment of the Council, its effect will
be, to further provide an impetus for housing, commercial and
industrial development, increase employment and otherwise pro-
mote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as
specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans and Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Diatricta
Noe. 1-1 through 1-11.
2.03. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-11 does meet the requirements of an economic
development district in that it consists of any project, or any
portions of a project which does not meet the requirements found
in the definition of a redevelopment district, mined underground
space development district, housing district or soil corrections
district, but which the authority and city finds to be in the
public interest becausec
It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing
from moving their operations to another state; or �'�
07,OS/50 !c: e o1 ?: 303. EUSDE':S DE'.%ELF!RiE11T SEFVIC.ES F.:GE 0»
2. It will result in increased employment in the
municipality; or
3. It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax
base of the municipality.
2.04. The Council finds, determines and declares that the
proposed development, housing and redevelopment, in the opinion
of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment
within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use
of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
2.05. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the
proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-11 will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development
or redevelopment of Redeveloment Project No. 1 by private
enterprise.
2.06. The Council further finds, declares and determines
that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has
set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination
in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2.07. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment
Project No. 1 Is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing
Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-10 are hereby modified and that Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-11 is hereby established, con-
tingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment
Agreements by and between the Rousing and Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Monticello and Russell V. Martie and Sharon P.
Martie.
Section 3. Adontion of Resoective Plans.
3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this
date are hereby approved and adopted, contingent upon execution
of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello
and Russell V. Martie and Sharon P. Martic, and shall be placed
on file in the office of the City Administrator.
Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelooment
Plnn, Modified Tax Increment Pinancinq Plans and Tax Increment.
Pinancinq Plan.
4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial
advisor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond
counsel are authorised and directed to proceed with the implemen-
tation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate,
draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration
all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary
to accomplish this purpose.
i
02/08/30 16:46 6137869034 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PAGE 05
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, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City
Administrator.
Dated February 12, 1990
Mayor
Attest:
City Administrator
(SEAL)
02/U8/;IJ 16:x5 e:'_766KU .' ZVJ 111e z'� L•L,tLUH4011 Sir. •v1'_" r _ V:
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the
establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-11 as required, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows:
1. Find that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 is a
•economic development district' as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 consists of one
parcel which does not meet the requirements of a redevelopment
district, mined underground space development district, housing
district or soils correction district. The Authority and City
find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 to be in the public
interest because:
1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing
from moving their operations to another stater and
2. It will result in increased employment in the
municipality; and
3. It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax
base of the municipality.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the
Council, would not occur solely through private investment within
this reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of
tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
City staff has reviewed the available financing costa for the
development. Due to the high coats of the site development,
the project would not be financially feasible without the City's
assistance.
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to
the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the
municipality as a whole.
The Monticello Planning Commission reviewed the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 on
January 2, 1990, and has determined that the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 con-
forms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
4. Find that the Tax Increment Pinancing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-11 will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development of redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
-5-
C
02/08/90 16:55 6127869034 BUSINESS DEVELOPNeff SEPVIMS PAGE 03
The project to be developed, which will be located within
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11, consists of the
construction of a 9,720 square foot metal display office and cold
storage facility to be constructed in the early spring of 1990
and completed by January 2, 1991. It is anticipated that two
additional full-time jobs will result from this project.
5. Finding regarding the method of tax increment computation set
forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause
(b), if applicable.
The Council does not elect the method of tax increment
computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
Subd. 3, Clause (b).
6. Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing
District No, 1-11.
The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 will
be eight (8) years from the date of receipt of the first tax
increment or ton (10) from the approval of the Tax Increment
Financing Plan, whichever is lees. Pursuant to Minnesota
Statgtes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent
of the available increase in assessed value for repayment of debt
and current expenditures.
D
MARTIE'S FARM SERVICE
1219 So. Hwy. 25 345 Jackson
MONTICELLO, MN ELK RIVER, MN
295-46640
Nutrena Feeds 441.7550
Because of apparent confusion as to what our business is all about,
we have put together this brief summary in hopes it will help to
explain what we do.
We manufacture approximately 200 ton of feed monthly.
Following is a break -down of that tonnage.
Layer .16 Mash, Chick Grower, Chick Scratch, Broiler Finisher Feed -18g5
protein, Custom mixing all layer and broiler feeds.
Game Bird Feed -Breeder and Layer feeds, Starter nation, Game Bird
Ration(grower). These feeds are for pheasants, water fowl, turkeys, etc.
Hog Feed -165,66 Hog Feed in a mash, medicated with CSP250, also 14%
non -medicated feeds for finishing hogs. Bagged or bulk available.
Dairy Feeds are made in bulk as well as bagged. Concentrates are
also available.
We make our own horse feed which consists of cleaned oats, clean
cracked corn, liquid molasses. We make a 1366, 11%, and a 1756 foal
feed. Custom mixes are formulated and made daily. Our horse feed
business amounts to 100 ton monthly.
We crack our own corn and have it available bagged or bulk.
Cleaned oats available bagged or bulk.
One concern was why we needed so much space. In addition to what
is listed above, we also furnish softener salt to grocery stores,
superettes, hospitals, nursing homes, motels, car washes, and
apartments. We go through 40-50 ton of salt monthly for this purpose
alone.
We also furnish agricultural seed such as soybean seed, corn,
oats, alfalfa seed, etc. for farmers.
I
In Spring and Suriner, we offer our customers something quite unique.
We take orders for poultry, game birds, water fowl, and even sole
exotic type chickens. I say this is unique because we have had
people as far away as Delano, Cokato, Javerly, Brooklyn Park, and
7' nneapolis order birds from us because they say they can't
find them anywhere else.
Below is a breakdown as to what we sold last year:
Game Birds -Pheasants 4000
Geese 410
Turkeys 400
Poultry -Broilers 6500
Iaying Hens 575
Ducks-Bouens 600
Pekins 380
Wild :lallards 160
White 'Mallards 210
1111scoviss 85
Exotic Chickens -200
Guinea Hens -80
Again, we make feed for all these types of birds, and also supply
medications, waterers, feeders, etc.
C
'rle at '.dartieI s Farm Service would use our new store in 'lonticallo
to help the rural economy by buying oats on a local basis. These
oats would be cleaned and bagged at the i•ionticello location, thus
justifying the larger building. This space would house 25-30
thousand bushel of oats annually.
I do not feel I am in any direct competition with anyone on any
volume basis. Approximately 90}S of our volume of business is feed.
In closing, I would like to point out what an asset I think Martie's
Farm Service is to !Monticello. There is a diminishing; farm scene.
The times where 120 acres of land and 60 milk cows are going by
the wayside. We're seeing more hobby farms with a few chickens,
maybe a horse or two, so=e dogs and cats, and maybe a couple of
pigs and a calf for the freezer. We are the only place in town
where the farmer can buy feed for his animals, filters for his
milking vachine, twine for the baler, vet supplies -----the list
goes on. If our business was- not here, all these people would
go out of town to buy feed. I•Iaybe Buffalo, Albertville, or
Princeton. As long as they have to go to another town to buy
their feed, they'll most probably do the rest of their shopping
there also.
We have many customers who come in to buy feed and while loading
feed, we notice bags from the grocery store, hardware, etc.
In short, we honestly feel we attract many people to Monticello
because of what we have to offer.
Russ Rartie, Ormor
I•;artie'o Farm Service
C
Oj7
COP? 3/1989
i HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Monticello
TAR INCREMENT FINANCING POLICY
Program Purpose: The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment
Authority will utilize Tax Increment Financing to supocrt the
community's long-term economic and housing goals.
Policy Considerations: The HRA will analyze and evaluate Tax
Increment Financing proposals based upon the following policy
considerations. Each project shall be measured against these
considerations and the project's value shall be determined, based
upon meeting these considerations.
(1) The project shall be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The project shall demonstrate long-term economic and/or
housing benefits to the community.
(3) The project shall create and/or retain employment for
{ Monticello residents.
(4) The project shall increase moderate priced housing
options for area residents.
(5) The project shall facilitate the redevelopment or
elimination of •substandard" or *blighted' areas as
determined by the HRA.
(6) The project shall facilitate the "clean-up' of
environmentally unsound property.
(7) The project shall provide additional public funding
for public improvements including utilities and/or
park development which would not otherwise be available.
(8) The project shall be deemed to promote additional
desired 'spin -of:" development.
POLICY GUIDELINES
(1) Tax Increment Financing will be considered for use in
economic development, redevelopment and specialized
housing projects. The standard level of assistance for
projects shall be as follows:
10
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
18. Consideration of change order #1 and final payment for Improvement
Project 88-06, water main and appurtenant work near the old wells and to
the new water tank. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AM BACKGROUND:
The water main improvements on Cedar Street in the area of the downtown
wells and the water main connecting our system to the new tank are
complete. During the construction project, some problems occurred in and
about the intersection of Cedar Street and Third Street requiring
additional work from the contractor (Richard Knutson, Inc.). This was
also the case at the intersection of County Road 118 and the driveway
leading to the new water tank site.
At the intersection of Cedar Street and Third Street, an interference fit
was found to exist between the new water main and the existing sanitary
sewer. Since the elevation of the sanitary sewer was not shown on the
plans, the contractor requested an extra for this work. In addition, one
of the pipelines near the old water tower was found to be 8 -inch rather
than 10 -inch. And finally in this area, due to backfall on the sidewalk,
we found it necessary to replace an additional 50 sq ft of concrete
walk. These items are listed as 1, 4, 5, and 6 on the change order, and
their total cost is $3,247.75.
In the area of the intersection of the new driveway to the water tank and
County Road 118, we found it necessary to do some additional grading for
the water coming off the road. These are items 2 and 3 of the change
order, and their cost is $905.50. The total cost of change order 01 is
$4,153.25.
The original contract amount for this project was $224,808.79. Due to
the lower quantities of class V and water main fittings than those shown
in the plan, the project came in several thousand dollars less.
Including the change order, the total cost of the project is $217,969.20,
which is $6,839.59 under budget. Final payment to the contractor is due
in the amount of $25,993.99.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACH ONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve change order 01 in the amount of
$4,153.25 and approve final payment to the contractor, Richard
Knutson, inc., of Savage, Minnesota, in the amount of $25,993.99.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the change order
and/or not to make final payment. This does not appear to be in the
best interest of the City of Monticello, as the work has been
completed and the City Engineer has recommended final payment.
J
r
41
24 Q�
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
C. STAFF RECOIMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City
Council approve change order al and make final payment to Richard
Knutson, Inc., as outlined in alternative @1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the January 31 letter from OS9; Copies of the final payment
request; Copies of change order 41.
25
OTT
SdIclen
MayeratA
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612.331-8460
TAX 331.3806 EnSlnccr6
Su Neyom
Planners
January 31, 1990
City of Monticello
P.B. Bos 834
258 East Broadway Street
Monticello, Pinnesota 5:362
Re I NATEA NAM AND APPURTENANT 110111
IftPROVOtENT PROJECT e0. 8a'Qto
05N Can. No. 1216.20
City Council t !
Entlosed are tour If) copies of Construction Payaant Voucher Ifo. S A final on the reformed project in the asount of
f 25,993.99.
Purtuant to our field observation, as ptrtoraed in accordance with our contract, to hereby certify that tht
eatenals art salrtfactory and the wart properly perforaed in accordance with the plans and swifiutsmn.
Uioh receipt of affidavit, State of Ninntiots fors E3a, and also Receipt and Nalver of lite 1114me tri
Richard loutson,int., please take payment to Richard Knutson, Inc., 12585 Rhode Island As. S., Savage,
Mlnsysota S5376 at your tarlitat cenveniente.
9rry C ulry' oe
SP.R-SfMEtflt•NAr DII
E ASMCIAIES,
Ilia S. K1inq,P.E.
Project Engineer
oil;Fs6
Tnctotures 1
ccs RICNAAO e'NOISON, INC -
0
Estimate Voucher No. S 1 Final
-------------------------
CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT VOUCHER
Date January 31, 1990
------------------------------------------
For Period Ending : December 31, 1989
(
Proiect No. 88-06
-----------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of Work : NATER MAIN AMD APPURTENANT WORK
------------------------------------------------------------------•---------------------------....--------
To RICHARD KNUTSON, INC.
--------------------------------------------------- 125B5 Rhode Island Av. S.
Location t
Savage, No. 55378
--------------------------•--------------------------- Ph. 16121 890-6811 or 890-8250
For t CITY of MONTICELLO, WRIEN1 COUNTY, MINNESOTA
------------------------------------------------------
A. Original Contract Amount 6
221,808.79
B. Total Additions 6
------------------------
0.00
C. Total Deductions 1
------------------------
0.00
D. Total Funds Encumbered
------ —--- -----------
1 221,808.79
E. Total Value of Wort Certified to Date
-----•------------------
1 217,969.20
F. Lm Retained Percentage
--_--_--•---------------
1 1 0.00
6. Leu Total Previous Payments
------------ ----------
1 191,975.21
H. Approved for Payment, This Report
------------------------ --
{ r 25 9-93.99
I. Total Payaenls Including This Voucher
1 217,969.20
J. Balance Carried Formad
------------------------
1 6,839.59
APPROVALS
------------------------
.....................................a...............................,....................................................
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 1 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance with our contract, me hereby certify that the materials
are satisfactory and the marl properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the total
work is 100 1 completed as of.------
--------•----
December 31, 1989 . No hereby r auend pEn el lois voucher.
------------------ si signed
----•-------------------------•--
Construction Observer
...-
......................................... ...................
This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the quantities and ra not wort
certified herein is a fair approumate estimate for the period covered by this ucher..
Contractor t RICHARD CNUTSOW, INC. ._ Signed By
S151K
Date i it �7/�j�
------
TY/1G��i�J`'.C_Y_ _
Title
............................f..,...L.......................
City of MOYIICELlO
... ..a............................ o.............. ............ .
Approved for paymanl
Voucher....................................
--------------------------------
Checked By
Authorized Representative
....................................
Dau i
Dalet
---------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Page 1 of 3 • 1216.20
0
ESTIMATE VOUCHER NO. 5 1 Final
CONTRACTOR RICHARD KNUTSON, INC.
--------------------12585
Rhode Island
Av. S.
DATE
January 31, 1990
Savage, M. 55378
---------------------------------
Ph. (612) 890.8811
or 090-0250
NATER MAIN AND
APPURTENANT WORK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-06
for the
CITY of MONTICELLO, VR16HT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONTRACT DATE
Noveaber 30, 1988
WORN STARTED
March 6, 1969
WORK COMPLETED
Decesber 31, 1989
COMPLETION DATE
: June 1, 1989
YORK COMPLETED
ITEM
CONTRACT
THIS AMOUNT
TOTAL TO DATE
NO. SPEC. NO.
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE T014L
..........
PRICE
MON Tx iH15 MONTH QUANTITY TOTAL PRICE
(01) 2104.501
REMOVE CURB A GUTTER
.
165 L.F.
... ....... .,,,,....,.
1.91
...........................
315.15
0.00
...........
195
....
372.45
1021 2104.502
REMOVE 1 REPLACE 15' CULVERT
I L.S.
158.00
158.00
0.00
1
158.00
1031 2104.503
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK
825 S.F.
0.50
412.50
0.00
1105
552.50
1011 2104.503
REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVE
2850 S.F.
0.99
2821.50
0.00
2261
2230.39
(051 2104.503
REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE
3450 S.F.
0.27
931.50
0.00
3120
817.40
(06) 2105.501
COMMON EICAVATION
6000 C.Y.
1.51
9060.00
0.00
6000
9060.00
107) 2211.501
CLASS 5 A66REGATE BASE 11001 CRUSHED)
2000 TONS
7.68
15360.00
0.00
1078.35
8281.73
107412211.501
CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
100 IONS
7.03
783.00
0.00
0.00
1001 2331.514
BITUMINOUS BASE (INCL. BITUMINOUS)
40 IONS
45.00
1800.00
0.00
73.35
3309.75
(091 2341.314
BITUMINOUS WEAR IINCI. BITUMINOUS)
70 TONS
47.00
3290.00
0.00
54
2538.00
(101 2357.502
BITUMINOUS TACK
50 6AL.
1.50
75.00
0.00
50
75.00
111) 2503.511
12' CMP,14 Ga. CULVERT N/ END SECTIONS
60 L.F.
15.78
946.80
0.00
120
1893.60
(12) 2521.501
CONCRETE WALK 4'
1250 S.F.
2.10
2625.00
0.00
1414
7969.40
1131 2521.501
CONCRETE VALK 6'
100 S.F.
2.40
240.00
0.00
769
1945.60
'14) 2531.501
8618 CURB 1 GUTTER
165 L.F.
14.64
2415.60
0.00
201
2942.64
,151 2531.507
CONCRETE DRIVE 8'
270 S.Y.
19.77
5337.90
0.00
200
3934.00
(161 2557.501
CHAIN LINK FENCE NI SATES
1 L.S.
1000.00
1000.00
0.00
1
1000.00
(17) 2611
24' D.I.P. CLASS 50
085 L.F.
36.79
32559.15
0.00
904
33258.16
(1B) STD SPEC
1-94 1-I11 LUMP SUM BID 5A
1 L.S.
37189.00
37169.00
0.00
1
37189.00
1191 2611
16' D.I.P. CLASS 50
2375 L.F.
23.47
55741.25
0.00
2182
55905.54
120) 2611
10' D.I.P. CLASS 52
345 L.F.
15.81
5454.45
0.00
310
4901.10
(211 2611
6' D.I.P. CLASS S2
26 L.F.
14.54
379.04
0.00
34
494.36
(22) 2611
16' BUTTERFLY VALVE
4 EA
1245.75
4983.00
0.00
4
4983.00
1231 2611
VALVE BOL EITENSIONS
20 L.F.
43.15
903.00
0.00
10
451.50
124) 2611
10' GATE VALVE 1 801
2 EA
542.50
1085.00
0.00
3
1627.50
1251 2611
6' GATE VALVE 1 001
4 EA
288.00
1152.00
0.00
4
1152.00
1261 2611
l6' DAY IAP
1 EA
1001.00
1003.00
0.00
1
1003.OD
127) I611
10' OAK TAP
I EA
420.00
420.00
0.00
0.00
(281 2611
10' DRY TAP W/ VALVE
I EA
970.00
978.00
0.00
1
978.00
129) 2611
9' DRY TAP W/ VALVE
I EA
646.00
646.00
0.00
l
646.00
1301 7611
1' CORPORTIDN COCKS
2 EA
76.00
52.00
0.00
2
52.00
(311 2611
1' CURB BTOP 1 001
2 EA
65.00
130.00
0.00
7
130.00
132) 2611
1' TYPE I COPPER
100 L.F.
10.04
1004.00
0.00
65
053.40
(33) 2611
24' RETAINER GLANDS
14 CA
126.41
1770.02
0.00
18
2275.14
1341 2611
16' RETAINER GLANDS
31 EA
60.58
2125.98
0.00
29
1988.82
(351 2611
10' RETAINER GLANDS
13 EA
31.91
479.95
0.00
19
606.67
1361 2611
8' RETAINER GLANDS
12 EA
14.75
177.00
0.00
12
117.00
1371 2611
HYDRANT
4 EA
684.00
3536.00
0.00
4
3536.00
1181 2611
HYDRANT EIIENSIONS
10 L.F.
171.00
1240.00
0.00
7
868.00
-191 2611
FITTINGS
15000 LBS.
1.79
19150.00
0.00
11230
14486.10
Page 2 of 2 - 4216.20
0
ESTIMATE VOUCHER NO. 5 1 Final
DATE : January 31, 1990
NATER RAIN AND APPURTENANT WORK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 68-06
for the
CITY of MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONTRACTOR : RICHARD KNUTSON, INC.
12585 Rhode Island Av. S.
Savage, M. 55378
Ph. 16121 890-8811 or 690-8250
WORE COMPLETED
ITEM CONTRACT THIS AMOUNT TOTAL TO DATE
NO. SPEC. NO. ITER QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE MONTH THIS MONTH GUAN71TY TOTAL PRICE
............... C.3 ...........................•.......' o' .....0 ..................p••v• .... .......
I/ORELIEFM706.00
(11) DIV. 11 SOD Ni /' BLACK DIRT 630 S.Y. 2.50 1575.00 0.00 623 1562.50
(12) DIV. II SEEDING 1 ACRE 650.00 2600.00 3 1950.00 3 1950.00
Total......................................1 22/,008.79 1 1,950.00 1 213,813.15
Supplewtal Agrneent No. 1
Totalto Date ...........................
\ age 3 of 3 1216.20
I,153.)S /,153.15
00221,808Y)9 1 sj'6,103•7S 1 ,211,969.2D
0
Suppleaental Agreement No. I
-------------
DATE January 31, 1990
--------------------------------
WATER RAIN AND APPURTENANT NORE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ND. 08-06
for the
CITY of MONTICELLO, NRISHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONTRACTOR : RICHARD KNUTSON, INC.
17385 Rhode Island Av. S.
Savage, M. 55378
Ph. (612) 890-8811 or 890-8750
61 Ertra Work - Nay 3, 1989
Labor, equipment and material necessary to
replace clay over pipe •ith D.I.P. is
requested by the engineer. L.S. 629.25
Total.................................................................................5 •• 1,1!3.2!
Fill 1 of 1 . 1216.20
C
WORK CORPLETED
ITEM
CONTRACT INIS AMOUNT
TOTAL TO DATE
NO.
sv
SPEC. NO.
...
ITEM 811ANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE MONTH THIS RONTH
' .......--..-...................................
IUANIITY TOTAL PRICE
ll
EsWork
...............:..t.......,..............,......
August il, 1989
Labor, equipment and material necessary to
remove replace 30 S.F. of 1' concrete milk
due to drainge correction. L.S.
$%.Do
21
Eatra Work
- June 2, 1989
Labor, equipment and material necessary to
shape ditch along Co. Rd.$ 116, east of gravel
drive.ay to direct drainage. L.S.
697.00
31
Eatra Work
- June 6, 1989
Labor, equipment and material necessary to
change entrance to Co. Rd. 1 III from
gravel driveway. L.S.
208.50
/1
Eatra Wort
- May 1, 1989
Labor, equipment and material necessary to
r
supply appropriate sire fillings for I'
rs 10' pipe. L.S.
1,218.25
51
Estra Work
- Ray 2, 1909
Labor, equipment and material necessary to
replace the sanitary over ■ith D.I.P. to
clear eats main. LS..
1,011.25
61 Ertra Work - Nay 3, 1989
Labor, equipment and material necessary to
replace clay over pipe •ith D.I.P. is
requested by the engineer. L.S. 629.25
Total.................................................................................5 •• 1,1!3.2!
Fill 1 of 1 . 1216.20
C
IC-134 trint RECEIVED .IA"-51SWJ I tfu
Mlnnese Departmeo1 Revenue t
A". W09 Withholding Affidavit for Contractors a1
This atf.*Mt mum be am ov by the Mrsrmota Dopanmmt of lievomm before aro
State or Minnesota or any of its subdivisions can make final payment to oontrarsors.
C� narrw I U-0-
Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. 9131771
ager raarr.w.an aarr�
Box 337 May 1, 1989
Or $— mr.uareaw.. 7'
Buffalo, Mn 55313 July 30. 189
Ter,swwaa .
87,089.00
T.arm n.ro. anon m w:
(612) 682-1271 $70.89
Did you have empbreva work an this pmjaotT Prolan number. 88-06
If now. explain who ad the ww%: I Praim mat: City of Monticello
IPreps owner. C i t y o f M o n t I c e I I n
MTiceliuy hill. _
CNaJr tM Dol tNf doaor2as your lnwMmant N fats pmjoef and Nl In all Intbn ;for; rsqussted M tlut Wage,y
❑ Sete contractor
Il Subcontractor M you are a subcontractor, fill In the name and address of the contractor that hired you:
Richard Knutson, Inc. 12585 Rhode Island Ave So Savaae,Mn 55378
❑ Prime Contractor 9 you subcontracted out any work on this project, all of your subcontractors must lila their own
IC -194 affidavits and have thorn certified by the Department of Revenue before you can file your
affidaviL For each subcontractor you had, fill In the business information below. and attach a copy
of each subcontractor's confllod IC -134. (11 you need more space, attach a separate shoot.)
&Wnoaa mmo Addrm OwnsnOmeor
a aware art ar nawrruvon t rwwi Baso n on mo toren u true am aonorra o ow armor my un:rwea aro tir.a: a auaov:
sur Oaoarorrra a nacres ro eamaa sarvwn ntarnatlm rwvrp o au ogaci aratwar0 aarmip oopn a eta rem.
1, eco Oma oontra®r a I con a aubmntraow, ant to oftrusmwrOn 111 am a ancon o"WID'. ant r eco aewaaaa nand.
rawm•w�a �
TO
6wi
Controller 1-4-90
For cortificaton, mall to:
Minnoscu Deportment of Revenue. Business Trust Tax Socton
Mail Station 8610. St. Paul, MN 55148.8610
Certificate of Compliance with Wnnesots Income Tax Withholding Vw
Based on records of the Minnesota Department of Revenue. I cotdy that the oontractor who has signed this condicale has
tutimed all the requirements of Minnesota Slatutos 290.92 and 260.97 concerning the wdhholding of Minnesota income tax from
wages paid to ampbyoos rotating to contract services with the state of Minnesota and/or Its subdwisons.
apre. s/F r 0eusrw a Awws t>. .
t
Instructions for form IC -134
Who should file?
d you aro a pnme contractor, a comractor, or a subcontractor
who did work on a project for the state o1 Minnesota or any of
as local government subdivisions — such 83 a CCwly, City, Of
school district — you must file form IGt 34 with fie Minna
sots Department of Revenue.
This affidavit must be Conified and returned before the state
or any of tts subdivisions can make final payment for your
wok
When to file
The IC -134 cannot be processed until you are finished with
the work. Do not a" the affidavit lir for eendieation bows
the project is completed since it will only be returned to you
unprocasso 1. a you aro a suboomraemr or Sok ow"factor.
file form IC 134 when you have completed your part at the
project.
If you are a prime contractor, file form x-134 when the entire
Project Is Completed and You have retroived osrttlod aHidavlta
from allot your suboommctor .
Where to file
Fill out farm IC•134 ami mail the original and one copy s.1:
MJnnosofa Dgartment of Revenue
Business Trust Tax Section
Mab Station Sato
St Paul, MN 65146-6610
Now to file
a you have tMod the requiramoms at the withholding tax
laws of Minnesota, the Department of Revenue will sips your
affidavit keep the ropy, and return ft original to you.
0 any tafthhaldln9 psyerrtte We due to the state. MOOD -
Safe taw (KS. 290.07) requtrea that pay all fn1W be
nada by only memory order, osehh" clot, owtdtsd
chooll or cash.
T" the certified anidavb to your prime cordraaar of to Ila
povernmontal unit tot which the work was done In order to
receive your final payment.
Minnesota tax Identlficatlon number
You must till in your Minnesota tax idemdcaiion number on
the form. You must have a Minnesota tax ID number if you
have empbyaes who work in Minnesota.
M you need a number, get toms MBA, Application for Tax
Identifxotion Number, and file it with the Minnesota Depart•
ment of Revsnue. To get farm MBA, cat 296-3761 from the
Twin Cilias area or 14100.652.9094 from elsewhere in
Minnesota, or write to Minnesota Tax Forms, Mail Station
7131, St. Pawl, MN 55146-7131.
You do not need a Minnesota tdentticalbn number it you
have no employees and did at the work yourself, It this is the
case, fit in your Social Security number in the space for
Mlnnssote ID number and explain who did the work.
Are you a prime contractorand a subcon-
tractor on the some project?
If you ars a subcontractor who was hii x! to do work an a
Project and you subcontract at or a pan of your portion of the
Project to another contractor, you become a prime cordnegor
as wall. 9 this Is the case, fit out both me suboattrac- r and
Prime contractor areas on a obVio font.
Use of Inform illon
The Department of Revenue roods at the hdormation, except
Your phone number, to daonnlne whether you have met at
stats Income tax whhholding requirements. fl at required
IMormatlon Is rot provided, the IG134 colt be rotumed to you
for completion.
At information on this affidavit is guaranteed WIMO by state
Law. n cannot be given to others without your permission,
except to the internal Revenue Savics, other states that
guaramw that h will be kap private, and conaln pate or
oau4 agencks.
6 you need help or additional kdonuation to fill out this term,
Cat 2998191 in the Twin Coles area From elsewhere In
Mlnnewts and from outside the state, call (Iof)4me) t 900•
657-3777.
0
RKI 353 10110Form
1*0
iC-fid Minnesota Department of Revenue 199
Rii _S89 Withholding Affidavit for Contractors �pN
This atloav4 must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Revenue before the
State of Minnesota or any of its subdivisions Can make final payment to contractors.
ca oars. Richard Knutson, Inc. I 7319476
am... 12585 Rhode Island Ave. So
Savage, MN 55378
I 3189
Gh su,b ao toss i M -"..M. wu.n
12189
1 rmv wm+c wnwm:
214,102.68
f.rrranr n..aw � uow<mw.
1 6121 890-8811 17,855.47
Did you have employees work on this project? ye s ( Prefect number: 88-06 S t . Monticello
If nore. explain who did the work: ( Projectlocabon:C0. Rd 118 b Hwy 94; Ceddr & 3rd
Project owner: City—of—Monttce'1"1w
Address 250 East Broadway
Cttet:k the box that describes your tnvotvomont in the Pro] Oct and fill In aft lntorm eflon requested fn that category:
Soto contractor
Subcontractor It you aro a subcontractor, fill in the name and address of the contractor that hired you:
Prime Contractor if you subcontracted out any work on this project, all of your subcontractors must file their own
IC -134 affidavits and have Mom carfified by the Department of Revenue before you can file your
affidavit. For each subcontractor you had, till in the business information below, and attach a copy
Of each suhcomractor's certified IC -t34. (tt you need Moro Space, attach a separate shoot.)
Business name Adores$ ownertotflcor
Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. Box 337 Buffalo, MN 55313
EJM Pipe Services, Inc. 7807 Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55014
140ciaro maf au mroemaua+ i Nve kseo m an 1Ns Mrm as Mas aro mnaora m the best of my kmwfspps aro mfr. i -i"oru e
me Dooanmom of Revenue to aOCbae oa irranl ,mor txxi relaung to evs prolog, nouelrq wneing copra M Iris roan,
me pante mnoanm ,I I a aupwnvocmr. am w any eubrnnuanon n I em a Pn�1° cm+vonrv, arm Io Ina rmmroanq operry.
caw,na,. /� rw - lova
Treasurer 1-15-90
For candication. mail l0:
Minnesota Department of Rovonuo, Business Trust Ta. Section
Mail Station 0010, St. Paul, MN 55140.0010
Certificate of Compliance with Minnesota Income Tor Withholding Law
Based en records Of the Minnesota Department of Revenue, I conity that the contractor who has signed this Certificate ties
fulfilled all the roquiromonts of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 concerning the Withholding of Minnesota income tax from
wages paid to omployoos relati to Conti ct senlic swan the state of Minnesota and for its Subdivisions.
F 00
Instructions for form IC -134
Who should file?
II you are a prima contractor, a contractor, or a subcontractor
who did work on a project for the state of Minnesota or any of
its local government subdivisions — such as a county. city, or
school district — you must file form IC -134 with the Minne-
sota Department of Revenue.
This affidavit must be certified and returned before the state
or any of its subdivisions can make final payment for your
work.
When to file
The IC. 134 cannot be processed until you are finished with
the work. Do not send the affidavit in for certification before
the project is completed since it will only be returned to you
unprocessed. If you are a subcontractor or sole contractor,
file form IC. 134 when you have completed your pan of the
project.
If you are a prime contractor, file form IC -134 when the entire
project is completed and you have received certified affidavits
Irom all of your subcontractors.
Where to file
Fill out form IC -134 and mail the original and one copy to:
Minnesota Departmont of Rovenue
Business Trust Tax Section
Mail Station 6610
SI. Paul. MN 55146.6610
How to file
It you have fulfilled the roquiromonts of the withholding tax
laws of Minnesota, tho Department of Revonuo will sign your
affidavit. keep the copy. and return tho original to you.
It any withholding payments are due to the state, Minne-
sota low (M.S. 280.97) requires that payment must be
made by only money ardor, cashiers check, certified
check, or cash.
Take the certified affidavit to your prime contractor or to the
governmental unit for which the work was done in ardor to
rocoivo your final payment.
"If-�f
Minnesota tax identification number
You must fill in your Minnesota tax identification number on
the form. You must have a Minnesota tax ID number it you
have employees who work in Minnesota.
If you need a number, get form MBA, Application for Tax
Identification Number, and file it with the Minnesota Depan-
ment of Revenue. To get form MBA, rail 296.3781 from the
Twin Cities area or 1-800.652-9094 from elsewhere in
Minnesota, or write to Minnesota Tax Forms, Mail Station
7131, St. Paul, MN 55146.7131.
You do not need a Minnesota identification number it you
have no employees and did all the work yourself. If this is the
rase. fill in your Social Security number in the space for
Minnesota ID number and explain who did the work.
Are you a prime contractor and a subcon-
tractor on the same project?
If you are a subcontractor who was hired to do work on a
project and you subcontract all or a pan of your portion of the
project to another contractor. you become 9 prime contractor
as well. II this is the case, fill out both the subcontractor and
prime contractor areas on a single form.
Use of Information
The Department of Revenue needs all the information, except
your phone number, to determine whether you have met all
state income tax withholding requiroments. If all required
information Is not provided, the IC• 134 will be roturned to you
for completion.
All information on this affidavit is guaranteed private by state
law. It cannot be given to others without your permission,
e.cept 10 the Internal Revenue Service, other states that
guarantee that it will be kept private, and certain state or
county agencies.
It you hood help or additional information to fill out this form,
call 296-6181 in the Twin Cities area. From elsewhere in
Minnesota and from outside tho state, call (toll-free( 1.800-
657.3777.
EJM PIPE SERVICE TEL No.726-9289 Jan 2.90 1;:4, No.007. P.02
Form
Minnesota Department of Revenues a�
IC -134 Withholding Affidavit for Contractors to
w.. orae � 16
This elfi4e.41 meal in eppwee er the M�ou Depwo,ern of gsrenue aemrs uo
Sum of L inr== or any o1 b subdvlclons oar, nuke ftnal payaent to conva®n•
Ca1pp Me I r,�aD,u,s
FOM Pipe Services, Inc. 5050874
7807 Lake Drive 03-01-89
Cyt sea. 2a 0r slwen�v .P..ee
Lino Lake3 Minnesota 55014 04-30-89
t.r sweor.a�
$27,000.00
1�pwe Yore .eYa ore Y:
( 612) 7136-8041 $ 2,700.00
pie you have anptoyo s ww% an of try plops mwber 88-06
n vovw,e�leln dale dd dr wovk pvopa raoomn: Monticello, Minnesota
I1 pr0paowner City of Montigello
Ad*— Monticello, Minnesota,. ,....,...
Caen# Eta hex that decorl0se your ImOhremmt h1 the proJeot and OII In all Inlormrfhtn re WSW to that eerapory:
O Sole contractor
® Subcontractor a you we a subcontractor. IW In the name and address of the contractor that hired you:
Richard Knutson, Inc. - 12585 Rhode Island Ave. So. - Savage, Minnesota 55378
❑ Prime Contractor 6 you subcontracted out any work on this projIect, all of your subcontractors must file their own
IC.134 affidavits and have them certllled by the Departmont of Revenue before you an fors your
a6ldavlL For oxen suboormacior you had, fill in tfe buslnesa Information below, and attach a copy
of each subcontractors conNled IG134. (11 you need Taro spsoo, attache soparate shoot.)
6usirwas rw,ne AAseY OW Mn3lrCfr
1eeaea M ofP—lMer �m em ovvl a" Ls
"WVa V.P-P-M comphen 0 am Dow eso i,u M0 -am moa.1 �m-.�'• .
e
we rv- a nhmm e 1 am • r„®AOS, ane w err rammecve 011 w+ • P — m.r.ce, now o ar mwomm
�efav�r�Vw � .Y TMi
vita-Proaldent 01-02-90
For csnlilatic rt matt to:
Minnesota Department of Revenue, Bwleeas Trust Tax Section
Mall Station 6610. SL Paul. MN 65146.6610
CertMlnle of Compllanoe with h0nrnsota brooms, Tu Withholding Law
Baeod on records of the Minnesota Dapanmara at Revenue. 1 aniy that trio contractor who has egned this conykato has
t' IuMlted an the repuitamonto o1 Minnesota Statutes 290.02 and 200.97 coroernmg trio wMhotdwp d Minnesota Income W Irom
wage)t,le to employees rawin0 to contract services wnh the ante 01 Minnesota anNm rte subdivisions.
5 `''�\ JAM 1 81930
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
Ig, Consideration of authorizinq the purchasing of the Remnele property.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For a number of months, the City Staff has been working extremely hard in
attracting Rernele Engineering, Inc., Big lake, to locate their new
facility in Monticello. Enclosed with the agenda you will find a letter
dated January 26th from Remmele Engineering indicating they have selected
Monticello as their site for their new plant, and requesting that the
City begin its process of establishing a tax increment district and other
financing tools to complete the project. During our past discussions
with Remnele, they had indicated that they had preferred a location
within our Industrial Park zoning district arca were interested in selling
their 68.7 parcel of land adjacent to the city limits located in
Monticello Township. For those of you unfamiliar with the site, it is
located between West Kjellbergs Trailer Park and the current city limits
west of Hwy 25.
Since Remnele had indicated they would like to use the proceeds from the
sale of the property for part of their capital requirements for the new
manufacturing facility, the city staff obtained an appraisal on the
property from Maxwell Realty (copy enclosed) which placed a value on the
property at $55,000. As you can see from their letter, they are now
asking if the City is agreeable to acquisition of the property. I have
recently discussed the purchase of the property with Mike Pudil, who
indicated that although they were not extremely pleased with the
appraisal report value, they would be agreeable to selling the property
at the appraised value of $55,000 net. They had discussed the option of
getting additional appraisals, as they initially felt the value was low,
but decided they were not in the real estate business and did not want to
consider subdivisions and the marketing efforts. As a result, although
they felt the property should be worth more, they would be agreeable as
part of the package of locating in Monticello, to sell the property to
the City for the appraised value.
Since the property abuts the city limits, but is located in Monticello
Township, the City has a number or options available including utilizing
the property in its present agricultural condition or again marketing the
property ourselves in the future. The property is mainly a flat parcel
but does have some high line wires crossing the property and is currently
used for farming purposes.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the preparation of a purchase agreement at the stated
market appraisal of $55,000 contingent upon Rome le starting
construction of their new facility in Monticello.
2. Authorize a purchase agreement for an amount less than the stated
market value.
3. Do not make an offer to purchase the property.
26
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As I indicated above, staff, including the HRA, has been working
diligently to attract Rertmele Engineering to Monticello. During our
discussions, it became apparent that Rertmele is interested in selling
their 68 acre parcel after they had determined they would rather locate
in an industrially zoned parcel rather than in Monticello Township.
Although an appraisal can be debated, I believe the staff feels the
$55,000 is not an excessive price for this property. Mr. Pudil indicated
that Remiele has owned this property since 1972 and at the proposed sale
price, they would not be making any money. Their first opinion was that
the value should be higher, but in a cooperative spirit they felt
obtaining more appraisals and trying to market the property themselves
for a higher value was not necessarily in their best interests. In order
to complete the deal and attract what the staff feels is a fine addition
to the Industrial Park, it is that the purchase offer be made
contingent on Remnele's actual relocation to Monticello.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Ranmele Engineering letter. Copy of appraisal report.
27
REMMELE ENGINEERING, INC.
PRODUCTION DIVISION
January 26, 1990
The Honorable Kenneth Maus
Mayor of the City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Dear Mayor Maus:
On behalf of Remmele Engineering, Inc., I want to thank you
and all of the people who participated in the presentation to us on
January 12, 1990.
As a result of the information given to us at the meeting and
subsequently thereto we have selected Monticello as the site for our
new plant and are actively pursuing the land acquisition. would you
please direct the City staff to begin its business development
services, which, among other things, would include creation of a Tax
Increment Financing District, application for a Minnesota small
business loan, vacation of a portion of N.E. Fallon Avenue, subdivision
approval and special assessment deferral of the Boyle parcel,
preparation of an Environmental Assessment worksheet (if required) and
acquisition by the City or its designee of our existing 68 -acre parcel.
We look forward to working with you and the other City
officials. I am confident that we will be able to effeatively work out
all of the necessary elements of the transaction.
Very truly yours
R004ELE RBGIBEMRING, INC.
By
Michael J/Pudil /
/a
cc: Mr. Rick wolfateller
Ms. 011ie Koropchak
Mr. O. Larry Griffith
17701 U. S. fthway 10. Big Lake. Minnesota 55300.9430 (612) 263.2636 r�- Q
,z
'1
�1Liu:cuce� ���
.,l/�.,rGei�lo. . /lwse,�la. SS36Q
.'si3....
%'rl avr-srs�
December 19, 1989
MonticelloIndustrial Development Committee j
X Olive Koropchak
250 East Broadway
Moncicallo, Minnesota 55162
Re: Appraisal of 68.7 acres - agricultural land ,
Section 15, T 121, R 25, Wright County
i
Dear Committee Members:
i
In accordance with your request, I have personally inspected the prop-
erty described in this report, for the purpose of determining its fair
' ( market value.
As a result of my inspection and investigation, I have determined that
the subject property, had a fair market value, on or about December 5,
1989. of;
FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($55,000.00)
1 have appraised it as a whole, in fee simrle and free of all indebted -
noes.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to be of service.
coraldf .
�J ci�E. Maxwell, RPA
JEM/pkp
6)
Area Map
west MONTICELL� T 121-122N-»R25W
Peat
7�• [. k::i tom.. - ,
ll��l.???�1711••• cbwr Ce. y
r.��t S �� � •• !sa N 1 -
tiySAN
� �.s rr 4�4: 0 dwi.e _W4w`r • v �• _ faM. ^a400/
fwr� I�j I .ale Oa».ro
M NT i.
�gtRtxr .,Ly�•_ F�m� mu .�:,,,..n wY+" K �+w�= (�% to
e+wy - .t�� = tRr L wa• .ii? � ""Y•'°r � / Y td
_ .; t •.V t. j ,rare .era ;,
i�rw." �a,'3,�`. ,: � .' :``=t . L L • VrrC N J.e.�� �~ vg � "bo .� r� lrs �
jjsl:r �s+; . r• "era t ' yr.
.+. -�..• R• }.ywn+it, ,I 1i . `C i:. ': • , - l
—n•e�- •q? la.r mr I er y I i Z� jij 7 l !,r9pp w #M g w
•""�'A �,'� t• 6 • �. e'ron :1,: • • �$ �Z' • . • 'w, llrl . _ 3 ti"1 ,�j
L vra. ��yL :�' �• r..r..en ( �,. . � N Wil'• y •r i • yr
�., ,C�: ,�(r'�t1L� �—`-�,.Irr•� Q ao Y� .roar �.l: �{. a.w.»
l06 l 't 'rL+�� t�: P.. .ar '•� + . _.. `L � � •y .i «r ...
•L `, '� T..pw •tL r ,ir «L'., 3•iii ctau�erl L�
• i. .,w��i .ua • L_+; .9 �`' L,yi lye.•.: ^ I '•u.r `"f"t't ��R +l ['., •r' ,u. �»."• �'I•n �.,t
I Y':i 1F .part o rJl • ' - t w:.e
� rL"~ � f � �j • i� CC 'V t,p •qy�t ' • ' ��'.r, •�.i �. l rll •u i arr Jl aJ,tf �
1,� •Wv�tL,��• •7 ✓:yF�Y -•I� !J •'�'. i� �, v( + p\� ?w �d ;ia •�
,!r •w �� tt rra ac/i�
. A d� Jr a::`:` �!„' .' �•. i •a • L ' t✓' 9 l � � � s»y '. t:r.. _ � L. I
u i� : w .. N♦4,.JT— , � 1'', t��, •T.M .' iJ! I,_._. �' i —F� 'j1 �: e7' � i � , t �; r p • 1 ` .G it�,� �' �
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
y
20. Consideration of resolution adopting a records retention schedule.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As each year goes by, the City continues to accumulate a vast amount of
public records that have currently been moved from our storage room to
the easement of City Hall. We have reached the point where the
accumulation of these records is becoming a problem, and for a number of
years we have been considering the City adopt a records retention
schedule that has been formulated by the Minnesota Department of
Administration, along with the League of Minnesota Cities and a task
force made up of city officials from around the state. Basically, by
adopting a records retention schedule the City will be allowed to destroy
certain types of records after meeting minimum retention periods.
Basically, the adoption of the records retention schedule does not mean
that the City has to destroy every record once it meets the minimum time
period, only that it has the ability to legally destroy the records if
they are determined not to be of value to the City. At this point, it is
recommended that the entire records retention schedule be adopted as
developed by the League and the City Administration will determine
whether there is any need to keep records past the recommended state
schedule. After adoption of the schedule, the City notifies the
r historical Society that we have adopted the retention schedule, and
depending on the type of record involved, we can either destroy or
transfer the records to the state archives, as indicated on the
schedule. We always have flexibility to keep records longer than the
minimum, but currently we have a lot of records, such as old bank
statements, personnel records of former employees, and applicants for new
positions, along with some accounting records that are no longer
necessary to be stored. Hopefully, the adoption of this schedule will
allow us to continue to transfer documents to our storage area in the
basement without finding an off-site premise for this storage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution developing a records retention schedule as
proposed by the League of Minnesota Cities.
2. Adopt only a portion of the schedule.
3. Do not adopt a schedule.
C. STAFF RECOMMF TION:
While same of our records aro important to have for a long period of time
and will probably never be destroyed, we have accumulated a lot of
documents that are not really necessary to keep. Due to the fact that
our City liall basement has a limited annunt of space, we are quickly
filling up the available space and the staff recommends that this
retention schedule be adopted. To begin with, I am sure that after
reviewing our records, the initial destroying of records that moat the
minimum qualifications may be small until we aro sure the records will
never be rtcodnd again. Primarily, old bank statements, old insurance
28
C
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
policies, employee applications, and these types of materials will be
destroyed first in order to keep our level of accumulated records to a
manageable level.
D. SiIPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution, and (2) copies of the retention schedule categories.
NOTE: The entire retention schedule proposed covers 21 categories and
consists of over 70 pages. To avoid unnecessary duplicating,
I've enclosed copies of two of the sections, "Administration" and
"Financial", so that the Council can get an understanding of the
proposed concept. The entire retention schedule is available at
City Hall should you wish to review prior to the meeting.
29
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, M.S. 138.163 reads as follows:
"It is the policy of the legislature that the disposal and preservation
of public records be controlled exclusively by Chapter 138 and by
Laws 1971, Chapter 529, thus, no prior, special, or general statute shall
be construe] to authorize or prevent the disposal of public records at a
time or in a m -inner different than prescribed by such chapter or by Laws
1971, Chapter 529, and no general or special statute enacted subsequent
to Laws 1971, Chapter 529, shall be construed to authorize or prevent the
disposal of public records at a time or in a manner different than
prescribed in this chapter or in Laws 1971, Chapter 529, unless it
expressly exempts such records from the provisions of such chapter and
Laws 1971, Chapter 529, by special reference to this section."; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Administration, along with the League of
Cities and a task force made up of city officials from around the state, have
developed a general records retention schedule for cities; and
WHEREAS, the classification of records as herein described are included in the
above mentioned records retention scheduled;
NOW, THEREFORE, HE. IT Rr.SOLVED that the Monticello City Council does hereby
adopt the approved records retention schedule developed by the Minnesota
Department of Administration as attache] hereto and made a part of this
resolution.
nE IT El1RTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be submitted to the
Minnesota Historical Society.
Adopted this day of , 1990.
City Administrator
C
Mayor
D
iiia
IIIIIII-
1:11-11-
IUB league of minnesota cities
DATE: March 1, 1986
TO: City Managerrn,Ad�miinistr�ators and Clerks
AA -4
FROM: Helen Schen3el, Associate Director
SUBJECT: City General Records Retention Schedule
Over the past few years there has been an increasing need for guidelines
relating to how cities should manage their records. To fulfill that
need, the Minnesota Department of Administration, along with the League
of Cities and a task force made up of city officials from around the
state have developed a general records retention schedule for cities.
That schedule, which follnws, lists minimum retention periods for city
records based on their administrative, fiscal, legal and historical
value. It lists types of records common to cities and states how long
to keep them.
We feel this is a valuable document that all cities should have the
opportunity to adopt and use. Cities may chose to adopt the schedule or
portions of it. Adoption of a records retention schedule is not
mandatory.
Enclosed is a flyer for distribution to the appropriate personnel in
your city. This will allow them to order the additional copies
necessary once your city has adopted the schedule. The flyer also lists
additional services available from the Data and Records Management
Department.
)f you have any questions about the schedule, contact the Department of
Administration. Data and Records Management Division at 333 Sibley
STreet, Room 700, St. Paul, MN 55101 or call 296-0256 or tool free
1-800-652-9747.
HMS:ccd
1 B3 urvvtlr'sity 8venuo oast, Bt. Poul, minnesoto 551 01 (6123227-5600-100
61 21 227.5600/ 0T)
^"rs"r- Department of Administration
Local Government Program
Ar i 333 Sibley Street, Room 757
I St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 296-0257 or cull free 1-800-652-9747
Depulment of
Admi'i"`Bilon LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROGRAM
The Local Government Records Program has several records management services available for
local government agencies:
GENERAL RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES: The General Schedule establishes minimum retention
periods for records based on their administrative, fiscal, legal and historical value.
It lists records common to cities, counties, school districts and townships and tells how
long to keep them. General Schedules are available for cities, counties, school districts
or townships.
"INFORMATION PURSUIT: Promoting a Better Understanding of Information and Records Manage-
ment": This comprehensive 90 page handbook covers record scheduling and disposition, data
privacy, filing, forms management, vital records, micrographics and other records and in-
formation management functions.
RECORDS MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS: Ten regional workshops for local government employees will
be presented April - June 1986. General Schedules and "Information Pursuit" are included
in the workshop fee.
ON-SITE CONSULTATION: Assistance is available to agencies starting or expanding their
records management programs.
ORDER FORM
UNIT QUAN- TOTAL
ITEM PRICE TITY PRICE
CITY $ 5.00
GENERAL RECORDS COUNTY 5.00
RETENTION SCHEDULES
SCHOOL DISTRICT 5.00
TOWNSHIP 5.00
"INFORMATION PURSUIT. Promoting a Better Understanding of 7.00
Information and Records Management"
Make checks payable to: Local Government Records Program I SAL ENCLOSED
and enclose payment with order.
I am interested In on-site consultation services offered by the meal Government Records Program.
SHIP T0: MAIL TO:
contact Person Phone Department of Administration
Local Government Records Program
Agency 333 Sibley Street. Room 757
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
btreet
City, State, Sip code
CITY GENERAL RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE
PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL RETENTION SCHEDULE
The purpose of a records retention schedule is to provide a plan for managing
governmental records by giving continuing authority to dispose of records under
Minnesota Statutes 138.17.
This City General Records Retention Schedule establishes minimum retention
periods for city records based on their administrative, fiscal, legal and historical
value. It lists records series common to cities and states how long to keep them.
ADOPTING AND USING THE GENERAL SCHEDULE
I. To begin disposing of records according to the general schedule, you must
notify the Minnesota Historical Society that your city has officially adopted
the schedule. The enclosed form, "Notification of Adoption of City General
Retention Schedule," is used for this purpose.
Cities that have adopted the previous version of this general schedule must
also send notification when adopting this updated version.
2. You may adopt the schedule even though your office may not have all the
records listed on it. We recommend that you adopt the entire schedule.
However, if this is not possible you may adopt individual sections.
3. The Minnesota Historical Society will sign and return the Notification form
to you. You will then have the authority to dispose of your government records
as indicated on the schedule.
4. Compare the records in your office with the records listed on the schedule.
Retention periods listed on the schedule represent the minimum amount of
time that you must retain records. Once that retention period has been reached,
you may either destroy or transfer the records to the State Archives, as indicated
on the schedule. If you need to retain some records series longer than the
listed retention, you should establish an agency policy for those records.
S. Records identified on the schedule as archival may not be transferred to a
local historical society, museum, public library, or interested individual without
the specific, written permission of the State Archivist, Minnesota Historical
Society.
6. The retention stated on the schedule applies to any form of the record (paper,
computer tape or disk, microfilm, etc.). However, if you decide to change
the form of a record (for instance, you microfilm a paper record) you MAY
not be authorized to dispose of the original record. If you are const e� ring
changing the form of a record, contact the Division of Archives and Manuscripts
for procedures.
t DESTRUCTION REPORTING
After you destroy records according to the general schedule, send a report to
the Minnesota Department of Administration and the Minnesota Historical Society
(M.S. 138.17, Subd. 7). Use a copy of the enclosed "Records Destruction Report"
(RM -00065) for this purpose. This report may be submitted annually or as records
are destroyed.
RECORDS NOT ON THE GENERAL SCHEDULE
Records not listed on this schedule cannot be destroyed without submitting either
an "Application for Authority to Dispose of Records" (PR -1) or a "Minnesota
Records Retention Schedule" (RM -00058).
The PR -1 form is used to request one-time authority to dispose of records. A
reproducible copy of the PR -1 form is enclosed. Since an approved PR -1 gives
you authority to dispose of only those records listed on the form, we recommend
that you use the PRA only for obsolete records (records no longer being created).
For ongoing authority to dispose of records not listed on the general schedule,
complete a "Minnesota Records Retention Schedule." This form can be obtained
from the Data and Records Management Division.
RESOURCES
This schedule was developed by the Data and Records Management Division and
the Division of Archives and Manuscripts in cooperation with members of the
League of Cities, and was funded in part by a grant from the National Historical
Publications and Records Commission.
Questions about the schedule:
Department of Administration
Data and Records Management Div.
333 Sibley Street, Room 700
St. Paul, MN 55101
612-296-3122
Questions about archival records:
Minnesota Historical Society
Div. of Archives and Manuscripts
1500 Mississippi Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
612-296-6980 or 1-800-652-9747
PITY GENERAL RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE
1.
ADMINISTRATION
12.
LIQUOR STORE
2.
ASSESSING
13.
PARKS AND RECREATION
3.
BONDS
14.
PAYROLL
4.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
15.
PERMITS AND LICENSES
5.
CEMETERY
•16.
PERSONNEL
6.
CONTRACTS
17.
PLANNING AND ZONING
7.
COURTS
18.
PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS
8.
ELECTIONS
19.
PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING
9.
FINANCIAL/ACCOUNTING
20.
UTILITIES
10.
INSURANCE
21.
VITAL STATISTICS
11.
LIBRARY
APPROVAL
Dept. or A�dOministration. Oats and Records Manapeaent Date IDlrac tur, MlrnasoL• Ielor led Society Date
-yr1.sn2G,4W l G-1�I„�t.� //-�.a- 8� a�.►.�
SLole Aod Ll or� a e Attorne C—ral Date
/D �
ADMINISTRATION November, 1985 0
N
CATEGORY DEFINITIONS:
Records Series Description: A records series is a group of records filed together because they
relate to a particular subject.
Retention Period/Statute: The retention cited is the minimum amount of time a record must be kept.
The stated retention does not include the year the record originates. For example, if Record A
is filed by calendar year and it has a retention of 3 years, the disposal date for 1985 records
is January, 1989. Statutes listed here cite specific retention periods for the records series.
Archival: If a Y, meaning yes, appears in this column these records are eligible for transfer
to the State Archives in the Minnesota Ilistorical Society after the retention period has expired
or when the agency no longer has need for them. Contact the Division of Archives and Manuscripts
of the Minnesota Ilistorical Society for information on how to transfer archival records
(612-296-6980 or toll free 1-800-652-9747).
Data Practices Classification: This identifies records classified by the Government Data Practices
Act or other state or federal laws. The classification system includes: public, private,
confidential, nonpublic or protected nonpublic. More than one classification may apply.
Data Practices Statute: The statute or law which cites the data practices classification of the
records series.
C .�
ADMINISTRATION Page 1
DATA PRACTICES nATA FRAC.
RP,1M1T10N PERIOD/8'1RTUT6 ARCHIVAL. CSASSIPICATION RTAM FM
1. AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATIONS 6 yrs. N Public
Bonds, improvement projects, job openings,
assessment hearings and liquor licenses.
2.
AFFIDAVITS OF' PUBLICATIONS
Permanent
N Public
Ordinances and resolutions.
3.
ACETlDA PACKL`T
Retain permanently or
Y Public
Complete record of information relevant to
transfer to State Archives.
city council meetings.
4.
AGENDAS
1 yr.
N Public
5.
AGREDOM - TRL14P
Permanent
N Public
6.
AIRPORT DEVELOPiRW/PLANNING
Retain pernanently or
Y Public
Includes minutes of airport commisaion,
transfer to the State
committee and major reports, and
Archives for selection
planning documents.
and disposition.
7.
AIRPORT OPERATIM AND MAIM'[ 4M=
6 yrs.
N Public
8.
AENiEKATION RECORDS
Retain permanently or
Y Public
Petitions, reports, attorney's opinions
transfer to State Archives.
correspondence, etc.
9.
ANNUAL REPORTS
7 yrs., then transfer to
Y Public
the State Archives.
10.
APPLICATION TO VACATE PUBLIC
Permanent
N Public
RIQRS-OF-W
Applications, attorney's opinions,
legal documents, etc.
ll.
ATPORWYIS OPINIOS
Retain permanently or
Y Public
Opinions of city attorney and
transfer to State Archives
correspondence relating thereto.
for selection and disposition
when no longer needed by
the agency.
c
ADMINISLRATION CITY
i. REOQRDS I i
Page 2
REMRDS
SERIES DESCRIPTION
RL!IYAiI'fl4d AF71T[n/ 'R ►IF. ARCIRNAL•
DATA PRACTICES
ACSIFI ATIDN
DATA FRAC.
STA7t
12.
AUINOIRI'IY TO DISPOSE OF RECORDS
Permanent
N
Public
13.
BIDS AND QUOTATION TABULATIONS
10 yrs. after completion
N
Public
MS 13.37
Engineer's recommendations,
of project.
Nonpublic
specifications, etc.
14.
BIDS AND QUOTATIONS AOMPM
10 yrs. after completion
N
Public
MS 13.37
Passed by city council.
of project.
Nonpublic
15.
BIDS AND oUDTATIONS NOT ACCEPM
10 yrs. after completion
N
Public
MS 13.37
Rejected by city council.
of project for which the
Nonpublic
bids and quotations were let.
16.
BILdS OF SALES
6 yrs.
N
Public
17.
BONDS - D6UEMPERS
7 yrs. after completion of
N
Public
Letters for reduction of bond, lettere
contract.
to financial institutions, correspond-
ence, etc.
18.
BUDGET - REDDRD COPY
Retain termanently or
Y
Public
Official copy.
transfer to State Archives.
19.
CENSUS REPORTS
Permanent
N
Public
Reports and any protests to census.
20.
CINRTFR
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
Attorney's opinions, petitions,
transfer to State Archives.
correspondence, etc.
21.
CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS
5 yrs.
N
Public
Letters stating violation,
court actions, etc.
22.
CITY SELL
Permanent
N
Public
23.
CML DEFENSE PIAN
Until superseded,
Y
Public
then transfer
to State Archives.
J
YY ; • ',,fit.,+:„ : �i4>i+Y R, •s:1> c.1)" 'r..
24. COMPLAINTS - SAL SW410E, MAlNr& ANCE
REPAIR, M.
25. OOPYRIQRS AND PATENTS
26. CORRESLL1EDEHM - GENERAL
27. CORRESPOMENCE - SUWECr PILES
Mayor, City Manager, City Administrator.
28. DEPAR'IMENM REICMS - ANNUAL MM
29. DEPARLMENTAL REPORTS - NQdmy/sMI-ANNUAL
30. NISTCRICAL DATA/PLLCy1OGMpHS
31. INooRpoRATION REXoms
Certificates, Articles.
32. INJEMURIEs
Annual reports, equipment supplies, etc.
33. iAWMITS
Attorney's opinions, testimony, court
depositions, correspondence, etc.
34, LEASES - DOUIPMEw
35. LIENS
36. Mh1MUANCE RECORDS - BUILDING
�7
DATA PRACTICES DATA PRAC.
pPTI ON PiRIQS/14I91'1[ME
AR[SiTVAf.
QASRTpiCATION f,TA rm
3 yrs. after action
N
Public
conpleted.
Until expired.
N
Public
3 yrs.
N
Public
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to the State
Archives for selection
and disposition.
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to state Archives.
3 yrs.
N
Public
Retain permanently or
y
Public
transfer to State Archives.
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to State Archives.
7 yrs.
N
Public
7 yrs, after settlement.
N
Public
6 yrs, after expiration of
N
Public
lease.
10 yrs. after expiration.
N
Public
3 yrs.
N
Public
�7
AOMINiSIR moN
Page 4
OM PRACTICES DATA FRAC.
Rte$ SERTF4 DEgMrP7'lREMMON PERIMIbTA� "E FTCATTON SrMaE_
37. MAINTENANCE RUOMWS - VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Length of ownership and N Public
Maintenance agreements, contracts, bids, after audit.
correspondence, etc.
38. MANUALS Until removed or N Public
34. MrMfZ 'S - C MEIL, COMMISSIONS AND
COMMITTEES
40. MINUTES - TAPE RBODFDINCS
is ti }•. ra .a• • a.
42. WrICE OF MEETINGS - CITY GENERATW
43. OF OI NANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Adopted.
44. ORDINANCES AND RESCQA/TIONS
Proposod but not adopted.
45. ORGAMZATIONAL OihM
46. PETITIONS
47. PRESS RELEASES
superseded.
Retain permanently or
Y Public
transfer to State Archives.
Tapes may be reused or
N Public
discarded 1 yr. after formal
approval of written minutes
by City Council. Tape
recordings cannot be the
permanent record.
Retain permanently or
Y Public
transfer to State Archives.
5 yrs.
N Public
Retain permanently or
Y Public
transfer to State Archives.
4 yrs.
N Public
Until superseded, then
Y Public
transfer to the State Archives
for selection and disposition.
5 yrs., then transfer to
Y Public
State Archives for
selection and disposition.
1 yr., then transfer to the
Y Public
State Archives for seloction
and dip- 'nitlon.
ADMINISTRATION
RE03MS SERIEs nE9CRIPTlr1m
48. PROCLAMATIONS
Related to subject or action.
49. PROTECT CORRESPONDENCE
With State and Federal Agencies,
not including general correspondence.
50. PLn3LIC HEARING RECOFWS
Related to subject or action.
51.
DATA PRACTICESS DATA PRAC.
RETEIMON PMIODIBTU n'R
ARCIil'VAL (iACSIPICAR'lON1 STIMIlE
1 yr. after recorded or
N Public
filing of action.
6 yro., or subject to
N Public
State or Federal grant
audit requirements.
SIREET, ALLEY AND EASEMENT VACATION FILES
Records can be destroyed
N Public
after recorded in minutes.
Easement documento, council resolutions
Records not recorded In
minutes should be retained
and ordinances, etc.
6 yrs., then transfer to
the State Archives for
SruEL' NAME C31ANGF (Approved)
selection and disposition.
N Public
51.
SPECIAL CCIMMITTEE REPCIM
Retain permanently or
Y Public
Minutes, policies, studies, correspondence,
trannsfer to State Archives
etc.
for selection and disposition.
52.
SIREET, ALLEY AND EASEMENT VACATION FILES
2 yro. after recorded or
N PndllIc
Easement documento, council resolutions
filing of action.
and ordinances, etc.
53.
SruEL' NAME C31ANGF (Approved)
Permanent
N Public
Petitions, studies, engineer's reports, etc.
54.
STREET NAME QIANCE (Not approved)
2 yro. after recorded or
N Public
Petitions, studies, engineer's reports, etc.
filing of action.
55.
PAGE ASSIGNMENTS
6 yrs.
N Public
Letters, correspondence, etc.
**SEE COMIN SECTIONS OF 11115 GENERAL. 00111B 1•Ck RF[XYMDIi SFRIES Wr UUItD 11M.
FA
0
PINANCIAI,/AC000NTING November, 1985 G
CATEGORY DEFINITIONS:
Records Series Description: A records series is a group of records filed together because they
relate to a particular subject.
Retention Period/Statute: The retention cited is the minimum amount of time a record must be kept.
The stated retention does not include the year the record originates. For example, if Record A
is filed by calendar year and it has a retention of 3 years, the disposal date for 1985 records
is January, 1989. Statutes listed here cite specific retention periods for the records series.
Archival: if a Y, meaning yes, appears in this column these records are eligible for transfer
to the State Archives in the Minnesota Historical Society after the retention period has expired
or when the agency no longer has need for them. Contact the Division of Archives and Manuscripts
of the Minnesota historical Society for information on how to transfer archival records
(612-296-6980 or toll free 1-800-652-9747).
Data Practices Clasni.ficati.on: This identifies records classified by the Government Data Practices
Act or other state or federal laws. The classification system includes: public, private,
confidential, nonpublic or protected nonpublic. More than one classification may apply.
Data Practices Statute: The statute or law which cites the data practices classification of the
records aeries.
FINANCIAIJA00OUNPING CITY
CN 9MMILE
Page 17
DATA PRACTICES
DATA PRAC.
Q6111TION TM/QRARM
TQMON
S'i'n ?TE
1.
ACO"V REPORM - DELINQ Emr AND
6 yrs.
N
Public
UNODLLECrIBIR
2.
ACOOUNPS PAYABLE LEDGERS AND JOURNALS
10 yrs.
N
Public
3.
ACOOL M RECE11+1181E - oDPIEs OF BILLINGS
6 yrs.
N
Public
4.
ACODUNPS RECEIVABIS - LEDGMS AND JOURNALS
6 yrs.
N
Public
5•
ANNUAL BUXMP
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to State Archives.
6.
ANNUAL FINANCIAL. REPORT AS AUDITED
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to State Archives.
7.
ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATFENTS
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to State Archives.
8.
APPROPRIATION LEOGER
6 yrs.
N
Public
9.
APPROPRIATION LEDGER STATEIMM
6 yro. after paid/audit.
N
Public
10.
AUDIT REPORTS
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to State Archives.
11.
RANK STATMENTS
6 yro.
N
Public
Slips, books and reconciliations.
12.
BILLING o.r.....r.iw
6 yrs.
N
Public
13.
CANCELIM (30M
6 yrs.
N
Public
14.
CAPITAL ASSET RDOORD
Permanent
N
Public
15.
CAPITAL KIWI CERTIFICATES
Permanent
N
Public
16.
CASK RDCEIPTS ANALYSIS
6 yrs.
N
Public
17.
,^IDCR SIUDS/RElGIST R
6 yrP
N
Public
y
FIND NCL4VAO00UNl'ING
« a•. . a a• •• � ti: r a a
20. CLERKS REGISTER OF RDCEIPIS — ORIGINAL
21. DAILY CASA REKRr AND Rk=LF15
22. DEPOSIT SLIPS
23. D1SOlMEliENT CLASSIFICATION LEDGER
24. EN MMAL 10E — ORDERS ISSUED
25. OWIPMENr INVENTORIES
26. EXPE 17URE REPORTS
27. FIMMIAL PLAN
28. GENERAL JOURNAL
29. GENERAL LEDGERS
30. Iwummm CONFIRMATION PORKSREEPS
31. LABOR POOL WORKMIEET
6 yrs.
N
Public
Retain permanently or trans-
Y
Public
fer to State Archives for
selection and disposition
when no longer needed by
the agency.
Retain permanently or trans-
Y
Public
fer to State Archives for
selection and disposition
when no longer needed by
the agency.
6 yrs.
N
Public
6 yrs.
N
Public
6 yrs.
N
Public
6 yrs.
N
Public
6 yrs.
N
Public
6 yrs.
N
Public
Retain permanently or
Y
Public
transfer to the State
Archives for selection
and disposition.
Permanent
N
Public
Permanent
N
Public
6 yrs.
N
Public
6 yra.
N
Public
D
FINANCLAL/ACCOUNPING
Page 19
RECORDS
SRRIR_S DE_9C'RT_PPIGN
Roan oN PEoTm/s=nE
ARCHIVAL
DATA PRACTICES
MASSIFTCATION
DATA PRAC.
'A_n►14
32.
MONTHLY BUDGET REP(HiT
2 yrs.
N
Public
33.
MONTLB.Y FINANCIAL REPORT
2 yre.
N
Public
34.
MONTHLY TREASURER'S REPORT
2 yre.
N
Public
35.
PAID INVOICES AND CLAIM VOUCHERS
10 yrs.
N
Public
36.
PARKING REPORT - MONITBY
2 yrs.
N
Public
37.
PARKING TICKETS - CARBON COPY
1 yr.
N
Public
38.
PAYROLL REGISERS
Permanent
N
Public/Private
MS 13.43
39.
P1RCILAZE ORDERS
6 yrs.
N
Public
40.
REAL ESTATE RECORDS - CITY-OWNIID
Pernanent
N
Public
41.
RECEIPTS CLASSIFICATION LEDGER
6 yrs.
N
Public
42.
RECEIPTS AND RECEIPT DOCKS
6 yre.
N
Public
43.
RDGISIM OF RECEIPTS - DUPLICATE
2 yrs.
N
Public
44.
REX31MI R OF RECEIPTS - CRIGINAL
Permanent
N
Public
45.
REOUISITIONS - DEPARTMENT COPY
2 yre.
N
Public
46.
REOUISITIONS AND P 40LW CIDERS - ORIGINAL
6 yrs.
N
Public
47.
REVENUE SHARING RECORDS
6 yrs.
N
Public
48.
SAVINGS ACCOUNT BOOR
6 yrs.
N
Public
49.
TRAVEL EXPENSE RECORDS
6 yrs.
N
Public
50.
TRESS RECEIPTS - ORIGINAL.
6 yrs.
N
Public
FINANCUU✓AO00DNPING�I17[
��nr. I�rrnrsi5 is_rmatrrON acs�Pisn�?
Page 20
HDOORDS
S IES D MIPTION
RUMMON DRRInn/STA7111F. ARCFRUAL
01►17� PRACPICES DATA PRAC.
C[ASSLPICATZON STA7l/PE
51.
MEASURERS RDGISM OF DISBURSEMENIS
6 yrs., then transfer to
Y
Public
the State Archives for
selection and disposition.
52.
'IRFASIARERS RDGISrER OF RE)CEIFPS
6 yrs., then transfer to
Y
Public
the State Archives for
selection and disposition.
53.
VERIFIED AMOUNTS AND INVOICES
6 yrs.
N
Public
54.
VOOOIER RE7GI9M
Retain permanently or
y
Public
transfer to State Archives
for selection and disposition.
55.
VO0OIERS - ORDER 70 PAY
6 yrs.
N
Public
56.
WORK ORDERS
6 yrs.
N
Public
NOTEt Many old financial records, especially summaries, noy not fit into these categories. Contact the State
Archives for assistance in disposing of these records.
*'SEE 0711M SEMONS OF 711IS GENERAL SOREDlliE FOR RFOMMS SERIES NOT LISIM HERE.
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
21. Quarterly department head reports. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND 13ACKGROUIiD:
While a number of staff department heads attend Council meetings
regularly, time is usually not set aside at a specific meeting for the
Council to ask questions or receive updates on topics or projects that
are currently underway throughout the city. Hopefully, every three
months department head quarterly reports will again be on the Council
agenda giving all department heads an opportunity to brief the Council on
specific topics and/or just be available to answer questions the Council
may have. In addition to the normal department heads, representatives of
the YMCA detached worker program, along with the Sheriff's Department
personnel and the Senior Citizen Director, will be in Attendance.
In addition to their attendance at the meeting, I have asked each City
department head to briefly provide a written update to brief the Council
on arty specific topic or subject they feel may be of importance to the
Council as a whole. The Council will be able to expand on any topic
brought up by the department head or may have other subjects you wish to
discuss with that individual.
Generally, this item is placed at the end of the agenda and is meant to
be an open forum. After reviewing the written reports, you may not have
any other specific questions or topics you want to discuss with that
individual other than receiving any other updates they may have to
present at the meeting.
No specific nrtion i4 rw Mpd by the Council other than review and
discussion.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Individual department head reports/summaries.
30
Council Agenda - 2/12,/90
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. (R.W.)
New telephone system
A couple of months ago, the City Council approved the purchase of a new
telephone system for City Hall to replace the existing system which has been
leased/rented fr..m Bridge Water Telephone Company. As you may recall, Bri`,ie
Water had presented two proposals for telephone systems, one from BusineL..om
for approximately $8,300, and one from ITT for approximately $7,500. A
proposal was also submitted by Marco Business Products for a Panasonic system
for approximately $6,000. Authorization was granted to allow an expenditure of
approximately $7,500 and authorizing the staff to continue pursuing
alternatives available provided we did not exceed this price.
Since that time, I have spent a number of hours dealing not only with Bridge
Water but also with Sherburne County Telephone Company out of Big Cake, who
also was very anxious to supply the City with new telephone equipment. Both
telephone companies were basically able to supply the same type of equipment.
After reviewing the features of the equipment being proposed by Bridge Water
and Sherburne County Telephone Company, it was decided to accept a proposal
from Bridge Water Telephone Company for the installation of a new
state-of-the-art ITT telephone system at a cost lower than originally estimated
for approximately $5,860. This is approximately S1,600 less than originally
estimated, and 1 believe the features of the phone will serve the City Hall for
many years to come. As part of the telephone installation, the City staff will
now have capabilities of tying in the maintenance building personnel through
City Hall enabling us to have conference calling with the public works
department along with other features. The staff is anxiously awaiting the
installation, which has been scheduled for today, February 12.
Police protection --extra hours of coverage
With the continuation of the Sheriff's contract for police protection, the
Council had inquired as to the extra hours that were added a couple of years
ago to cover Friday and Saturday nights pertaining to the cruising problem we
had inherited. I had discussed this matter with Sheriff Hozengpa, who indicated
that it was his opinion that the extra coverage being provided on weekends
continue through 1990 even though it appeared that the cruising problem had
diminished somewhat. I'm sure Mr. Hozempa, who will be in attendance at
tonight's meeting, can expand on this; but although it seems like the cruising
problem has diminished considerably, this may not be the best time to eliminate
the extra coverage, as the problem could again increase if there is a lack of
uniformed officers. Mr. Hozalm did note that the City Council, even with the
adoption of the present contract, could reallocate these extra hours to other
time periods during the week or year or eliminate then entirely at our
discretion. In other words, the hours are available, and it is reco.nmended
they still be used for Friday and Saturday nights; but the City Council could
at a later date eliminate any amount of hours they choose.
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (continued)
New receptionist/utility billing clerk position
A fen weeks ago, the City advertised for a new receptionist/utility billing
clerk position; and as expected, we received over 200 applications for this
position. The staff is currently in the process of interviewing the top
applicants for the position and should have a recomrendation for the Council to
consider at the next Council muting. The process has taken a little longer
than expected due to the large number of applicants; but due to the delay in
the installation of our new phone system and the inplennting of our new
computer applications, the few weeks of delay should not cause any problem.
C
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. (J.O.)
Municipal airport development
The Industrial Development Committee discussed Council's recommendation
regarding this issue and appointed three members of the IDC to work with Jim
Rallila and three other flyers. The first meeting of the group is scheduled
for February 8, 1990, at 4:00 p.m.
The pilot controlled receiver has been ordered and has not yet been received.
It should be installed sometime later in February.
Subsequent to Council's discussion regarding this matter, I sent a letter to
Ron Lloyd of the Minnesota Department of Transportation requesting that he
review the potential for development of the Pilot's Cove Airport as a municipal
airport. Subsequent to the letter sent to Lloyd, Mr. Lloyd wrote me a letter
indicating that he has set a date for aerial review of the facility; and
weather permitting, he will nuke the review on February 12, 1990. To assist in
their review, he requested that the City place markers at each end of the
runways and a few along the center line of each runway.
The Lincoln Companies/K-Mart addition
See separate agenda item.
Sandberq East development
OSTM is nearing completion of the feasibility studies ordered at the previous
Council meeting. As soon as the studies are completed, City staff will be
meeting with affected property ermers to gather inp-it r-jarding *1iP vArinnn
methods by which sewer and water could be extended to service future homes in
the area. After the feedback from the affected property owners is received,
staff will present the feasibility stixiies and other infonmkation to Council at
the meeting scheduled for February 26, 1990.
Conwter application development
City staff has ordered the equipment associated with the plans approved by
Council. The equipment has not been delivered at this time and should be
delivered late this week or early next week. Plans have been laid for the
cabling of the system. Other pre -installation planning is being conducted
which will allow us to develop the applications as smoothly as possible.
Karen Doty has already received DOS training. Pat Kovich has been scheduled
for word processing training on February 12, 1990. Karen Doty will receive
word processing training on WordPerfect at that time as well.
Monticello Heartland Express
The Monticello Heartland Express had an excellent month in January. At the
timo of this report, the average rides per day have not been finalized;
however, it is estimated that the rides per day will exceed 42 rides per day as
33
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (continued)
compared to 36 rides per day in the month of Decenber. The number of rides per
day provided in January versus December is excellent in light of the fact that
no special promotions were provided in January and in light of the fact that
the weather was so mild during the month. During the last week of the month of
January, the ridership was very good with average rides per day estimated at 55
rides per day. This average was boosted by a big day on January 24 when 96
rides were provided.
Council's decision to provide service to the Kjellberg West Mobile Ham Park
has been met with positive comments at the Senior Center; however, there have
been requests that the discount fares apply to west park riders.
A meeting of the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee will be conducted
in mid-February, at which time the group will again look at the ridership
numbers and consider any adjustments to the schedules. In addition, the group
will be considering establishing a policy regarding extending the hours of
service at the request of an individual or organizations. MTRAC will be
discussing the terms under which the Monticello Heartland Express might extend
its hours for the purpose of benefiting an individual organization or event.
The Monticello Heartland Express received a check in the amount of $2,000 from
the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The money is to be used to buy tickets for
promotions and for use by the disabled. A thank you note has been writteni
TRAM 250
A meeting of the TRAM 250 steering committee has been scheduled for February 7,
1990, at 3:30 p.m. This is the first meeting of the TRAM 250 steering
committee. The following individuals are proposed members of the steering
committee. Membership will be confirmed at the meeting scheduled for
February 7. Proposed members include: Jeff McAndrew, KMOM; Bryan Swenson;
Candy Benoit; Duane Gates; Karen and Glenn Nemic; Mary Mickey; and Linda
Smith. At the first meeting of the TRAM 250, the group will be identifying
major work activity areas and will be identifying and assigning major work
activity areas. Aa a host community, Monticello must determine how best to
organize itself for the arrival of the ride across Minnesota riders. work
activity areas that the host community must address are:
1. A campground
2. Sanitation
3. Medical services
4. Bicycle field
5. Entertainment
6. Hospitality
7. Housing needs
B. Food and beverage
Please stay tuned for future updates as the steering committee completes its
planning.
34
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (continued)
Torch Run
As some of you may have already heard, the U.S. Olympic Festival will be held
in Minneapolis during the sunnier of 1990. Prior to the start of the games, an
olymmpic torch will be passed on foot from community to community throughout the
state of Minnesota. Monticello is one of the communities that the torch will
pass through as it makes its way to Minneapolis. Specifically, the olympic
torch will be delivered to Monticello June 30 at 12:00 p.m. at the west side of
the river bridge. At 3:00 p.m., the City will then deliver the torch to the
City of Buffalo at the intersection of County Highway 37 and Highway 25. Roger
Mack, myself, and Susie Zapp of McDonalds have already conducted some
preliminary planning for this event. A tentative plan for a torch run route in
Monticello has already been established. Additional festivities associated
with this event have been discussed; however, nothing has been finalized.
Susie Zapp, Manager of Monticello McDonalds, has agreed to organize a committee
for the purpose of organizing this event. Zapp is interested because McDonalds
is the corporate sponsor of the event. No plans have been established beyond
establishing the proposed torch run route in Monticello. Stay tuned for more
information on this item as it develops.
The City has received a video from the State of Minnesota regarding this torch
run. Please contact me if you would like to see the video.
The Evergreens subdivision
Kent Kjellberg has contacted me, and apparently there is a buyer interested in
his property. Kjellberg now desires to develop the streets and utilities
privately as was originally contemplated. As you recall, some months ago
Council considered installing streets and utilities as a city project. Staff
will be submitting Kjellberg a letter which briefly reiterates the terms of the
original developer agreement completed approximately one year ago.
Receptionist position
Over 200 applications for the receptionist position were received. Each
applicant was reviewed in terms of education, previous computer experience,
previous receptionisL experience, neat appearance of resume, moth and/or
previous billing experience, word processing experience, and government
knowledge. Of the 200 applications, 86 met the basic requirements of the
position. I have reviewed each of the 86 applications and ranked then in terms
of the criteria listed above. Rick will now be reviewing the highest ranked
applicants and will be identifying which applicants will receive an interview.
Cigarette machine ordinance
Mori Malone has submitted to the City a cigarette ordinance adopted by the City
of White Bear Lake. City staff and the City Attorney are in the process of
i reviewing this ordinance which may become the basis for a Monticello City
'! Ordinance banning cigarette machines.
35
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
i
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (continued)
Comparable worth plan
In December 1989, Council proposed revision of the City's comparable worth plan
which would provide information necessary to make wage adjustments to certain
positions. Subsequent to that meeting, City staff has been in contact with
Personnel Decisions, Inc., of St. Paul, which is the company that now operates
the computer software that was used to establish the City's original comparable
worth plan. Staff requested that Personnel Decisions, Inc., send the City a
proposal outlining all of the costs associated with the revision of the City's
comparable worth plan. The City has not as yet received the information
requested. Following are steps involved in revising the City's comparable
worth program as outlined during a phone conversation with Personnel Decisions,
Inc.
1. Provide general communication to employees regarding study and
outline the study structure.
2. Meet with the supervisory personnel for the purpose of outlining a
study process in further detail.
3. City employees review their data job profiles and update them based
on new duties. New job profiles are created by new employees.
Profiles are collected immediately and sent to Personnel
Decisions, Inc., for processing.
4. Personnel Decisions, Inc., inputs data and produces draft profiles
showing employee perspective on where time is spent in each position.
5. The employee supervises review and revises profile based on
employer's perspective.
6. Prior to finalization of the profile, supervisor's input is reviewed
with employee and final adjustments are made to the profile.
7. Personnel Decisions, Inc., then processes the profile and prepares a
report that will be used to generate comparable wages.
Ray Aho Cuom Personnel Decisions, Inc., has indicated it will take anywhere
from two to three months to complete this process.
Alternative strategies for completing the comparable worth study will be
provided to Council in detail at some point in the future.
Flood plain ordinance
The Department of Natural Resources is requesting that the City update the
flood plain ordinance. Details regarding this request will be provided at the
Council meeting scheduled for March 12. At that time, a draft version of an
updated ordinance will be provided to Council.
36
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (continued)
City information brochure
This project has been in a holding pattern for quite some time now. Muds of
the conceptual work regarding the brochure has been completed; however, Henning
6 Associates is waiting for a catalog of information from the City which they
will incorporate into their brochure. This catalog of information has not as
yet been compiled. Henning 6 Associates was given a significant amount of
information regarding the City that we do have on hand and available; however,
we elected not to direct them to assemble the information, as their time to
pull the data together from various sources is quite expensive. In order to
stay within our budget, we decided to assemble the data in a usable format and
then send it to Henning & Associates for their further incorporation into the
brochure.
The project has also been delayed by sl
information. A numbar of organizations
developing a community information data
not yet responded. This is a very inpo
taking a second position to other econ
busy this winter. Staff hopes to get t
needed by Henning a Associates as soon as possible. If it appears that sta
will not be able to get together to complete this part of the project, then
Henning 6 Associates could be asked to do this work; however, if this is do
then the cost of the brochure will escalate. It is recommended at this time
that the City staff continue to attempt to get together and develop the
information necessary to move forward on this project. Thank you very much
your patience on this matter. We are working hard trying to do many things
once. This is one project that seems to be getting short shrift.
ow responses to requests for
were contacted for assistance in
base. Some of the organizations have
rtant project; however, it has been
uric development activities keeping us
ogether and catalog the information as
ff
ne,
37
for
at
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'S REPORT. (J.S.)
Refuse and recycling.
1. Garbage contract with Corrow.
City staff is currently planning a meeting with Corrow to discuss our
existing contract, looking at ways of saving moneys or ultimately
cancelling Corrow's contract. we should receive benefit from Corrow
having to Raul 1/4 less waste.
2. Recycling.
Recycling, for the most part, has been a complete success. For the
first 6 months we have recycled 263.3 tons, or an average of 23.9% of
our total waste by weight. The average monthly participation has
ranged from a low of 55.6% to a high of 72.69, with an overall
average of 66.29. A detailed summary and projection is enclosed for
your review.
3. Yard waste co posting.
we are currently looking into methods to improve our yard waste
composting operations. A con -post dirt screener for one of the dump
trucks is near completion, as we will begin to use the finished
compost product this spring. In addition, we are looking at methods
to handle all of the yard waste, which includes small shrubs, brush,
Christmas trees, etc.
Tree program.
1. Johnny Elmseed.
Our Johnny Elmseed program will begin with the planting of our 200
seedlings in a nursery area this spring. The most likely spot for
this nursery area will be in the area of the City's water reservoir
on Chelsea Rd.
2. Brush chipper.
Win have completed repairs to our brush chipper and are looking into
the possibility of purchasing a new model in 1991 that would have
more safety features than the old machine would have and would allow
us to chip a wider variety of trees, brush, and yard waste.
3. Boulevard trees.
Trimming of boulevard trees will begin within the next week or two.
C
38
City of Monticello
Recycling Costs
Page 2
III. 1990 Project
1. Costs
A. Ads & notices a printing
$ 2,400.00
B. Staff
3,425.00
C. Polka Dot
13,750.00
D. Software 6 hardware
1,200.00
E. Prizes
1,600.00
65 homes @ $21 ea/quarter
TOTAL $22,375.00
2. Income on savings
A. Landfill abatement
$19,000.00
(does not include July 1 increase for tax)
B. County incentive funds
4,000.00
C. Non -recycling fees—
5,460.00
65 homes @ $21 ea/quarter
(excludes those with containers
who dont recycle)
TOTAL
$28,460.00
DIFFERENCE * $6,085.00/yr
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RECYCLING COSTS
1ST SIX MONTHS—JULY THROUGH DECVSER 1989
(excludes startup of (A) computer, (B) containers
I. Costs
1.
Brochures, envelopes, S mist. printing
$ 892.61
2.
Recycling notices and ads, Times & Shopper
320.19
3.
Staff time--
1,711.32
6 hr/wk X 26 wks X ($8.50 X 1.29 - $10.97/hr)
(includes benefits)
4.
Polka Dot Recycling
6,827.27
5.
14 recycling prizes
725.00
TOTAL
$10,476.39
II. Income on savings
1. Landfill abatement 263.3 tons @ $30/ton $ 7,899.00
2. County incentive funds 1,729.87
3. Non -recycling fees— 1,365.00
65 homes did not pick up containers @ $21 ea
(one quarter only, Oct -Dec)
TOTAL $10,993.87
NOTE: Does not include homes which
picked up containers and did
not recycle or meet requirements.
DIFFERM CE + $517.48
1ST 6 MOS.
Participation
Rate in 8
PARTICIPATION CALOJEATION
68.59
71.79
Ave.
Total
70.89
69.99
1st 3 mos.
72.49
Picked Up
Single Sets
Total
70.59
Total
Apt.
Single
Available
Unavailable
60.39
Date
Pickups
Sets
Sets
For Pickup
No Container
07/06
918 -
31 -
887
r (1,247
+ lln
= 1,357) _
07/20
961 -
31 -
930
+ (1,247
+ 110
= 1,357) _
08/03
1,005 -
31 -
974
(1,257
+ 102
= 1,359) _
08/07
1,049 -
31 =
1,018
+ (1,257
+ 102
= 1,359) _
08/30
977 -
31 -
946
+ (1,257
+102
= 1,359) _
09/14
1,017 -
31
986
t (1,277
+ 85
= 1,362) _
09/28
1,023 -
31
992
(1,277
+ 85
= 1,362) _
10/12
975 -
31
944
- (1,293
+ 72
= 1,365)
10/26
993 -
31
962
y (1,293
+ 72
= 1,365) _
11/09
968 -
31
937
r (1,299
+ 71
= 1,370) .
11/24
733 -
31 m
702
y (1,299
+ 71
= 1,370) _
12/07
859 -
31
m 828
r (1,302
+ 70
= 1,372) _
12/21
730 -
31
699
-i- (1,302
+ 70
= 1,372) o
Participation
Rate in 8
65.49
68.59
71.79
Ave.
74.99
70.89
69.99
1st 3 mos.
72.49
72.8
69.29\
70.59
68.49
Ave.
51.29
61.89
60.39
2nd 3 mos.
50.99
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RECYCLING SUMMARY
JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 1989
1,881 Households, estimated population 4,440
MONTHLY TONS RDCYCLED
Total
For
Material
July
August
Septerber
October
November
December
6 Mos.
Glass
8.39
12.14
7.71
7.99
8.00
8.35
52.58
Cans
3.44
3.42
2.03
1.73
1.51
1.97
14.10
Neespaper
33.56
41.40
29.86
29.45
29.40
-3-8-.91
29.35
193.02
Subtotal
45.39
-59.96
3 9 MO
�3 T19
39.61
259.70
Aux. Materials
Car Batteries
0.29
0
0
0
0
0
0.29
Cardboard
0.41
9.77
0.65
0.63
0.45
0.40
3.31
Total Tons Recycled
46-06-9
57.77
40.T539.80
39.3'9
40.07
263.30
••.••..•.....•••.••••..•.••.•.••.••..•••••••.•••••...........
..•••••••••.••••••••••••..•••..•••••.•••.•.•••......
..........
Tons MN SW
192.69
154.2
131.72
141.66
119.03
108.97
848.27
Landfilled
Cubic Yards
489.00
386.7
342.00
426.00
338.00
377.75
2,359.45
% Total waste
19.3%
27.2%
23.4%
21.9%
24.9%
26.99
23.9% ave.
Recycled by Weight
Average Monthly
67.0%
72.2%
72.61
69.9%
59.8%
55.6%
66.2%
Participation Rate
1989 RECYCLING HOUSEHOLDS AND PARTICIPATION
For the purpose of County incentive funding, apartments are calculated at the same rate of
participation as the single sets.
-Included Hornig Property
itouscHOLD/PICKUP DETERMINATION
July
August
September
October
November
Decesioer
Single set
1,247
1,247
1,257
1,277
1,293
1,299
households
Now homes added
2
3
3
5
2
from previous month
Sets picked up by
8
17
13
1
1
existing households
in previous month
Total single sets
1,247
1,257
1,277
1,293
1,299
1,302
available for
pickup
Apartments with
31/524•
31/524'
31/524"
31/524"
31/524*
31/524*
90 gal. sets/units
t' TOTAL SECTS
1,278
1,288
1,308
1,324
1,330
1,333
-Included Hornig Property
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
Streets.
1. inventory.
The Public Works Department has just completed a street and sign
inventory, which will give us a better program for replacement of
poor or defective signs, as well as a better planning tool for future
projects. This system will be installed on the Wang PC, using our
Paradox Program. Those signs noted for replacement will be replaced
this summer.
2. Crack sealing.
City staff is currently researching the use of a rubberized crack
filler in a routered crack, such as used by the County on the test
section of County Rd. 75. Although the costs of this type of crack
sealing are three times our normal costs, it appears that the crack
scaling would last at least seven years, and may be cost effective in
the long run.
3. Seal coating.
We are currently planning our seal coating project for 1990. This
project will involve the area west of Hwy 25, north of the railroad
tracks in the core city. No significant changes in materials or
applications are expected.
4. Signal for intersection of Co. Rd. 75 and Co. Rd. 39 Fast.
A recent meeting between Wright County and Minnesota Department of
Transportation indicated that we are unable to meet warrants for the
signal at the intersection at this time. However, plans are rolling
ahead for construction in 1991. The cost of the signal system is
expected to be approximately $70,000 with a 504 share coming from the
City. Therefore, we will be placing an amount of $35,000 in the 1991
budget for the signal.
5. Sidewalk.
Our first comprehensive sidewalk inspection will occur this spring
with a report to the City Council by June 1, 1990.
Shop and garage.
1. office relocation.
Tho move to our now offices is complete. We are beginning an
inventory of all the city maps at City Hall as well as the Public
Works Department. We expect to have our filing system completed by
early spring. The minor renovations to the building are about 701
complete and are proceeding on an "as time allows" basis. The old
office of the Street Superintendent - Public Works Director has been
converted into a sign room, whereby the Public Works staff has now
easy access and control of all signs, barricades, and inventory.
39
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
2. Landscaping and fencing.
City staff is now preparing plans for landscaping and fencing of the
new complex consisting of the old Public Works grounds and the new
(old NSP) area. Goals are to have the area blend in more with nearby
residential properties, be screened, and yet have a secure area where
needed.
Equipment.
1. Grader scarifier.
When we purchased the used motor grader from Ziegler we received a
scarefier with it. We have completed painting of the used scarefire
and are in the process of mounting it to the grader. The scaref.ire
will be used in various grading operations on the ballfield project
and/or parks.
2. 2500 International loader.
We have just completed rebuilding the engine and repainting the small
tractor loader. This unit should last us for a few more years.
3. Small utility trailer.
We purchased a small trailer from Federal Surface Property over the
winter and Public Works employees converted it into a trailer to be
used in the Parks system. It has a 4' x 9' bed with stake sides and
will be useful for hauling materials in and about the parks.
Park and cemetery.
1. Restroom and comnunity building for West Bridge Park.
As directed by the City Council, city staff is currently looking into
plans for a new community building with year round restroomv for West
Bridge Park. As discussed, construction is expected to be phased,
with only the restroom construction built in 1990, but planned to be
part of an overall building concept. We hope to have these concept
plans back to the City Council in the spring for a sumnor
construction schedule.
2. Skating rinks.
The skating rink season is just about done for this year. We had
skating rink attendants at 4th St. Park and Bridge Park during the
peak times. The skating rink attendant at 4th St. Park proved very
beneficial and several medical emergencies were handled through the
presence of the skating rink attendant. We will be looking at the
attendance at both rinks in planning for improvements for the 90-91
season.
40
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
3. Cemetery.
With the assistance of Jack Shelton we have developed a low cost
computer program in our Paradox Program in place in the Wang
coaputers at the Public Works Department which will enable us to
build our registry for Hillside Cemetery. This computer program will
also allow us to draft reports and do searches to aid us in our
on-going research. It is expected that we will be using minimum wage
personnel and volunteers to keep on with the project. In addition,
we are looking at the possiblity of providing some type of fencing or
shrubbery to the cemetery, as well as providing power to one of the
large evergreens in the cemetery for possible Christmas tree lights
for next winter.
Water Department.
1. Automatice dialer at the reservoir.
City staff is currently planning on installing the 16 channel real
voice dialer purchased last fall for the reservoir. We are awaiting
information from Dean Sharp of OS1 as to whether or not the contacts
in the existing system are dry contacts or if we will need a relay of
some sort.
2. Well 11.
The new 100 H.P. motor has been installed on well 11 and Olson & Sons
Electric are in the process of Installing a soft start electrical
system. We expect to have well it back on line within the next 10
days.
3. Well 42.
Well A2 is expected to be pulled for inspection as soon as well 41 is
up and operating. We will be inspecting the well and the existing
pump and working with OSi to see if the existing 75 H.P. motor from
well 11 will give adequate capacity for well 12. We will also be
installing an electric slow closing valve and piping and replacing
the floor of puaphouse 12. Over the past 16 years settlement has
occurred around the well and the floor has busted up and pulled away
from electrical equipment as well as the chlorine room walls. Our
goal is to have well A2 back on line prior to hoavy water use in the
summer.
4. Hydrant flushing.
City staff is currently developing a new hydrant flushing schedule.
Our water system now functions completely differently than it did
with our old tower. Therefore, we will have to modify our flushing
procedures. in addition, we are looking at the possibility of
implementing an additional flushing per year if needed.
41
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
5. Inventory.
Staff is currently developing an inventory system to be put on one of
the Paradox programs on the Wang computer. The inventory system was
actually made possible by the move to the new facility in the old NSP
building, ;hereby grouping all of the water supplies in one location.
6. water tank project.
Caldwell Tank has approximately $2,000 worth of work left to complete
on the new water tower. Basically, the work involves electrical
connection of the corrosion protection for the tank and the
modification of hatch covers. OSM is preparing a letter for Caldwell
giving them until February 30th to complete this work. The new
temperature monitoring equipment for the rank ordered from Automatic
Systems is due in any day and we hope to have that operating soon.
7. Water pressure reducing valves.
Of the approximately 430 residences eligible to receive free water
pressure reducing valves, only 218 have picked up their valves, even
after 2 notices and the Water Superintendent's City Beat article. We
may look into the possibility of an additional mailing in April to
let these individuals know of the savings on installing one of these
valves.
Sanitary sewer collection system.
1. Copper/zinc in our wastewater. City staff is currently planning
investigative work to determine the source of increasing amounts of
copper and zinc in our wastewater. Although the amounts are within
allowable standards for sludge application to land, they are a
concern in that they limit the anoount of time we may use a particular
site and they are an indicator that someone in the City may be
discharging those metals illegally into our system. we therefore,
are planning a cmnnrehensive testing program in conjunction with PSG
to locate the source or sources.
2. odor control system.
As staff informed City Council at a previous meeting, we will be
working with PSG to establish an odor control injection system at
sane point in the collection system to manage the development of
sulfides and ultimately hydrogen sulfide gases. Plans will be
implemented in the spring.
3. Rental house near wastewater treatment plant.
Our long-time renters of the old Lindberg house near the wastewater
treatment plant (Tho Johnsons) have recently moved out. The City is
currently using community service workers and seasonal workers to
spruce up and do minor repairs of the hone prior to renting again.
42
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
Since we already have an individual interested in entering a lease to
rent the hare, it appears that we will be able to rent it as soon as
we are completed with our work. The City receives $900 a month rent
for the home, and pays about 25% to the County in taxes. The money
is used to offset operational costs in the collection system and
wastewater treatment plant and therefore, is maintained by collection
system personnel.
Streetscape project.
We are in the process of finaling out all phases of the streetscape
project. The lighting system is complete except for the delivery of 12
spare globes, and the City is withholding approximately $5,000 until
those globes are received. For the major portion of the work, that done
by Arrigoni Bros., final quantities have been reommnended by the
architect and we will be processing final payment shortly. For the
landscaping portion of the work, things are also complete with the
exception of receiving a plant and tree care guide from the landscapers,
Minnesota Valley. Upon receiving this guide we will recommend payment to
then also. You may have noticed during the Christmas season we placed
garlands donated by the town Businessmen's Association on the ornamental
poles. We may not do this in the future as the garlands tended to rub
some of the paint off the existing poles and we will have some touch-up
work to do in the spring.
43
I
Council Agenda 2/12/90
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT. (O.K.)
This report will not be of great detail; however, it will give you an
indication of some of the economic development activities in Monticello.
Industrial Development Committee
Initial industrial contacts are provided with information of Monticello and
specific information requested by the company (estimated preliminary TIF
numbers). Follow up may consist of a tour of the prospect's facility or a
visit and tour of Monticello by the company. Upon the company's request,
Business Development Services may prepare a financial proposal for the company
and thereafter will determine the continued working relationship between the
prospect and City staff.
Manteuq International, Inc. - financial proposal, group presentations, and
tours of Monticello.
Two infectious waste facilities - general and specific information of
Monticello.
Titan Recreational Products - tour of plant, preliminary Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund application.
Northern States Power Company - tour of plant and adopted use of TIF plan.*
Cardinal IG - general and specific information of Monticello, tour of company's
plant and tour/visit to Monticello by company, and a group
presentation.
ABK, Inc. - specific information of Monticello, presentation and tour of
company's facility, and need for follow up.
Bondhus Corporation - prenentation and preliminary GMEB application.
Bridge Water Telephone Company - presentation of a proposal and need for
follow up.
North Hennepin Community College - presentation by the college and need for
follow up.
Tapper, Inc. - general and specific information, tour of company's facility,
visit by company of Monticello, financial proposal by BDS, group
presentation, and continued working relationship.*
Starriard Iron 6 Wire Work, Inc. - general information of Monticello, interested
in vacant structures.
Pool Hawk - general information and presentation of Monticello.
*successful developments
44
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT (continued)
Martie's Farm Service - negotiations and prepared TIF plan.*
Re cele Engineer, Inc. - general and specific information of Monticello, tour
of facilities, tour and visit of Monticello, financial
proposal by BDS, group presentations, and continued
working relationship.*
Vicwest Steel Company - general information of Monticello, interested in vacant
facilities.
Anderson Corporation - general information of Monticello.
Cargill Feed Mill - general and specific information of Monticello (26 pages)
and need for follow up.
HPG Architectural Glass - general information of Monticello, need for follow
up.
Northwest Steel Fabricators, Inc. - general information of Monticello, need for
follow up.
Dave Smith, plastic molding company - general information of Monticello,
interested in vacant facilities, need to
follow up.
IDC Current Activities
Extended Area Service - After the Monticello petition of interest was
filed and accepted by the Public Utilities Commission, the respective
telephone companies are conducting traffic studies, and the City of
Monticello needs to prepare community of interest information to be filed
to the Commission by the end of April.
2. Community Brochure - Staff continues its efforts to assist Henning 6
Associates with their requested information of Monticello.
Airport Committee - The IDC is spearheading a committee of local
interested fliers to continue the preliminary research necessary for the
existence of the local airport.
4. industrial Guidelines - The IDC recommends City Council consider
authorizing City staff or otherwise to implement an ordinance/zoning
guideline for industrial prospects.
*successful developments
L
45
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT (continued)
5. Business Retention Visits and Survey - The business retention visits and
surveys were completed by 12 of the 17 industrial businesses. The
results of the surveys as tabulated by the State are enclosed for your
information. NOTE: Industrial employment in Monticello has not actually
declined. This was a comparison from last year which varies by companies
responding to the survey.
6. Star City Recertification - Star City recertification deadline is
February 15 with the City of Monticello's presentation to the State on
February 22 at the City Hall.
After recertification, I will present to the City Council the 1990 goals
and proposed budgets for the Industrial Development Committee, the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Chamber of Commerce.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Developers and developments: INCREASED ESTIMATED
MARKET VALUE
Broadway Limited Partnership/trdiA $ 760,000
TIF plan adopted, 31 -unit elderly project
Northern States Power Company $ 195,000
TIF plan adopted, 5,544 sq ft facility
Remmele Engineer, Inc. $ 805,000
TIF plan preparation, 23,333 sq ft facility
Tapper, Inc. $ 750,000
TIF plan preparation, 27,000 sq ft facility
Martie's Farm Service $ 153,000
TIF plan preparation, 9,427 sq ft facility
$2,663,400 increased
EMV
Fred Gille's Auto - relocation and expansion.
Bridge Water Telephone Company - relocation and expansion.
David Ficek, Scottwood Corporation - townhouse development, ownership
occupied, upper scale, within
walking district of city services.
Other developoro - need for elderly housing between independent living
and full nursing harm care.
46
CI
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECT'OR'S REPORT (continued)
Chamber of Commerce
Research the possibility of a Chamber Executive Director.
Sponsor quarterly education seminars relating business ethics, management, and
motivation.
Continue the Community Business Expo which had approximately 100 booths/
displays last year.
Continue to support the Riverfest Band Competition Awards and other activities.
Continue to co-sponsor the Jazz Festivals in the City parks.
Continue to sponsor the 13 Senior Graduate Discipline Awards.
Establish Chamber of Commerce By-laws.
Others.
Economic Development Authority
Need to complete the EDA By-laws for adoption by the EDA.
Need to elect EDA officers.
Need to finalize process and follow up of approved MEF loans.
Need to prepare for review and approval of the Tapper, Inc., CiEF application.
I need not remind the Council of the hours devoted to agenda preparation,
minutes, and written and telephone correspondence necessitated ns Executive
Secretary to each of these commissions.
47
P R E S S R E L E A S E
MONTICELLO BUSINESS SURVEY COMPLETED
A survey of 12 companies in Monticello has been released today.
The survey is conducted annually by local volunteers under the
auspices of the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development to assess company views of the local and state
business environment.
The survey includes responses from 7 manufacturing firms and 5
companies in construction, transportation/utilities, wholesale
trade, and services. As a body, the respondents reported full
time employment of 751 people in Monticello.
In releasing the survey, officials of Monticello highlighted the
following findings:
- Employment represented by the surveyed firms has decreased 5.6
percent since last year.
- Factors viewed as most favorable included Roads, Market
Access, and Labor Skill. Unfavorable factors reported were State
Taxes, Imposed Costs, and Labor Availability.
- Companies were most satisfied with the following community
services/facilities: Roads, Fire, and Electric/Gas Utilities and
reported the most problems with Solid Waste, Facility Space, and
Sewers.
- 67 percent of companies plan to add employees in the next two
years.
- Asked if they intended to relocate outside the community, no
company indicated plans to move.
Survey results will be used in two ways by local economic de-
velopment leaders. First, specific opportunities to assist
local businesses have been identified and are being implemented.
Second, the results are also being used to set long term goals
and to formulate marketing strategies.
C
BRE SURVEY REPORT
1989
NONTICELLO
INTRODUCTION
This document reports the data collected in the 1989 Business
Retention and Expansion survey for Monticello.
The report is divided into a Summary Report -- including graphic
presentation of the highlights -- and the Aggregated Data Report,
which shows the aggregated responses of all participants in the
survey in the same format as the questionnaire. Aggregated data
are provided for the Community, the Region, and the State as a
whole.
The data in this report are based on 12 questionnaires received
from 7 manufacturing firms and 5 service/retail organizations.
Data for the community, the state, and the region are sometimes
reported together for comparison purposes. Whenever such compa-
risons are reported in graphic format, the Community is represen-
ted by an open bar, the State by a striped bar, and the Region by
a dotted bar.
The document is organized as follows:
SUMMARY REPORT .................................. 2
Locational Factors Section
Locational Advantages ...................... 2
Locational Disadvantages ................... 4
Locational Factor importance Rating........ 7
Public Services and Facilities ............... 8
Business Plans...............................12
Employment and Wages ......................... 15
AGGREGATED DATA REPORT .........................0-1
Monticello - 1
LOCATIONAL FACTORS SECTION
This set of questions explores respondents' perceptions of the
quality of their current business location. Respondents were
asked to list the outstanding features of their location, such
as labor supply, land availability and business services, which
make this location advantageous for their business. Respondents
were also asked to name the factors that make their current
location a disadvantage for doing business. Finally, respon-
dents were asked to rate a list of factors as being either very
important, important, somewhat important or not important as
location factors for business expansion or relocation.
This combination of questions will give economic development
decision makers information regarding community assets and con-
straints for different types of businesses. Assets can be used
to develop a targeted marketing program to attract the types of
businesses that benefit from those assets. Constraints should
be examined to determine if action could be taken to eliminate
or mitigate the perceived problem.
By examining the importance rating of the factors, a level of
priority can be established. This priority will help determine
the allocation of resources directed toward solving the problem
or the amount of attention an asset should receive in a marketin;
effort.
LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGES
MANUFACTURING LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGES
Monticello - 2
l Comparison of Advantages - Manufacturing
LOCAL RATING
0
It REGIONAL RATING a
t STATE RATING
a t
1. Roach
4
15.6 Labor Skill
16
15.1 Labor Skill
226 17.5
2. Labor Skill
3
11.5 Rual. of Life
15
14.2 Oral. of Life
20S 15.9
3. utilities
3
11.5 SON&
14
13.2 Labor Avail
158 12.2
4. Market Access
3
11.5 Market Access
13
12.3 Market Access
142 11.0
S. Supply Access
3
11.5 Supply Access
13
12.3 Lard
134 10.4
6. Lard
2
7.7 Lard
10
9.4 Roads
80 6.2
SERVICE/RETAIL LOCATIOMAL ADVANTAGES
Comparison of Advantages - Service/Retail
LOCAL RATING
a
t REGIONAL RATING a
1 STATE RATING
e
It
1. Market Access
3
21.4 Oual. of Life
32
20.4 Market Access
302
21.5
2. Roads
2
14.3 Market Access
30
19.1 01x1. of Life
251
17.9
3. Dual. of Life
2
14.3 Local Ede.
14
8.9 lard
ISO
10.7
4. Labor Skill
1
7.1 Labor Skill
13
8.3 Roads
108
7.7
S. Labor Avail
1
7.1 Rooda
13
6.3 Labor Skill
104
7.4
6. Other Trarap.
1
7.1 Labor Avail
11
7.0 Supply Access
83
5.9
Monticello . 3
A comparison of the top ranked manufacturing locational advanta-
ges shows that the state and the city have similar assets. A
parallel comparison of top ranked service/retail locational
auvantages indicates that the state and the city have similar
locational advantages. Consideration should be given to using
locational advantages as part of a marketing strategy.
For the Service/Retail sector, the following factor was also
identified as being a state advantage but is missing or not as
important locally: Supply Access. These factors should be
studied to see what can be done to make the area more attractive
to businesses in these regards.
LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGES
MANUFACTURING LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGES
ue.. wui cm 8..1. n... (3)
AL. B.— 171
118W _ .._....
I
Monticello - 4
Comparison of Disadvantages - Manufacturing
LOCAL RATING
e
S REGIONAL RATING a
S STATE RATING
a
It
1. State Texas
3
21.4 State Tax"
9
20.0 Imposed Coats
183
19.9
2. tabor Avail
2
14.3 Labor Avail
5
11.1 State Taxes
142
15.5
3. Prb. Svcs.
2
14.3 Rb. Svcs.
4
8.9 Labor Avail
89
9.7
4. lapoeed Coats
2
14.3 laposed Costs
4
8.9 Prop. Texas
85
9.3
5. Lard
1
7.1 labor Skill
3
6.7 labor Skill
64
7.0
6. Permits
1
7.1 Roads
3
6.7 Market ACCess
60
6.5
SERVICE/RETAIL LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGES
Comparison of Disadvantages - Service/Retail
LOCAL RATING
0 S REGIONAL RATING 0
IS STATE RATING
0
S
1. State Tun
2 33.3 State Taxes
19
22.1 State Tun
124
13.4
2. Imposed Costs
2 33.3 Imposed Costs
12
14.0 lapwad Costa
122
13.2
3. Labor Skill
1 16.7 Market ACcna
11
12.8 Market ACCns
95
10.3
4. Labor Avail
1 16.7 Labor Skill
6
7.0 Prop. Tun
as
9.5
S.
0 0.0 Labor Aval1
6
7.0 LNW
62
6.7
6.
0 0.0 R1wse
5
5.8 Labor Skill
S6
6.1
Monticello - 5
CI
The graphics and tables above display the respondents' percep-
tions of the negative aspects of their location. These factors
discourage the business from expanding their business locally
and/or in the state. Some of these factors can be controlled;
some cannot. The level of local impact also varies. The control-
lable factors and the factors that can be significantly impacted
by local action should be a high priority for action. These fac-
tors include local roads, schools, public services, and possibly
utilities and quality of life. Other factors such as higher edu-
cation, state or federal roads and state taxes may require inter-
action with these higher levels of government. Factors such as
business services, market and supply access, and possibly finance
are generally out of local government's control.
As shown above, a comparison of local and statewide discouraging
factors for manufacturing firms shows them to be similar. The
following factors appear to be somewhat more discouraging to
businesses in this community as they are ranked in the top six
locally but do not appear in the top 10 on a statewide basis.
These factors are: Public Services and Permit Processes.
Conversely, the following factor is more discouraging at the
state level than at the local level for manufacturing firms:
Labor Skill. And for service/retail businesses: Market Access,
Property Taxes and land.
In the presentations above, and in what follows, the 'Other'
category has been suppressed because it lacks specificity. if
the 'Other' category is high in the following table, indivi-
dual questionnaires can be examined to determine the meaning
given to this category by respondents.
'Other' Category Rated Under
Advantages Disadvantages Factor
0 % I % Importance (X)
Local
Manufacturing 1 3.7 0 0.0 100.0
Service/Retail 0 0.0 2 25.0 100.0
Regional
Manufacturing 12 10.2 10 18.2 83.3
Service/Retail 38 19.5 41 32.3 87.5
State
Manufacturing 169 11.6 135 12.8 89.2
Service/Retail 237 14.4 197 17.6 92.8
Monticello - 6
LOCATIONAL FACTOR IMPORTANCE RATING
The following chart displays how respondents rated a list of fac-
tors for importance in considering a location for remaining or
expanding in a location or relocating to a new location. The
chart indicates the percentage of respondents that rated the fac-
tor as either very important or important. The open bar repre-
resents the local rating and the striped bar the statewide rating.
LOCATIONAL FACTOR IMPORTANCE RATING
4 �?
�• r1 10C
L.e.. e.11l•
1
Otlw. r..n.o..ln:en r�
maul•
....
.S,
OII.In.0 e.rrl G. �.
B eoly 11co... •.
.... .. ...•........
..
y.11ly OI LII.
.% .
Yroo.r�yr•.n .
.. �'� 1
�a.a�euu{i�tl
l«J Cecnim y
Y111i 11i •' '"
•
Moo [EIe_
I
I
Q [o y
M.1.
Monticello - 7
The chart above can provide a community with insight as to what
factors its own business community considers to be important.
These perceptions can probably be generalized to businesses
outside of the community as well. If the local perceptions vary
considerably from statewide responses, this may point to some
unique circumstances or industry mix.
The table below contrasts the respondents' perceptions of a
community's top rated assets with how important that factor is
in local and Minnesota location decisions; 100 represents the
highest importance.
comm I T7 STATE
Asset
Importance
aleft
Importance
Locally
In State
In State Locally
..........................................................................
Roads
75
72
Quality of Life
65 67
Market Accna
67
70
market Accna
7o 67
Labor Wit
..........................................................................
63
79
Other
91 100
Constraints
Importance
Constraints
Importance
Locally
In State
In State Locally
..........................................................................
State lain
83
73
other
91 100
Other Impend Costa 92
57
other Imposed Coats e7 92
Labor Avail df lfty
..........................................................................
92
at
State Tasn
78 63
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The level, quality and availability of public services and faci-
lities affect businesses on a daily basis. Their experience, and
resulting level of satisfaction with these services, can influ-
ence their company's profitability and their consideration of
their current location as a site for future investment. Lack of
services can cost a business through increased insurance costs
and can actually prevent a business from expanding in Its current
location.
The chart below illustrates the level of business dissatisfaction
with current services and facilities at the local and statewide
levels for both manufacturing and service/retail sectors. While
some of these services are not directly provided by local units
of government, gaps In services and facilities should be resolved
If at all possible. Rail and air service are obviously the most
difficult service to provide if the service does not currently
exist. The other factors on the chart are generally within local
control and can be improved if they are inadequate and hindering
economic growth.
Monticello - 8
In the following two charts, the open bar represents the community
and the striped bar the state. The first chart shows the response
of manufacturing firms, the second the response of service/retail
companies.
PUBLIC SERVICES AILD FACILITIES
Manufacturing
Percent of firms reporting that a problem exists
Monticello - 9
C
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Service/Retail
Percent of firms reporting that a problem exists
a a Cyt IS '!l x n .n .1
7i
e.ua wn.
Cr.OwicV II.CIc.I
[I Kir Ie.O.. Y�11It�..
Ochwi• � I
fK111�Y O.K. � 1
lYtl .r.11.E111iY
0.0 i.rrla.
r�
Q C.swlry ®!In•
Monticello - 10
The following set of graphics provide insight as to how effec-
tively complaints regarding service inadequacies are handled.
The charts display how many businesses contacted government
officials regarding problems, how many businesses were satis-
fied with the level of effort and concern that went into solving
the business's problems and, finally, how many of these problems
were actually resolved. These questions can also be used to
gauge how approachable the local government is, as well. If
there are many concerns identified in the table above, but few
businesses have contacted the city regarding them, this indi-
cates one of three things: the problem is not considered
serious, businessmen do not feel that they can approach the
city, or they think that such an approach would be fruitless.
Monticello - 11
C
BUSINESS PLANS
Business owners/managers were questioned as to their plans for
the future. These options include a change in the mix of goods
and services, plant expansion or relocation, addition or reduc-
tion of employees, and the addition or modernization of produc-
tion capacity or technology. The answers to these questions pro-
vide the community with an opportunity to work in partnership
with a business. Incentive financing, job training programs or
other types of assistance provided to a business may cause posi-
tive changes to occur earlier and possibly at a greater scale.
Provision of management or government procurement assistance might
be used to proactively intervene in a negative situation and avoid
a change such as a plant closure or layoff.
The chart below displays the responses for the most crucial
planned changes. These changes offer the greatest opportunity
or need for intervention and/or assistance. Information is
displayed by business sector and geographically for comparison
purposes. As shown, local firms plan to expand facilities at a
rate that is about equal to the statewide response. The
percentage of local employers who plan to expand employment is
equal to the statewide responses.
Companies relocate for many reasons. These include mergers,
changes in customer base, owner preference, cost issues and
others. The information displayed below indicates that local
firms are planning relocations at a rate lower than the state as
a whole. An examination of the data contained in the locational
Monticello - 12
advantages section may prove helpful in developing a strategy to
maintain businesses in the community.
In the chart that follows, the open bars (if present) represent
local companies. The striped bars represent the companies
statewide.
SELECTED CHANGES PLANNED
Percent of respondents planning
yell
to make changes
ill
The following charts show where businesses plan to move and why.
Businesses were asked to disclose where they would move if a
relocation were to take place, either within the existing city
or county or to a location elsewhere in Minnesota or outside
the state. The reasons for the relocation are then displayed.
Community control over these factors varies from direct control
to little or no influence.
Results are again shown for local firms (open bars) and by state
(striped bars). When a bar is absent, it means that no responses
for the category were received.
Monticello - 13
C
WHERE COMPANIES PLAN TO MOVE
Percent of respondents indicating a destination
(open ear: Comnnity, Stripes: Entire State)
WHY COMPANIES PLAN TO MOVE
Percent of respondents expressing an opinion
L�GOL Ll�y 11Y{M1 Y 11M
a.L, rK 1. ��,�� Cl��a�•
While this information at the summary level is interesting, the
survey forms need to be examined to identify the responses of
individual businesses so appropriate action can be planned and
implemented.
Monticello - 14
EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
The charts on the next page display the number of employees by
job category for the manufacturing and service/retail sectors
in the community.
The following data may provide valuable information about a
community's competitive position in the labor market. Lower
than average wages would indicate a locational advantage over
companies located in other areas. Substantially higher than
average wages could be an early warning that firms may be
considering a move. A community needs to examine its own
industrial profile to determine if this is the case.
The following two pages display average wages in dollars/year.
Again, manufacturing wages are first, followed by service/retail
wages, by fob category. In these charts, the first bar (open)
represents community data; the second (striped) bar shows state
data; and the third bar (dots) shows data for the region.
When a bar is missing for an employment category, it means that
no data were reported by the respondents to the survey.
Monticello - 15
EMPLOYMENT - MANUFACTURING
Number of Employees Reported
q 2R "o eq IiB„
cl—w
n.ciuro oo.cni... I I i
A.e�.lm Peen. I I I!1
fK1.Jc.1 O
XWl.r il.0>.r I 1
EMPLOYMENT - SERVICE/RETAIL
Number of Employees Reported
q m eq
1 I I
Ael...lan.l M _ I
11an.e.r 1.1 � I
Ces 0.1..
Cn.il 1.1..
tl vlc.l I 1
ewaeo
X.Wro Oo...n.n I
A.cl.lew Pahcl.
I.cl.uc.l � I
M.Mlr .ltls �' I
Monticello - 16
AVERAGE WAGES -MANUFACTURING
Dollars Earned Per Year
R 849012360
I i I
C- i
11KMm Op.rn,v � iiiririiJ
n
�rrrr/ rrr rr�� � i U
f.clnlc.l �
Q C.rwr,y ® 9,u. M R"im
C
Monticello • 17
AVERAGE WAGES - SERVICE/RETAIL
Dollars Earned Per Year
i i I I
7///////t'////////tl Ct Ld LL�t�LtflLfLff�/�
C— 9d.. l
�LLiLLttt %tLLLLttLI�'
Owi—I
n<MM 0ornf...
o..n.rm neauu.
.......................
M.rral.. iltl>r I � �1
Monticello - 18
BUSINESS
RETENTION AND EXPANSION SURVEY
\ Survey Results Su eery
........................................................................................................
City : Monticello
County Wright
Reglm 7Y . Central
Legislative DlatrlCt 22A
Date of Report 1/17/90
Number of CCapmles 12
........................................................................................................
Mmuufsetuaing
Retail/Sarvlce
Total
In Coomnity
Ramer I
Number Y
Nusber
I of All
Number with headquarters ----•------
...........
..................
locatlm to this coassnity: S 71.4
2 40.0
7
50.3
Mmufacturlrup
Retell/sarvfca
Total
In Community
Headquarters elsewhere: Number i
...........
Number I
Hummer
i of All
InMlmnots: 1 14,J
...........
2 40.0
..................
3
25.0
Outside Ml"N'B'D : 1 14.3
1 20.0
2
16.7
Legal Entity Type:
Narufecturing
Nutber I
Corporation 7 100.0
Partnership -
Sola Proprietor - -
Mon
-Pro
fit Corporatlm -
Coopers Io
-
Other
Prinnry Business Type:
Retaft/service Total In Caamsulty
YL bar i Ylmber i of All
........... ..................
S 100.0 12 100.0
Humber I
Agriculture/yorntry ---•••--•--- Wholesale True
/fl4hing Retail Trade
Mining - I, I.a, 1.
Conalru:tlon 2 16.7 sarvl ah
Morufactur l ng 7 50,3 No Response
Tramp/Utl l file$ 1 0.J
Principal Naraet Area:
Manufacturing Retell/servfco
I of sale$ I of Solas
........... ...........
Local3.0 21.0
State 24.6 59.0
National 67.4 20.0
International 5.0
Total In Community
I of Isla$
..................
10.S
Je.v
47,7
2.9
C-1
Sic CME ULMER
252
1
Furniture and Fixtures
2499
1
liner wd Mood Vrodsts
3/623
1
Fabricated Metal prodists
3433
1
3469
1
3549
2
trdattrisl/Coamercisi Machinery/Coonuters
4226
1
Motor Freight Tromportatlorwarehousing
7389
1
9ersonel Services
c•2
EMPLOYMENT
Average ru.9mr of persons employed at facility:
Average ember of persons writing --
manufacturing
Number IS
full-tlm
............
42 25.0
part -tim
2 1.1
pentaeent (year rood)
66 39.5
seasonal peak
58 34.4
manufacturing
S of this
Number year
Average number of employees
one year ago:
47 111.9
Full-time sciulvalent employment by occupotion•:
Manufacturing
IS of Avg.
Number Ma uf. Salary
...... ..... ......
Rrofesslonal
10 4.0 43,281
Managerial
30 11.9 33.582
Comnerclal Sales
14 5.6 28,262
Retail Sales
-
Clerical
29 11.S 15,945
Services
1 0.4 $0,000
Machine Operatives
41 16.3 17.500
Precision production
- -
Technical
11 4.4 20,923
Mand ler/Laborer
116 46.0 13,259
Benefit& offered employees:
Manufacturing
Ntaber It
Single Health Care
............
4 57.1
family Health Care
6 55.7
Dental Insuruuca
2 25.6
Retirement plan
4 S7.1
vacation pollcl*st
manufacturing Service/Retail Total Sample
............. .............. ............
42 92 63
Service/Retell Total Sample
Number S Number %
............ ............
89 41.4 61 32.7
S 2.1 3 1.6
51 23.6 59 31.7
71 32.9 64 34.1
Service/Retail Total Semple
Y of this % of this
Number year lumber year
...... ......... ...... .........
89 96.7 66 104.8
Service/Retell Total Sample
Z of Avg. t of Avg.
Number SvC/Rat Salary Number Total Salary
...... ....... ...... ...... ..... ......
108 24.1 28,000 118 16.0 39,461
41 9.1 33,667 71 10.1 33,801
12 2.7 43,333 26 3.7 35,798
SB 12.9 17,667 87 12.4 16,591
• - 1 0.1 30,000
106 23.6 15,000 147 21.0 17,000
41 9.8 27,500 SS 7.8 22,238
80 17.8 17,867 196 28.0 14,987
esrvlCe/Retail Total Semple
Number It Number S
............ ............
S 100.0 9 75.0
4 80.0 10 83.3
S 100.0 7 S8.3
4 80.0 8 66.7
manufacturing esrvice/Retell Total Sample
Avg NUI Days Avg NM Days Avg Nue Days
............ ............ ............
Vacation days after one year S 0 6
Sick days after one year S 6 6
• Average salary shoat Is based on the responses of those Mo provided dab -- usually IF~ res-
pedants than those duo prmltlsd uptopent date by occupation. Tau my be unable to rept I•
cote the Total Sample Average Salary by adding values from the Manufacturing and Service/
Retail column ab deriving your cruet coverage because the reaper of respondents who supplied
*story figures Is not Man. To check the numbers, revlev the pestionalres.
C•3
Difficulty in recruiting and retaining employees:
C•4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
RECRUI T IMG
RETAINING
RANUFACtURING
Moro % Some % Severe t
None t
Some
%
Severe It
Professlonal
...... ....
4 57.1
..... .....
1 14.3
.....
1 14.3
.... .....
S 71.4
....
.....
-
..... .....
1 14.3
Managerial
6 85.7
1 14.3
S 71.4
1 14.3
Ccamercial Sales
5 71.4
S 71.4
-
-
Retail Sales
2 28.6
-
2 28.6
-
Clerical
6 85.7
1 14.3
5 71.4
1
14.3
Services
3 42.9
1 14.3
-
4 57.1
- -
Machim Operetivee
4 57.1
1 14.3
4 57.1
-
- -
Precision Production
3 42.9
-
- -
3 42.9
-
Technical
4 57.1
1 14.3
S 71.4
-
-
Hurdler/Laborer
S 71.4
1 14.3
-
S 71.4
-
1 14.3
RECRUITING
RETAINING
SERVICE/RETAIL
Moro % Scme % Severe %
.....
Were, %
.... .....
Sas
%
.....
Severe %
Professional
.... ..... ....
2 40.0
..... .....
2 40.0
1 20.0
....
3
60.0
..... .....
-
Ranagerial
2 40.0
2 40.0
2 40.0
2
40.0
-
Ccemurclal gain
2 40.0
2 40.0
2 40.0
2
40.0
-
Retail Sales
2 40.0
-
2
40.0
-
Clerical
3 60.0
2 40.0
2 40.0
3
60.0
Services
.
1 20.0
1 20.0
-
2
40.0
Machina Operatives
1 20.0
1 20.0
1 20.0
1 20.0
1
20.0
1 20.0
Precision Production1
20,0
1 20.0
1 20.0
1
20.0
Technical
1 20.0
1 20.0
1 20.0
1 20.0
2
40.0
-
Mandler/Laborer
2 40.0
2 40.0
1 20.0
2 40.0
3
60.0
RECRUITING
RETAINING
TOTAL SAMPLE
a" t Some
% Severe %
Yona %
Nos
Is
Severe It
Professional
.... ..... ....
6 50.0
..... .....
3 25.0
.....
1 8.3
.... .....
6 SO.0
....
3
.....
25.0
..... .....
1 8.3
Managerial
8 66.7
2 16.7
1 8.3
7 58.3
2
16.7
1 8.3
Comaerclal gain
7 58.3
2 16.7
-
7 58.3
2
16.7
Retail gain
2 16.7
2 16.7
-
2 16.7
2
16.7
Clerical
9 75.0
3 25.0
7 $8.3
4
13.3
ServlCoe,
3 25.0
2 16.7
1 8.3
A 33.3
2
16.7
Machina Operatives
S 41.7
1 8.3
2 16.7
S 41.7
1
8.3
1 8.3
Precision Production
4 33.3
1 8.34
33.3
1
8.3
-
Technical
S 41.7
2 16.7
1 8.3
6 50.0
2
16.7
Mandt or/Laborer
7 58.3
3 25.0
1 8.3
7 S8.3
3
2S.0
1 8.3
Participation In job
training progrs:
Nonufacturing
servlce/Retell Total gala
Number
It
Number
It r
%
.... . .......
Teel 2
28.6
............
4
....
80.0
........
6
50.0
go: S
71.4
1
20.0
9
SO.O
Involvament NIth Job
training progress
Manufacturing
Service/Retell
Total Sample
Successful
successful
Succneful
Ton
YO
yes YO
Tea YO
Labor
% auoDar
...........
t maEer t 01.103a,
...........
t Neer
...........
It 11.1
NEEOA•NN Progroo
..... ......
1
14.3
...........
1 20.0
-
2
.......
16.7
Job Training OJT
2
28.6
1 20.0
3
25.0
Job Skills Partnership 1
14.3
1 20.0
1
0.3 1
Commamlty Coll ego/VO1lcM
-
targeted Jabs Tes
Credit
1
14.3
*3 1
na
veteraOJT
-
1 20.0
1
a.
Jab Training Partn. Act
1 20.0
- 1
Pr l vete Training Program
Other
-
1 20.0
1
C•4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
C
LOCATIONAL FACTORS
Locational factors viewed as favorable or unfavorable for remaining• expanding, or relocation In this
community as viewed by each
category of respondents. The
percentiles
are calculated based on the number
of responses within each cot"
(reading down).
Menufacturers
Service/Retail
Total Sacple
Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable
Number % Number % Number % Number % Number S Nuaber
%
Labor Skill
........... ...........
3 11.1
...........
. .
...........
1 7.1
...........
1 12.5
...........
4 9.8 1
4.S
Labor Availability
1 3.7
2 14.3
1 7.1
1 12.S
2 4.9 3
13.6
Roads
4 14.8
- -
2 14.3
- -
6 14.6 -
-
Other Transport
-
- -
1 7.1
- -
1 2.4 -
-
Lend
2 7.4
1 7.1
1 7.1
-
3 7.3 1
4.5
Permit processes
- -
1 7.1
_
1
4.5
Public Services
-
2 14.3
-
2
9.1
Utilities
3 11.1
-
- -
- -
3 7.3
-
ne
Finae
1 3.7
- -
1 7. 1
- -
2 4.9 -
-
Gov't Program
Busies" services
Market Access
3 11.1
1 7.1
3 21.4
-
6 14.6 1
4.5
Supply Access
3 11.1
- -
- -
- -
3 7.3 -
Quality of Life
2 7.4
1 7.1
2 14.3
-
4 9.8 1
4.5
State Income/Sales Taxes
-
3 21.4
-
2 25.0
5
22.7
Other Imposed State costs
- -
2 14.3
2 25.0
- 4
18.2
Property Taxa
2 7.4
1 7.1
1 7.1
- -
3 7.3 1
4.5
Local Education
2 7.4
- -
1 7.1
3 7.3
-
Higher Education
- -
-
-
- -
- -
-
Other
1 3.7
-
-
2 25.0
1 2.4 2
9.1
Overall importance of the factors In ruining, expanding,
or relocating.
percentiles
refer to the
number of people rating the
category (reeding
scross).
very
Somewhat
Not
MANUFACTURERS
Important
Important
laportant
Important
lumber %
Number %
Number %
Number %
Labor Skills
...........
6 65.7
...........
...........
1 14.3
...........
- -
Labor Avei lobi l i ty
6 85.7
1 14.3
Roads
4 57.1
2 28.6
1 14.3
-
Other Transport-
-
4 57.1
3 42.9
Lard
4 57.1
2 28.6
1 14.3
Permit processes
1 14.3
1 14.3
S 71.4
Public Services
3 42.9
1 14.3
3 42.9
Utilities
4 57.1
1 14.3
2 28.6
Finance
4 57.1
- -
-
3 42.9
Gov't ProgramsZ
28.6
S 71.4
Bu+iness Services
1 14.3
1 14.3
3 42.9
2 28.6
Market Access
2 28.6
2 28.6
2 28.6
1 14.3
Supply Access
3 42.9
2 28.6
1 14.3
1 14.3
Quality of Life
4 37.1
1 14.3
2 28.6
S[et• Irteo-/Sal as Tun
3 42.9
3 42.9
- -
1 14.3
Other Ingoaed Btat• cost
• S7.1
2 26.6
1 14.3
Property laxea
3 42.9
3 42.9
1 14.3
-
Local Education
3 42.9
3 42.9
1 14.3
Nigher Education
3 42.9
2 Z8.6
2 28.6
Other
3 73.0
1 25.0
C . 5
Overall Isportarce of the factors In remaining, experdlrg, or relocating. percentiles refer to the
Westar of people rating the category (radlry acres).
C
C•6
Very
Somet#.atsot
SERVICE/RETAIL
IaPartant
Important
Important
IMportent
Myer i
cuter S
N""r i
20.0
Water II
...........
Labor Stllla
..... 1 20.0 ......
.... 3 60..0 .
3 60
.... 11..20.0
Labor Availability
2 40.0
2 40.0
1 20.0
-
Roedt
2 40.0
120.0
2 40.0
-
Other Transport
- -
1 20.0
1 20.0
3 60.0
Land
3 60.02
40.0
-
Permit processes
1 20.0
2 40.0
2 40.0
public Services
-
2 40.0
2 40.0
1 20.0
Rtlltla
3 60.0
1 20.0
1 20.0
fl -s'
1 20.0
1 20.0
-
3 60.0
Gov't Progress
2 40.0
1 60.0
Bslness Services
2 10.0
3 60.0
Market Access
2 40.0
2 40.0
1 20.0
Supply Access
1 20.0
2 40.0
2 40.0
Owlity of Life
1 20.0
2 40.0
1 20.0
1 20.0
Stets IMeotr/Sales Taxa
2 40.0
2 40.0
1 20.0
Other Imposed Stet. Costs
3 60.0
2 40.0
- -
-
Property Tessa
1 20.0
3 60.0
- -
1 20.0
Local Education
- -
4 80.0
1 20.0
Higher EAtation
- -
1 20.0
1 20.0
3 60.0
Other
2 100.0
-
Very
scoewht
Not
TOTAL SAMPLE
Igsrtant
Important
Important
Important
Mier 1
sudMer S
Yum6er 2
mumbo S
Labor Stills
_1111 _1111.
7 36.3
...........
3 25.0
1___111 ....
2 16.7
...........
-
Labor Availability
8 66.7
3 25.0
1 8.3
Road.
6 50.0
3 23.0
3 25.0
Other Trmmport
1 8J
S 41.7
6 50.0
Land
4 33.3
5 41.7
2 16.7
1 8.3
permit processes
2 16.7
3 25.0
S 41.7
2 16.7
public grvlces
7 25.0
3 25.0
S 11.7
1 B.3
Utilities
1 33.3
4 37.3
3 25.0
1 8.3
F lrrrca
S 41.7
1 8J
6 SO.O
Gov't program
- -
4 33.7
8 66.7
But real Sarvlces
1 8.3
1 8.3
S 41.7
S 41.7
sorestAtcas
4 33.3
4 33.3
2 16.7
2 16.7
Supply Acca:
4 33.3
4 33.3
1 8.3
3 23.0
Ouality of Life
S 41.7
3 25.0
3 23.0
1 8.3
Stet. Ircro/Baia Taxa
S 41.7
S 41.7
2 16.7
Other Iaposb Stst. Costs
7 58.3
4 33.3
1 8.7
-
Property Tsses
4 33.3
6 50.0
1 8.3
1 8.3
Local EckCatlon
3 25.0
3 25.0
S 41.7
1 8.3
Nigher EAastlon
- -
4 13.3
3 25.0
S 41.7
Oth.r
S 83.3
1 16.7
C
C•6
PUBLIC SERVICES
Rating of services and facilities In the caematity for
current and future businoss needs.
Percentiles
refer to saber of c, las rating the category (reading across).
Adegate
Inede¢reto
00 not
know
MANUFACTURERS
goober t
Number i
Number
It
Roads
...........
7 100.0
...........
- -
...........
-
-
Sewers
6 85.7
1 14.3
-
-
Watar
6 85.7
1 14.3
-
-
Police Protection
7 100.0
fire Protect lm
7 100.0
- -
-
Solid Waste Disposal
6 85.7
- -
1
14.3
Energenoy, Medical Services
O 85.7
-
1
14.3
Electric/Maturet Gas Services
7 100.0
- -
-
-
School Systems
7 100.0
-
Facility Space Availability
6 05.7
1 14.3
-
Lard Aval tab( I. i ty
6 85.7
1 14.3
-
-
Rail Service
6 85.7
- .
1
14.3
Air Service
6 85.7
1 14.3
-
Adsgate
Inadequate
00 not
know
SERVICE/RETAIL
Number t
Masber It
Number
It
Roads
...........
S 100.0
...........
- -
...........
-
-
Severe
S 100.0
- -
-
We or
S 100.0
- -
Palle Protection
4 80.0
1 20.0
-
Fire Protection
S 100.0
- -
-
Solid Waste Disposal
2 40.0
3 60.0
-
Energency Medical Services
S 100.0
- -
Electric/Ilstural Gas SO-1ces
S 100.0
- -
School Systams
S 100.0
-
-
Facility Spece Availability
3 60.0
1 20.0
1
20.0
Lord Avallabi I Ity
S 100.0
-
Rall Service
4 50.0
-
1
20.0
' Air Service
4 SD.O
1
20.0
Adequate
Inedaq ate
00 rot
know
TOTAL SAMPLE
Mesmer t
Weber t
goober
t
Roads
...........
12 100.0
...........
...........
Sewers
11 91.7
1 8.3
Water
11 91.7
1 8.3
-
Polic Protection
11,:
1 8.3
Fire Protection
12 100.0
Solid Waste Diepossl
8 66.7
3 23.0
1
8.3
Enorgency, Medical Services
11 91.7
1
a.3
Electric/Matursl Gas garvlees
12 100.0
School Systems
12 100.0
.
Facility Space Availability
9 75.0
2 16.7
1
8.3
Lard Availability
11 91.7
1 8.3
-
Rall Service
10 83.3
-
2
16.7
Air Service
10 33.3
1 8.3
1
8.3
C•7
Contacts with city concerning inadequacies. Percent refer, to those aneverin0 these questions, not
to the sample as a Mole.
C
C - a
Reufacturers
Service/Retall
Total Sample
Number ;
Number Y
Number N
...........
Nada contact:
...........
2 100.0
...........
2 40.0
Did net contact city:
3 100.0
3 60.0
Sstlsfectory efforts made to
solve the problem:
Nwfacturers
Service/Retell
Total Sample
Number i
Number i
Number %
Yes:
...........
1 50.0
...........
...........
1 50.0
No:
1 50.0
1 50.0
Outcome of the effort to solve the problem:
Manufacturers
Service/Retail
Total Ssple
Number 1
Number Z
Number 1
...........
Problem solved:
...........
1 50.0
...........
1 50.0
Problem net solved:
1 50.0
-
1 50.0
C
C - a
C
C-9
BUSINESS CIaNGES
Past and projected changes:
NnJ�er reporting actions In
MANUFACTURERS
Lest 3
Year
Mut 2 Tears
..........._
.___._......
% of
% of
Number
Nanul.
Number Nanuf.
Change In mix of goods/Services
............
342.9
............
3 42.9
Expansion of plant facilities
3
71.4
3 42.9
Relocation
3
42.9
-
Increase employees
S
71.4
6 85.7
Racks employees
.
Aoldim of product lines
3
42.9
3 71.4
Modernization of production
technology
6
85.7
7 100.0
Other Capital Improvements
3
42.9
5 71.4
Namfacturers planning relocation:
glen to Move . . . Number It
and plan to do soNumber
%
................................
Within this City -
....................................
within six months
Within this County -
Sia moths to one year - -
Nithln Minnesota - -
Ors to three years
- -
Other
Other
- -
Y ' r reporting Actium In
SERVICE/RETAIL
Lost 3 years
Nut 2 years
............
............
% of
% of
Number Svc/Ret
Number Svc/act
............
Chorge In mix of goods/gamic"
............
3
60.0
3 60.0
Expansion of plant facilities
4
80.0
2 40.0
Relocation
4
80.0
Im re so eployeas
3
60.0
2 40.0
Reduce employe"
2
40.0
1 20.0
Addlon of product lines
2
40.0
2 40.0
Modernization of production
technology
2
40.0
3 60.0
other Capital Improvements
3
60.0
2 40.0
Service/Retell companies planning relocations
Plan to Move . . . Number %
and plan to do so .
. . Number f
................................
Within this City
....................................
within six months
-
Within this Canty
Six months to one year
WithIn Mlnnosots -
One to three years
Other -
Other
C
C-9
l
Past and projected charges:
T01AL SAMPLE
Chance In eta of goods/Somicas
Expansion of plant facilities
Relocation
Increase employees
Reduce employees
Action of protect lines
Modernization of production
technology
Other Capital Improvements
All companies planning relocation:
Plan to Now . . . Number 2
................................
Within this City -
Within this County - -
Within Nlnesots -
Other
Ruober reporting actlons In
Lost 3 Tears Neat 2 years
............ ............
11 of t of
Number Total Number Total
6 50.0
6
50.0
9 75.0
S
41.7
7 58.3
S of
8 66.7
a
66.7
2 16.7
1
8.3
S 41.7
7
S8.3
8 66.7
10
83.3
6 SO.0
7
58.3
and plan to do to . .. Number i
Within six eanthe - -
SI■ ecnths to one year
One to three years - -
Other
Ronan for relocation furnished by thine planning to relocate outside the
city:
Manufacturing Service/Retail Total Sampte
Iof Iof Sof
MuaWr Relocators Number Retacators Nuober Relmators
...... .......... ...... .......... ...... ..........
Labor "Wly/cost - -
City services
Inadequacy of land/facilities
Incentives from other cities/states -
NlreMsots business climate - - -
Other - -
Number of combat ice expressing a need for help or Information regarding:
Manufacturing Ssrvlce/Retail
Total Sample
S of Is of
S of
Number Narufact. Number Svc/Retell
NuoWr Total Swept
Sassiness plan aselsterco
...... ......... ...... ..........
...... ...........
Financing assistance
.
Ranegamnl assistance
-
Marketing assistance
.
Job training assistance
3 42.9 -
3 25.0,
Covarmmmt procuraaant
.
Saportlng workshops
.
[spurt financing
Assist In respad Ing to export loam
AWAY In selecting foreign distributors
.
C-10
C
Council Agenda 2/12/90
BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REPORT. (G.A.)
Building Inspection
During 1989 there were nore small building pormit projects and only one
larger project. The 1990 outlook looks to be three major projects --a
larger number of small building projects, and a little larger increase in
the number of new homes. All in all, it looks like Monticello is getting
back on a steady annual growth base.
Zoning
A forthcoming, newly updated flood plain management section as mandated
by FEMh. A strengthened, updated proposed amendment under the public
nuisance section on unlicensed vehicles.
Civil Defense
There will be no emergency preparedness exercise this year, but we will
be having training sessions throughout the year in advance preparation of
next year's emergency preparedness exercise. As part of the new flood
plain management section, we will also be required to put together an
emergency plan for the northerly portion of the River Terrace Trailer
Park.
Assessment
Peggy is busy with the 1990 assessments. Residential properties will be
increased 21 to 3%. Commercial/industrial properties are staying about
the same as last year.
48
i
L
Council Agenda - 2/12/90
SENIOR CENTER DIREiCMR'S REPORT. (K.H.)
We had a very successful year in 1989 at the Center, but certainly the
highlights were being a part of the National Study of Rural Senior
Centers and an un -site visit from members of the National Gerontological
Society Conference. Another highlight was giving presentations to other
cities, states, and countries on our center.
Monday night I will present to you a copy of the study and strongly
encourage you to read it; but I have highlighted some areas of interest
for you. At the on-site visit on November 20, 1989, we had folks from
Florida; Canada; Australia; Minnesota; New York; Boston; California;
Ohio; Oregon; Washington, D.C.; New Jersey; and Michigan. Presentations
were given to the mayor and council members from Sauk Centre and
Buffalo. Presentations to interested individuals were given to St. Cloud
State, Sweden, Alaska, Kansas, Florida, and New Jersey. We also had 95
visitors from the Whitney Senior Center in St. Cloud. All of these
people were interested in the programming and financial system at our
center, as they were interested in either starting a senior center or
expanding existing ones.
49
t
MONTICELLO, MN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPERATIONS
-1989 ANNUAL SUMMARY -
During the calendar year 1989, the wastewater treatment
operations accomplished many varied things from treating variable
high strength wastes while achieving compliance with the NPDES
permit, disposing of solids removed by the facility, resolving
industrial pretreatment concerns, establishing monitoring
programs to control process and influent characteristics, and
planning for the future. Some specifics of those items which
occurred in 1989 are:
1. in 1989 the treatment plant processed the following
materials (graphs are enclosed of the past 3.5 years):
a. 170.985 million gallons of raw sewage
b. 378,685 pounds of suspended solids
C. 605,647 pounds of biochemical oxygen demand, 5 -day
2. the solids disposed by land application amounted to 561,581
gallons at MPCA approved disposal sites.
3. 80 industrial samples were processed for suspended solids,
PH, and biochemical oxygen demand.
4. two (2) odor surveys were conducted to trace the cause of
the odors emanating from the treatment plant and the
collection system. These included a sulfur in solution
study and a sulfur dioxide (as a gas) study. A planned
correction program is being implemented.
5. one (1) lost time accident occurred due to a back injury
while shoveling snow.
6. a maintenance evaluation including thermographic and
vibration analyses was conducted by an outside specialist.
7. all effluent limit conditions required under the NPDES
permit were achieved during the year with an exception in
June when an industrial spike occurred.
8. the facilities were manned by personnel licensed as required
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
9. all appropriate treatment facility staff passed a training
program in order to achieve the requirements mandatod by
D.O.T. and the City's insurance carrier for the operation of
the sludge disposal vehicles.
10. all required MPCA and NPDES reports were filed in a timely
fashion and all S.A.R.A. Title III and Right -To -Know
training requirements were met.
CITY OP MORTICELLO
Monthly Building Department
Report
Month of Jnnuery
19-M
1
PE71111TS MID USES
Sema Month Lest Yoe[ 'Tole
Yoer
PERMIi9 ISSUED
F=th December Month Janua[ Y
Incl Year TO
Data
To De to
RESIDER IAL
Il umbar
1
4
5
5
4
Valva tion
$5,000.00
575,800.00
$183,800.00 S183,800.00
575,800.00
Fa as
50.00
744.89
1,417.11
1,617.11
744.89
Surcharge.
2.50
37.90
91.90
91.90
37.90
COMMERCIAL
I
1
Zbe[
us tion
5,500.00
5,500.00
Fuad
76.50
76.50
Surcharges
2.75
2.75
INDUS7AIAL
Number
1
Va lue tiara
3,000.00
3,000.00
Edea
30.00
30.00
Su:chargas
1.50
1.50
VIA INS
Number
1
3
3
1
Eees
.
2000
71.00
71.00
20.00
surcharges
.50
1.50
1.50
.50
OTHERS
1lumber
1
valuation
0.00
Fees
10.00
Suraherges
.50
D
I-Al, N0. IERMITe
2
7
0
8
7
TOTAL VIILUAT1011
1,000.1,0
84,300.00
103,800.00
183,800.00
84,300.00
TOTAL 11:F.S
60.00
871.39
1,488.11
1,486.11
871.39
TOTAL OURCHARDEO
3.00
42.65
93.40
93.40
42.65
CURRENT MONTR
V"rS
Numhor
to Uele
PFAMIT NATURF.
Number
PERMIT SURCIIARCE valuation
Th le yea:
at Yee.
Oingle yae4ly
1
0 437.09 0 25.30
5 50,600.00
1
3
Du plea
0
0
Mural -family
0
0
Co®mclel
0
0
lndusl:lai
0
0
Res. Ca re yss
0
0
SIOne
0
0
Public nulleinge
0
0
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
Urs 111n11s
3
307.00 12.60
25,200.00
3
2
Comma: clel
1
76.50 2.75
5,500.00
1
0
Ineue trial
1
30.00 1.50
3,000.00
1
0
VIA MHIND
All Types
1
20.00 .50
1
3
ACCESOORY OTPUCMRES
Or laming Pools
0
0
Decks
0
0
TEMPOPARY PERMIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
0
0
CTOTALB
7
071.38 42.65
84,300.00
7
0
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of January , 1990
PERMIT I
DESCRIPTION
(TYPE
NAME/lpCATION
VALUATION
-
FERMIS
PE L':
SURCHARGE PLUMBING
SURCHARGE
NUMDER
90-1437
rouse end parega
BP
Va1ua Plus Nomes/211 Crocus Lana
$50,600.00
$397.35
$25.30 $20.00
5 .50
90-1438
Int:rlor reau70:1
AO
Don A Nancy Cmltn/425 �• R1ver 0t.
9,000.00
108.00
4.50
90-1439
Storage room--olllCe above
AI
NALCO M1 Maaote, Inc./1324 E. OakwoA Dr.
3,000.00
30.00
1.50
90-1441
rouse and pa rep: reslding
AD
Ke thryn M1O0aph/408 Rlvarvlev Dr.
10,400.00
120.60
S.
90-1442
House and pampa mold ing
AD
Alva G Mabel Moses/1105 Cluh Vlov Dr.
5,800.00
79.20
2.90
90-1443
Interior ramod:l
AC
Country KStChan/100 W. 7th at.
5,500.00
76.50
2.75
TOTALS
504.300.00
3811.65
$42.15 520.00
5.50
PLAN REV! LM
90-1437
Hous: and garage
Ey
Value Plus Ilome:/211 Crocus Ione
039.74
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
539.74
TOTAL REVENUE $914.04